Okay, okay, it’s time to get my activist pants back on.  I don’t feel “ready” or like I have more to add than anyone else on any one subject, but unless other people who think like that start using their voices, too, this world is going to stagnate into a foul cesspool of power and money and greed instead of a functioning, flourishing system of logic, compassion and freedom- my vote is for the latter, so I’m putting my money where my mouth is. Or my mouth where my heart is. Something. Anyhow…

I have a few posts simmering on the backburner at the moment and hundreds of topics I’d like to touch on, but after The Supreme Court’s decision to vote in favor of Hobby Lobby that “ruled that owners of private companies can object on religious grounds to a provision of President Barack Obama’s healthcare law that requires employers to provide insurance covering birth control for women.”,  I have a few pressing questions, starting with “Wait… what happened to separation of church and state? What did I miss?

Here’s John Oliver’s hilarious and accurate breakdown, in case you missed what was in question:

and here’s what was decided, (via Reuters)

“In their last decision of the nine-month term, the justices ruled for the first time that for-profit companies can make claims under a 1993 federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was enacted to protect religious liberty.”

Religious liberty? Oh, you mean if you’re that ONE religion coupled the privilege of a position of power- nevermind the religious freedoms of the people who share the consequences and not the belief…

“In a decision of startling breadth, the court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law … they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs,”

WHOA. Whoa. Corporations can opt out of laws thatare incompatible with their (religious) beliefs?? Does anyone else see this as a gigantic rabbit-hole of a problem? I sincerely hold a belief that there are gaping holes in the logic of this ruling. And I also sincerely believe cannabis prohibition should end, that it should be illegal to touch a pregnant belly unless the mother offers, that education should be free and holistic, that healthy snacks should be cheaper and more widely available than chemical shitstorms like Doritos and Slurpees,  and that my birthday should be met with an influx of fair trade coffee and dark chocolate each year. Can I some legislation here, people? Wait, I’m not a corporation, I’m just a girl…

Jezebel breaks it down this way:

Today, five men on the Supreme Court said that women’s reproductive health care is less important than a woman’s boss’s superstition-based prudery and moral trepidation about fornication for female pleasure. They ruled that it doesn’t matter if birth control actually causes abortions; it only matters if business owners sincerely believe that birth control causes abortions. They ruled that it’s okay for a corporate personto discriminate against a female semi-person and dictate that she not spend her compensation on stuff that might possibly be enabling sex without consequences, if they believe that God thinks they should. “

And this isn’t just about the right to “sex without consequences”. People use birth control for more than just preventing pregnancy with one or who-the-hell-cares-how-many partners. In 2003 Clarence Thomas (who just voted  in the majority on this case) himself said, “it was not a worthwhile use of “law enforcement resources” to police private sexual behavior.” in regards to an anti-gay sodomy suit- yet he still voted to regulate “private sexual behavior” for people with uterus’ via employers yesterday.  Perhaps someone ought to remind him of his own logic here…

Private sexual behavior is just that, and should be (un)legislated that way.  Sexual preference and expression thereof in consenting adults should not dictate our freedoms or rights to healthcare.  Companies should not get more personhood than people. The end.