After Monday’s controversial Supreme Court ruling, which stated that closely-held corporations can refuse to cover contraception in their health plans for religious reasons, people across the country have been expressing opposition.
The rallying cry, “Not my boss’s business!” grew stronger today as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s “scathing dissent” came into public view. The 35-page long attack on the outcome of the Hobby Lobby case has been described as “brilliant, compelling, cool and measured and totally correct,” by Gawker and Feministing. With carefully controlled sarcasm, Ginsburg expresses the fury of women’s rights advocates across the country.
Ginsburg asks the Court, “Would the exemption extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.”
Following this line of reason, she points out that, “Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution’s] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.”
Perhaps the most memorable line in her dissent, however, is darkly prophetic in nature:
“The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.”
Activists for other controversial topics, namely the LGBT cause, agree. The Supreme Court’s decision may seem specific, but the idea that closely held corporations are protected from the government interfering in the exercise of their religion by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 threatens to extend over other issues that often clash with religion. The Hobby Lobby case is attracting attention on all fronts.
Ultimately, Ginsburg’s dissent garners more attention than the majority ruling. Fans have dubbed her as “Notorious R.B.G.,” the “badass” of the Supreme Court. With a growing number of advocates using her writing as the basis of their arguments, the campaign against the ruling is in full swing. Advocates continue their efforts against what is being called one of the Supreme Court’s most “reprehensible verdicts.”