Many religious people don't believe they need to choose between their faith and access to reproductive health care.

The post Despite The Fights Over Religious Liberty, Obamacare Doesn’t Have To Be ‘Girl Versus God’ appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Emily Baxter is the Special Assistant for the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at American Progress.

CREDIT: Shutterstock

It’s a recurring theme among opponents of the Affordable Care Act’s birth control provision: women can either be for religious liberty or for reproductive health care, but they cannot support both.

On Monday, USA Today published an op-ed from a George Mason University law professor that suggested, among other things, that the White House paternalistically patronizes women by assuming they care more about birth control and “their sex lives” than they do about religious liberty. Because women practice religion in greater numbers than men, author Helen Alvare argues that “government’s attack on religious freedom hurts women more than men.” Alvare decries the Administration for treating all women as a uniform bloc, but she has no issue asserting that all women must be hurt by these alleged attacks on religious freedom.

This article plays on an underlying premise of mutual exclusivity — of “either-or” — between a woman’s faith and her right to access health care, especially reproductive health care. It’s an uneasy trope that crops up in other conservative articles and resources.

For example, in a video produced by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, we see the affecting imagery of three women speaking on conscience rights relating to health care. Another article suggests that the Affordable Care Act infantilizes independent young women. Another notes that since some “single moms working two jobs” are willing to work for Hobby Lobby, the craft chain whose challenge to Obamacare’s birth control mandate is headed to the Supreme Court, things just can’t be that bad.

These authors’ and spokeswomen’s opinions are theirs to hold. Their experiences are valid and theirs to speak to, and their beliefs are theirs to live out as far as the law allows. But the same goes for women on the other side.

In fact, this adversarial relationship between religious conscience and reproductive justice is a false one — and it doesn’t hold up under religious-moral or feminist scrutiny.

From a religious point of view, this either-or argument subtly suggests that “goodâ€� women or “realâ€� women must choose religious beliefs that require them to stand by the for-profit corporations that are fighting the Affordable Care Act. It is a difficult leap from church to commerce that requires a strange understanding of the First Amendment, in which corporations have consciences and business owners — who are legally separated from their corporations — are empowered to exercise religion in a way that includes imposing their beliefs and will onto their employees’ consciences and needs.

But there are faithful men and women who recognize a more nuanced understanding of the First Amendment and the law. They believe that people, not corporations, have consciences and exercise religious beliefs, and that the law is meant to protect society’s less powerful from the will of the more powerful, especially from compulsory participation in religion. For those religious people, allowing business owners to impose their consciences on their employees’ actions raises many uncomfortable issues. As has been argued elsewhere, could a Christian Scientist business owner stop offering insurance altogether to their employees? Could Quakers stop paying all of their taxes because some of them fund wars or the prison industrial complex?

More importantly, there are men and women whose religious beliefs compel them to see the necessity of reproductive justice as grounded in their faith and, even, scriptural understandings. Many faith leaders have recognized that reproductive health care is part of a larger, contextual frame of “justice and dignity for all God’s people.â€� As Rabbi Dennis Ross recently explained, “…the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, and other groups, endorsed the moral good in access to birth control some 80 years ago.” Many people don’t know that the the Catholic Church nearly lifted its ban on contraceptives in the 1960s. Even America’s colonial puritans were more accepting of abortion than modern conservatives are of contraception.

And more broadly, not all church groups are opposed to the health law — many have been vital partners in spreading the word about Obamacare enrollment — and activists of faith have fought for reproductive justice at the state level. That’s because reproductive justice is not inherently in conflict with organized religion. In fact, it melds with the sacred and the moral when it allows men and women’s lives to flourish more fully for themselves and their families.

From the feminist perspective, conservatives pushing an adversarial relationship between women’s religion and a belief in reproductive justice twist some of the basic ideals of those who work every day for women’s rights. They attempt to speak for all women, even claiming that women’s religiosity means that their religious liberty is being hurt more than men’s. In doing so, they ignore the voices of the 99 percent of American women who have used birth control, the almost 60 percent of women who use it for reasons beyond preventing pregnancy, and the 82 percent of Catholics who say that birth control is “morally acceptable.” Those personal experiences are just as valid as the experiences of the women advocating for their own, problematic version of religious liberty. They don’t make women less committed to preserving religious freedom, but rather speak to the fact that the First Amendment protects everyone’s conscience, not just a few.

