Not in the eyes of the Catholic male majority of the Supreme Court she isn’t.
Oh how I do hope I can get you all to read “After Hobby Lobby” by Dahla Lithwick in full.
Here’s an excerpt:
“What is missing from the Hobby Lobby decision altogether—beyond the economic disparity and public health arguments I mention above—is the very notion of the woman herself as moral circuit breaker, as an agent of her own ethical choices and preferences, whose decision to obtain an IUD, or a condom, or a morning-after pill is a fully autonomous moral choice that supplants the spiritual choices of her employer. Again, it’s almost impossible to escape the conclusion that Hobby Lobby, McCullen, and Harris all rest on the idea that women are in effect children with (partial) paychecks, and that their choices are to be second-guessed and gently redirected.”
I’ve been too depressed to write much about this decision because I take it so personally since I am both an Atheist-American and a Female-American.
But I have been reading a good deal about the inception of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I guess its therapeutic to at least understand who set this 21-year-old snare that can be used to bring me down today.
I’ll be coming back to this topic on the blog soon.