Will Hobby Lobby Case Force Republican Women to Abandon the GOP?

republican-womenBy: Brooke Knight:

As a woman, few things are as disturbing as watching history unfold as progress takes a giant leap backwards.  The outcome of the Hobby Lobby case has proven yet again that patriarchy, and slut-shaming,  are alive and well in America, and may have women who once considered themselves moderate Republicans rethinking their votes in the upcoming elections.

This week’s outcome in the Hobby Lobby ruling has re-opened the question: Just where should women stand politically in order to protect the underlying interests unique to their gender?

It’s no secret that women have had to navigate a minefield in their attempts to gain a modicum of legal equality and possession over their own persons.  In the early 18th Century, domestic patriarchalism was the ideology that husbands held authority and ownership over their wives, and proclaimed women the legally inferior sex. 

In March of 1776, Abigail Adams asked her husband John to “Remember the Ladies” in order to protect women from the legal tyranny of their husbands.  “If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice, or representation.” 

Certainly less than eighty years after women were burned at the stake for witchcraft, adultery, whore mongering, and giving birth to bastards, Abigail saw that little had changed for her gender.  

Throughout history in America, and, in the name of Christianity, women have been denied access to preventative healthcare, land ownership, child custody, interest payments on their investments, were openly belittled in publications as idiots and whores, and considered radical progressives simply for demanding equality when it pertains to voting in elections, decision-making authority over their own bodies and reproductive systems, equal pay and workforce opportunities.  

In 1968, the slogan targeting the young, professional female consumer by Virginia Slims “You’ve come a long way, baby” no longer seems to have merit.  

If nothing else, the Hobby Lobby case pushes Republican-leaning women to make an unsavory choice: vote based on their economic and fiscal philosophies that support capitalism, or vote their conscience as women who have been consistently fighting the battle to protect their medical and reproductive rights while struggling to hold on to the marginal legal legitimacy that has taken over 300 years to accomplish in this country.”

The Hobby Lobby case is being touted as a “Constitutional” win by improperly informed so-called “patriots,” and since most of them are unaffected by this ruling simply due to their gender or economic status, they have jumped on an embarrassingly ignorant bandwagon.  

The lawsuit itself was not based on the First Amendment or the Bill of Rights; an argument that is laughable, yet simultaneously disturbing because (a) those (mostly male) people believe that a corporation’s First Amendment “rights” which should belong solely to individuals have been upheld, and (b) these people vote without consideration of the impact to 50% of the general population.  

The Hobby Lobby case was a statutory lawsuit that broadly misapplied the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which notably, was enacted to support and enforce the 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act.  The Hobby Lobby lawsuit bastardized the purpose of a law positioned to protect Native Americans’ religious practices from the overreach of white-man expansion and oppression, and was instead used to enhance the “person”-rights of a large corporation to impute the owners’ fundamentalist Christian will on its staff.  

Though it remains to be seen the actual breadth of this ruling, at least forty other corporations are awaiting their day in court so they can deny all access to all birth control medications to all women employees.  Wheaton College just received their injunction to ensure they too, will not be “overburdened” by providing an insurance policy that offers contraceptive care to women which, they feel, is in conflict with their deeply held religious beliefs.  It only took a few days, and we are already watching angered women SCOTUS justices file scathing dissents against their male counterparts. 

The Hobby Lobby case has been eye-opening for many women, especially those that may have previously defined their political persuasion as “fiscally conservative/socially liberal.”  Women who do not spend their time as political watch-dogs and instead spend ample time on social media have seen Facebook strings and Twitter posts blow up in a most disturbing way.  

The public, relentless, slut-shaming reaction on social media outlets regarding the Hobby Lobby ruling has proven that patriarchy and misogyny are as much a product of the firmly held belief that women are less valuable to society than their male counterparts for fundamentalist Christian men today as it was hundreds of years ago.  