Dissenting views from women deserve a space in the public square (here, Alvare might actually agree). But dissent doesn’t necessarily negate a whole law, even when religion is involved.

And at the end of the day, the purpose of the Affordable Care Act isn’t paternalism. Expanding access to health care allows equality and opportunity to thrive — the same purpose that drives feminists and reproductive justice advocates, and the same purpose behind the freedom of religion enshrined in the First Amendment. When conservatives argue that women must choose between religion and access to health care, they simplify the complexity and flatten the depth of many women’s — and men’s — religious beliefs and commitment to American religious pluralism.

The post Despite The Fights Over Religious Liberty, Obamacare Doesn’t Have To Be ‘Girl Versus God’ appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Pay inequality is still a major problem at companies across the United States, and high-profile publications are no exception.

The post How One Woman Is Closing The Gender Pay Gap On Her Own appeared first on ThinkProgress.

CREDIT: Shutterstock

Nancy Gibbs was named Time magazine’s first-ever female managing editor in September of 2013. When her title was announced, she joked with reporters that she was “the first managing editor to wear pumps — so far as we know.â€�

But it turns out that Gibbs is taking her first-woman title more seriously than that. A profile of her in Capital New York reveals that she used the opportunity of her new job to make sure women at the company weren’t getting short-changed on their salaries compared to their male coworkers:

In a previous interview with Capital, she said that being the first female top editor of Time wasn’t something she had given much thought to until it happened, and that her two daughters seemed so proud of her historic role.

She’s embraced it, by now. One of the first things she did after being named managing editor was to assess the salaries of women within the organization and make sure those salaries were comparable with what men of equal stature were making.

Pay inequality is still a major problem at companies across the United States, and high-profile publications are no exception. On average, American women earn just 77 cents on a man’s dollar, but those numbers can be worse in certain fields. In art, media, and design, women make up just about half of jobs — 47 percent — but their average salaries are significantly lower: While a man earns a little over $50,000 per year, a woman makes a bit over $35,000. That means on average, female media members earn less than 70 cents on a man’s dollar.

The Lilly Ledbetter Act, signed into law by President Obama in 2009, helped make it easier for a woman to sue if she finds out she is getting paid unfairly by expanding the statute of limitations on such lawsuits. But it doesn’t go far enough to ensure that women aren’t being discriminated against. Democrats in Congress have pushed for the passage of another law, the Paycheck Fairness Act, that would make strong penalties for employers who discriminate, and make it easier for women to investigate whether they were being discriminated against.

Republicans have called the Paycheck Fairness Act a racket, simply a way for lawyers to make more money. Because of this opposition, progress on the bill has stalled. But as New York Magazine’s The Cut put it, Gibbs is serving as a “One-Woman Paycheck Fairness Act.” By showing the leadership to ensure pay equity herself, Gibbs reminds us that executives can step up and do something about pay discrimination, even when Congress can’t.

The post How One Woman Is Closing The Gender Pay Gap On Her Own appeared first on ThinkProgress.

A Colorado judge has ruled that a bakery that refused to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding violated the law, dismissing arguments that the discrimination was justified by the owner's religious beliefs.

The post Colorado Judge: Bakery That Refused Wedding Cake To Same-Sex Couple Broke The Law appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Jack Phillips, Owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop

CREDIT: 9News.com

In July of 2012, the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado refused to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple who were planning to celebrate with friends and family the marriage they had received in Massachusetts. The couple, Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, filed a complaint, and the Colorado Attorney General proceeded to do the same, and Friday, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Robert Spencer ruled against Jack Phillips, the owner of the bakery.

Here are some of the arguments from ADJ Spencer’s ruling as to why “religious freedom” did not justify Phillips’ violation of Colorado’s nondiscrimination law protecting sexual orientation:

It Doesn’t Matter If The Bakery Otherwise Serves Gay People

One of the bakery’s arguments was that it still served gay clients — the owner only objected to a wedding cake that would celebrate a same-sex marriage. Spencer argued that since only gay couples would participate in same-sex marriage, it’s a “distinction without a difference”:

Respondents deny that they hold any animus toward homosexuals or gay couples, and would willingly provide other types of baked goods to Complainants or any other gay customer. On the other hand, Respondents would refuse to provide a wedding cake to a heterosexual customer if it was for a same-sex wedding. The ALJ rejects Respondents’ argument as a distinction without a difference.

The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation.