With self-proclaimed pro-life Republican men proudly making statements such as: “… if you want fuck coverage pay for that shit yourself” and “[t]he whiny ass bitches are the ones that didn’t agree with the Supreme Court’s decision” it’s becoming more difficult for women to jump on the GOP bandwagon. 

Other comments by men when it comes to this issue are more obvious in their viewpoint of where women belong, such as “roles in society are predetermined by our genetic makeup” and, “go work somewhere else if you don’t like it.” as well as dismissive quips such as, “that’s like saying since men won’t pay for dinner anymore [so] women can’t eat.”  

These fundamentalist self-declared Christian men are also, evidently, extremely knowledgeable in women’s medical care: “the whole argument about the hormonal benefits of these pills that women take, but not for the contraceptive itself is ridiculous,” and that the “…extreme amount of pregnancies that women put themselves into by just sleeping with whomever they want because that’s what this generation does now” is by no means a reason to permit access to birth control that is only available by prescription.  

Perhaps, women should just know their place: “Too many women believe the ‘my body my choice’ crap” and women should also keep this in mind next time she’s sexually assaulted: “Nobody told a chick to say yes. Nobody told her not to use protection. Nobody said she couldn’t say no.” And if a pregnancy is a result of rape? “There is NO CHOICE.”

A polarized Congress has ineffectively legislated, forcing the SCOTUS to legislate from the bench.  As decades of progress get dismissed by the majority-male, conservative justices sitting on the bench in the Supreme Court (despite contentious dissents from their female counterparts), there are serious philosophical questions women must ask themselves: How do we protect and promote our economic philosophies while protecting the personal rights to our bodies, workplace equality, and prevent fundamentalist ideologues brow-beating us with their dogma? 

The GOP has placed their party at a great disadvantage when it comes to capturing or retaining female voter loyalty. A discouraged woman will likely vote Democrat.”

Christianity has its own form of Sharia Law, it seems, and while the American right-wing fundamentalist Christian men spew their hate on all-things women, legislate from the bench, and await the Rapture, female voters who once considered themselves fans of Reagan’s GOP, now must sadly consider jumping ship to protect themselves from the very party they once supported.  

About Brooke Knight

Brooke Knight Single mom, US Navy Vet, Honorably discharged in June 2013, after awarded for meritorious military service. Former professional musician. Recruiter and headhunter in finance and tech and Ops Ninja for a Social Media firm. Volunteer. History and economics major. Staunch Constitutionalist and capitalist. Advocates for women, education, innovation development and gun ownership. Extremely proud of my family's patriotic history. Daughter of the American Revolution. Fan of Adam Smith, with a not-so-secret crush on Milton Friedman. Knight is COO of Mixed Media Fusion, Inc. Knight is the founder of imaconstitutionalist.com and writer for BaconSmores.com Twitter @BKnight561

Connect

Follow on Twitter View all Posts Visit Website
  • Dave Jannsen

    Crush on Milton Friedman. I think you nailed – on the head- why I find you so obnoxious and annoying.

    • Brooke Knight

      Thank you.

    • Ira Rather

      Dave. come on:

      You don’t even know who the hell Milton Friedman is, let alone what he stands for.

      Which is why I find YOU so obnoxious and annoying, not to mention being such a bullshit, lying artist.

      • Dave Jannsen

        I find it exceptionally interesting that some guy, somewhere, who doesn’t know me, calls me a lying artist. Thank you for the compliment – you sir are an absolute moron.

        • Ira Rather

          I do know you– your “type”–and you have no idea who Friedman is, or what he stands for.

          Otherwise, you would have attempted an intelligent, valid argument against his views, instead of a worthless, meaningless attack on the blogger here.

  • Geoffey

    I Wasnt aware this was a left leaning political site. Unsubscribed.

    • David

      Can’t handle the truth ? That’s how all of you FOX watching cronies are.

      • NJ_citizen

        When pressed on how and why four Americans were murdered in Benghazi, during her testimony before the U.S. House Oversight Committee:

        What difference at this point does it make!?

        Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State
        January 23, 2014

        You’re right; I guess we just can’t handle the truth.

        So, perhaps Susan Rice for the vice presidential slot? I understand she’s really good at staying on message.

        • Ira Rather

          And Bush sending us into Iraq on false premises, lying to the American people, isn’t a CRIME compared to any Benghazi mishaps, mistakes made?

          No wonder Republicans are losing:

          They’ve become so stupid that any moron realizes it makes more sense to vote Democrat or Independent (or Libertarian).

          • yoflyboys

            What you need to understand about Tamarac is: Tamarac is made of Left Wing Loons forcing Cnn down your throat. Go to Kings Point Clubhouse and find out.

      • Joseph

        Hobby Lobby is not discriminating against woman nor are they
        refusing to pay for the use of contraceptives.
        Their healthcare package includes almost all of the contraceptives now
        mandated by the ACA. This whole issue pertains to abortion-causing drugs.

    • Brooke Knight

      Interesting how polarized we are. My Op-Ed, regardless of my previous writings and voting history, and now this paper, is “left-leaning” simply because a woman writes from a woman’s perspective on a topic that will only affect women. Hmmm…

      • Oleg

        Hobby Lobby doesn’t want to pay for Only 4 out of 18 birth control pills.
        Use nother 14 pills or buy your own. Simple!
        http://www.HonorDiaries.com -THEY have problems not US.
        BareNakedInslam.com, TheReligionOfPeace.com, Camera.org

  • Pete

    Why anybody from the middle class would vote for a Republican is beyond me.

    • NJ_citizen

      So right. Who in his right mind would place the liberty of himself and others over the potential for personal gain afforded by the Democrats’ unending largesse.

      Soak the rich.

  • Very sad, it seems tolerance is only one way and the rights of the unborn child are non-existent. This isn’t a male/female issue, this is a moral and human rights issue. We all have the right, by out constitution to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and from the moment of conception, my personal belief is so does the child. You certainly have the right to your opinion, however, you seem almost hateful in the consideration of others to have a right to their opinion. In our country, the democratic system provides for the people to vote and the majority rules.

    • Brooke Knight

      I respect the opinions of others…. I simply do not want men legislating my ovaries or my birth control options, just as women don’t legislate the penis or vasectomy or ED options. I don’t believe corporations should have individual rights, and Ginsburg and Sotomayor are very clear on this as well. You’re looking at this as a human rights issue for a “child”…. I consider this as prevention of unwanted pregnancies that lead to births that inherently would cause increased crime and more pressure on an already over-burdened welfare system. Most pro-life individuals I know are neither adoptive nor foster parents, which I find ironic.

  • NJ_citizen

    That any woman who truly understands, cherishes, and promotes economic liberty would be offended by this ruling is laughable. Genuinely independent, liberated, and conservative women do not demand that their employers provide contraception, much less through governmental coercion.

    And all of this hysteria (yeah, I went there) over pills available on many generic schedules for $40 a year! Why would you even want your employer or insurer to know you’re using birth control anyway?

    • Brooke Knight

      You clearly have not read the case, sir. Read the opinions. Read the
      dissents. Read the case. Then you can
      correct this statement.

    • Ira Rather

      Do you have a problem with your insurer knowing you’re using birth control? And does your employer have the RiGHT to know?

      Your post comes from a very sick, disturbed place:

      To accuse women who want birth control coverage of WANTING them to know this?

      You really need help, because this post of yours makes YOU laughable.

      • NJ_citizen

        A more intelligent person would’ve understood the question was rhetorical: that considering the trivial cost, why would you even want to expose yourself to the possibility of your employer learning, your insurer acting upon, or some hacker acquiring and disseminating that information, by submitting a claim?

        One thing I suspect you don’t have a problem with: the government knowing. Now what does Obamacare mandate in that regard? (Maybe MoveOn can help you with that one.)

        • Ira Rather

          That was a rhetorical question? Do you actually understand the meaning of “rhetorical?”

          I don’t think you do.