This Case Has Nothing To Do With Whether Same-Sex Marriage Is Legal

Conservatives often argue that cases like these that allegedly impose on “religious liberty” are the consequence of marriage equality passing, but Colorado doesn’t have marriage equality. The judge notes that this actually proves that the discrimination is based on the couple’s identity:

Nor is the ALJ persuaded by Respondents’ argument that they should be compelled to recognize same-sex marriages because Colorado does not do so. Although Respondents are correct that Colorado does not recognize same-sex marriage, that fact does not excuse discrimination based upon sexual orientation. At oral argument, Respondents candidly acknowledged that they would also refuse to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for a commitment ceremony or a civil union, neither of which is forbidden by Colorado law. Because Respondents’ objection goes beyond just the act of “marriage,” and extends to any union of a same-sex couple, it is apparent that Respondents’ real objection is to the couple’s sexual orientation and not simply their marriage.

Cakes Do Not Constitute “Speech”

Though the judge was sympathetic that cakes require artistry, he dismissed the idea that they constituted speech. In this case, the bakery refused to provide the cake before the couple could even specify what would or would not be on the cake, thus there is not even any speech to consider:

The ALJ, however, rejects Respondents’ argument that preparing a wedding cake is necessarily a medium of expression amounting to protected “speech,” or that compelling Respondents to treat same-sex and heterosexual couples equally is the equivalent of forcing Respondents to adhere to “an ideological point of view.” There is no doubt that decorating a wedding cake involves considerable skill and artistry. However, the finished product does not necessarily qualify as “speech,” as would saluting a flag, marching in a parade, or displaying a motto.

The undisputed evidence is that Phillips categorically refused to prepare a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding before there was any discussion about what the cake would look like. Phillips was not asked to apply any message or symbol to the cake, or to construct the cake in any fashion that could be reasonably understood as advocating same-sex marriage. After being refused, Complainants immediately left the shop. For all Phillips knew at the time, Complainants might have wanted a nondescript cake that would have been suitable for consumption at any wedding. Therefore, Respondents’ claim that they refused to provide a cake because it would convey a message supporting same-sex marriage is specious. The act of preparing a cake is simply not “speech” warranting First Amendment protection.

In a footnote, the judge notes that the couple did eventually obtain a cake that had “a filling with rainbow colors,” but expressed doubt that it would have justified Phillips’ “categorical refusal” to bake a cake for them.

The Act Of Selling Cakes Also Does Not Constitute “Speech”

Regardless of what the cake itself might communicate or not, the act of selling cakes is also not a form of speech; thus, forcing a bakery to sell to a same-sex couple is not compelled speech:

Compelling a bakery that sells wedding cakes to heterosexual couples to also sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples is incidental to the state’s right to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and is not the same as forcing a person to pledge allegiance to the government or to display a motto with which they disagree. To say otherwise trivializes the right to free speech.

Spencer went on to dismiss other offensive hypothetical situations, noting that they don’t apply since a cake was refused based on identity, not on content:

Respondents argue that if they are compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, then a black baker could not refuse to make a cake bearing a white-supremacist message for a member of the Aryan Nation; and an Islamic baker could not refuse to make a cake denigrating the Koran for the Westboro Baptist Church. However, neither of these fanciful hypothetical situations proves Respondents’ point. In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers’ free speech right to refuse. That, however, is not the case here, where Respodnents refused to bake any cake for Complainants regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like. Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech.

Baking Cakes Is Not Religious Conduct

Though Phillips objected to providing the cake on religious grounds, the ALJ pointed out that baking a cake is not actually conduct that is part of his religion. Thus, it does not qualify for exemption from regulation:

Respondents’ refusal to provide a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding is distinctly the type of conduct that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found subject to legitimate regulation. Such discrimination is against the law; it adversely affects the rights of Complainants to be free from discrimination in the marketplace; and the impact upon Respondents is incidental to the state’s legitimate regulation of commercial activity. Respondents therefore have no valid claim that barring them from discriminating against same-sex customers violates their right to free exercise of religion. Conceptually, Respondents’ refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage. However, that argument was struck down long ago in Bob Jones Univ. v. United States.

This case could have implications for similar cases playing out in other states, such as another bakery in Oregon, a florist in Washington, and a photographer in New Mexico, whose case has now been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The post Colorado Judge: Bakery That Refused Wedding Cake To Same-Sex Couple Broke The Law appeared first on ThinkProgress.