          Go find a dictionary, look it up, and we’ll discuss this further. Until then, your replies can best be described by an adjective ending in “id.”

  • NJ_citizen

    … Christianity has its own form of Sharia Law, it seems, and while the American right-wing fundamentalist Christian men spew their hate on all-things women …

    Wow. Just wow.

    Hobby Lobby doesn’t want to pay for abortifacients and now we have Sharia law. Soon, no doubt, the flying of kites will be banned, and heads will be rolling in the streets.

    And those fundamentalist Christian men really have their hate on for women — so much so, if it were up to them, the country would never send you into combat. I remind that fully half of those children they would prevent from being aborted are helpless baby girls.

    Such an immature post. So disappointing.

    • Brooke Knight

      “And those fundamentalist Christian men really have their hate on for women — so much so, if it were up to them, the country would never send you into combat, preferring that men die.” I enjoyed my military service. You’re welcome.

      • NJ_citizen

        I enjoyed my military service. You’re welcome.

        Snark has its place; and I genuinely appreciate your unapologetic attitude.

        That said, your response strikes me as immodest and self-promotional; and that it’s a non-sequitur is beyond debate.

        I acknowledge your service. For your sake, don’t wear it on your sleeve, and don’t exploit it as a debating point — both supporters and opponents will respect you the more for it.

    • Ira Rather

      It’s birth control–not abortion.

      Is this too confusing for you to follow?

    • Ira Rather

      Taking a birth control makes you an abortionist?

      Please enlighten us further!

  • NJ_citizen

    As a woman …

    Arguably, herein lies the problem, right from the get-go.

    Conservatives speak as conservatives; and in America, conservatives speak as Americans. Identity politics, on the other hand, is the forté of the Left.

    • Brooke Knight

      You are a woman that identifies yourself as a woman. Therefore, you must be a leftist/socialist/Marxist.

      • NJ_citizen

        You didn’t merely identify yourself as a woman. With that opening phrase you proceeded to make your case in the name of your gender; and in the very next sentence, in opposition to the hated patriarchy.

        Indeed, I quote from your own response, in which you dismissed another reader for his knee-jerk reaction:

        … simply because a woman writes from a woman’s perspective on a topic that will only affect women …

        Can’t have it both ways, Brooke.

  • NJ_citizen

    I can say it no better than this:

    The Left is not in a spastic, frothing rage about its actual effect, which is that women who want to have their employers coerced into paying for their abortifacients [lost]. They are, in that respect, no worse off than they were from the beginning of time until about 2011. Nor have their faces turned purple over the prospect of actually paying for these items (whose cost is trivial) themselves. In fact, it is almost certain that the taxpayer will bear the cost, and they will get this stuff for “free.”

    No, the sputtering, venomous and hateful hyperbole is attributable to one thing, and one thing only: the Court did not allow the state to bend Hobby Lobby to its will on their behalf. And that is what matters most to them.

    Danube of Thought
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/07/lets_build_a_stairway_to_alberta.html

    Unfortunately, the piece above by Brooke Knight — an ostensible libertarian/conservative — demonstrates this hyperbole and rage perfectly.

  • NJ_citizen

    I can say it no better than this:

    The Left is not in a spastic, frothing rage about its actual effect, which is that women who want to have their employers coerced into paying for their abortifacients [lost]. They are, in that respect, no worse off than they were from the beginning of time until about 2011. Nor have their faces turned purple over the prospect of actually paying for these items (whose cost is trivial) themselves. In fact, it is almost certain that the taxpayer will bear the cost, and they will get this stuff for “free.”

    No, the sputtering, venomous and hateful hyperbole is attributable to one thing, and one thing only: the Court did not allow the state to bend Hobby Lobby to its will on their behalf. And that is what matters most to them.

    Danube of Thought

    AmericanThinker
    Lets Build A Stairway To Alberta
    July 6, 2014

    Unfortunately, the piece above by Brooke Knight — an ostensible libertarian/conservative — demonstrates this hyperbole and rage perfectly.

    • Ira Rather

      Can you delete all of your posts?

      The intelligent world wouldn’t miss them a bit.

      • NJ_citizen

        You, sir, are the epitome of wit.

        I mean that.

  • NJ_citizen

    The Hobby Lobby case has been eye-opening for many women, especially those that may have previously defined their political persuasion as “fiscally conservative/socially liberal.”

    This tired trope needs to be put to rest. So if nothing else, the above piece — written by a self-described history and economics major, constitutionalist, and capitalist, no less — will have served a useful purpose. I begin:

    By definition, anyone demanding that government coerce others to subsidize his or her existence is not a “fiscal conservative”.

    Furthermore, while perhaps existing in theory, for practical purposes these alleged “fiscally conservative/socially liberal” voters do not exist, for a number of reasons:

    First, social concerns almost always trump fiscal and economic concerns at the ballot box, perhaps because too many see the former as profound considerations where adoption of the proper (read politically correct) position confers morality.

    Indeed, the author herself displays this truism. Would she be going off like this if the Democrats had somehow managed to increase marginal rates by a few points? Not likely. Social issues animate her, as they are strongly tied to emotion and identity.

    In contrast, the confiscation and redistribution of wealth is usually not categorized as a strictly moral matter, but rather a more generic “policy” matter, where a pre-existing paradigm is adjusted and refined. Of course, this view is both perverse and foolish, as forcibly depriving a man of his lawfully earned income for illegitimate purposes is in fact gravely immoral, harmful, and outright dangerous.

    Furthermore, the fact that well over half of Americans have no appreciable burden under the federal income tax only makes things worse, because this largesse is mostly coming out of someone else’s hide. Not only do we not feel the financial impact, many of us even benefit from the Democrats’ wildly reckless expenditures — even if we object in principle.

    Second, the focus of modern social liberalism is sẹx and drugs. Obviously, you are free to take whatever position suits your conscience where these issues are concerned. However, you cannot a) ignore the ramifications and fallout of further licentiousness in the context of a massive, ever expanding, utterly unsustainable welfare state and b) simultaneously call yourself a fiscal conservative. The envisioned, strictly libertarian paradise will never come about under these circumstances, which foster and enable irresponsible behavior; and anyone who imagines it can does not understand human nature.

    I demonstrate this truism in the context of another issue; Republicans and committed libertarians take note: the pragmatists and idealists among you call for amnesty (or even crazier, eliminating all limits on immigration), but these positions are absolute non-starters with conservatives until the economically ruinous welfare state is permanently and irretrievably dead. Only then — when the nation is no longer hurtling toward collapse, meltdown, and the shame of bankruptcy — will the indifferent, ambivalent, or even potentially supportive among us be amenable to persuasion.

    In summary, as income is the ultimate manifestation of a man’s labor — and by extension his time, which is limited on this earth — true libertarians recognize and insist upon the utter primacy of taxation and spending as issues of political import. Any other aspects of the agenda are at best secondary; and surely anyone clamoring for free contraceptives (notwithstanding claims of devotion to Adam Smith and Milton Friedman!) is a Democrat in libertarian’s clothing.

    • Ira Rather

      If an employee has a health plan, no one is “subsidizing” one thing or the other, let alone some “evil” birth control. Employees PAY for their participation in a plan, one way or the other. And the only DIFFERENCE since Obamacare is that employers, under certain conditions, are required to OFFER a plan, or pay the penalty.

      Most ridiculous is that you want to make this a freedom of religion issue…then an economic /monetary thing…but your position holds no water in either case:

      Birth control through insurers costs nothing of significance to anyone, and freedom of religion means freedom FROM religion, from maniacs like the folks at Hobby Lobby.

      • NJ_citizen

        Your stupidity is so profound as to be unfortunate.

        If an employee has a health plan, no one is “subsidizing” one thing or the other, let alone some “evil” birth control. Employees PAY for their participation in a plan, one way or the other.

        Wrong. In the context of an employer-provided plan, the cost is at least partially shouldered by the employer. Indeed, if the employees’ contributions are automatically deducted by the employer, it’s arguably just an accounting gimmick.

        But again, that the employer is at least subsidizing the insurance and ergo, the medical treatment it covers is beyond debate (and the very reason we’re having this discussion in the first place).

        And the only DIFFERENCE since Obamacare is that employers, under certain conditions, are required to OFFER a plan, or pay the penalty.

        Yeah, and private citizens are required to purchase those plans, too (funny how you left that part out). But that’s all, really. It’s not like the government is ordering Americans to engage in commerce or anything, which would represent a radical violation of constitutional and human rights. Oh, wait a minute…

        Most ridiculous is that you want to make this a freedom of religion issue ….

        Never even mentioned it. For all you know, I’m an atheist.

        Birth control through insurers costs nothing of significance to anyone …

        And by extension, nothing of significance to anyone paying for it out of pocket; indeed, with taxpayers picking up the expense for those deemed deserving. So what are we arguing about here? I’d welcome you to my side, but really, we don’t want you.

        … and freedom of religion means freedom FROM religion …

        Wrong again. As the name implies, the establishment clause prohibits the federal government from establishing a state religion, as the English had done.

        However, I do note you are untroubled by the fact that the owners of Hobby Lobby would be forced to violate one of their central religious precepts. Should they not be free from government dictates to abandon their beliefs? Or to paraphrase your insipid cliché, guaranteed freedom from your irreligion?

        Look, I realize that profit is a four-letter-word for the Left; but Americans do not lose their First Amendment rights for operating a business.

        … maniacs like the folks at Hobby Lobby.

        So, Hobby Lobby is willing to contribute to 99.999999% of all their employees’ medical expenditures, but this one requested exception makes them maniacs.

        No more your honor. I rest my case.

  • MizGeek

    Brooke, you have totally missed the point and your article is very, very short on facts, I didn’t find a single one. You didn’t say that of the 20 some odd “birth control” items, Hobby Lobby only objected to paying for the 4 that caused a fertilized egg to be expelled from the body so assertions that they didn’t want to pay for any birth control is entirely false. Hobby Lobby is a privately owned company and have a very generous pay package for it’s employees so if a person isn’t happy with the package they can work someplace else. Birth control is not a “healthcare issue” it’s not a disease, if a woman wants it birth control can be obtained free from multiple sources so the whole argument is a bit disingueuous to say the least.

    Bottom line is the government has no business telling any company how to operate. The fact that you and others the fact that the government wants to control everything and everybody as being ok is the real problem. I also find it objectionable to use swear words.

  • Bird in the Hand

    This article is a bizarre copy and paste of an article that appears at: http://imaconstitutionalist.com/2014/07/04/why-the-hobby-lobby-case-will-force-otherwise-republican-women-to-abandon-the-gop/
    Does Brooke live in Tamarac? Does she care about Tamarac? Are women oppressed in Tamarac (besides free-riding section 8ers?) However enjoyable it may be reading the trysts between Knight and NJ Citizen.
    Brooke said women don’t regulate the penis…that’s patently not true. Women regulate the penis everyday when they falsely call police on boyfriends who never hit them or beat them. Women buy stock in male sexual enhancement drugs that end up on a congressman’s/congresswoman’s desk for FDA approval. In fact, the sheer fact that men have little say in the courts as to whether their other halves get abortions is in and of itself regulating or de-regulating the penis – I’m not sure which.
    Mostly, women regulate the penis when at the end of the day they rollover and say “sorry dear, I’m too tired tonight.”
    – Cheers!

    • Ira Rather

      Right:

      Millions of women don’t find themselves in relationships where sex is forced upon them. And if you want the men in these situations to have ANY say in this, move to Iran.

      You would actually have us moving more towards Sharia than many Christian radicals:

      The man should have ZERO say in whether a woman wishes to abort or not.