#LoveWins

I should be clear; I’m not a huge fan of marriage equity. I’m not a huge fan of marriage. The idea that you’re legally binding yourself to another human indefinitely seems like a bad idea. Particularly for women who are more likely to die at the hands of their partners than anything else. I always have to resist the urge to discourage my friends from marriage. But you do you kids. But really, I’ve always thought of marriage rights as a way for the gay community to be hetero-normalized. Like, see they aren’t threatening they just want to get married just like us.

Now, I fully expect the economy to see a nice lift from this. But I also think this isn’t enough. I mean come on. You can get married, but still be fired for being gay. Let’s move right on over to worker protections and forcing insurance companies to cover Trans medicine. Let’s expand social supports for queer young people who are still more likely to be homeless than their straight peers. At best this is a symbolic victory at worst this is a victory for those who can afford it. Those past the hard parts.

All that said, nothing makes me angrier than people taking to the Internet to spread their hate or make this victory about them. Yeah, inequity still exists across the board, but sometimes we have to stand in solidarity with one another and celebrate any victory even when it might not be a specific victory for us. What, you mad because the Supreme Court did just let the Notorious RBG overturn all injustice? Yeah, me too, but I'm still going to celebrate those who can marry after being told they couldn't because they were less for decades. The first same sex couple married in Texas were 80 year old men who had been together for 54 years, and they are adorable. 

Not cool Internet, not cool

People are rearranging items in Hobby Lobby to present pro-choice messages. These aren’t the actions of allies. These are the actions of people who are too damn privileged to know and recognize they are making a worker’s job more difficult. When I saw the first photo, I smiled and thought a Nelson like “ha!.” But people have to work there, and these people are getting screwed by the Supreme Court so maybe we lay off them and take on their bosses.

Jezebel’s Callie Bensman highlighted some of the actions of Jasmine Shea, who was also featured on Feministing and Policy Mic’s Nathaniel Peck. Peck is quoted as saying, “It just seemed like a perfect opportunity to stage a kind of silent protest, and change to use Hobby Lobby’s own products to do it was just too serendipitous to pass up,” he continues, “I certainly don’t want to encourage other people to ransack their local Hobby Lobby, but who am I to tell other people what to do with things like stamps, stencils, lawn signs, window decals and other items that can be used to spell things out in the aisles?”

Who indeed? Jezebel went on to provide a store locator. I’m not the only one pissed and having retail flashbacks. Melissa McEwan over at Shakesville wrote a post on it earlier in the week. McEwan runs down the problems with this can of “action” which essentially is the exploitation of workers and making their already tough job even worse. In most cases, I’m willing to guess that McEwan is right and management never hears about the “action” instead some low-wage, underpaid, underinsured folks fix the displays before their management team can reprimand them for letting this disarray occur.

My feminism has empathy for people stuck in these jobs. My feminism includes economic, social, and class equity. People who are participating in these “actions” need to ask themselves what their feminism and liberalism are all about. I mean if we’re angry that these employees are losing access to some medical coverage based on gender discrimination then we need to rally around them. If we’re pissed that the Supreme Court believes corporations have more rights than people then we need to rally around the employees. But if you’re pissed that the Pro-Choice movement took another hit then you should think about why you’re pro-choice. I’m over the FOR THE MOVEMENT mentality. Real people are being screwed, and we shouldn’t be contributing to that.

Low-wage workers can’t just quit their job and find a new one with better benefits. These people are stuck there. If you have a problem with Hobby Lobby take it up with corporate. Go into store and ask for comment cards. Be polite. Call customer service numbers at corporate. Be polite.

McEwan ends her post with an excellent quote: “If your activism aligns itself with the very people you’re ostensibly trying to protest, and you end up hurting the exact same people, you’re DOING IT WRONG.” Wrong indeed.

Justice Scalia defends unions, world on fire somewhere

I’m kidding, kind of. I have no love for Justice Scalia, which most people know because the man doesn’t think women are covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, so I’m a bit skeptical of his aid. So imagine my surprise when I get an email from Labor Notes, written by Moshe Marvit, about how Scalia is defending union sin the Harris v. Quinn case.

The case is about whether or not Illinois’ home healthcare workers are public employees, which then determines whether they are permitted to join public-sector unions. Part of this is that Illinois allows public-sector unions to employ exclusive representation to all employees, which means they can charge them a “fair share” fee to employees who don’t join the union, but who benefit from the collective bargaining agreement. The case presents broader questions including whether any public-sector union should have this right. According to the SCOTUS blog, there are two issues at play: Whether a state may, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, compel homecare providers to accept and financially support private organizations as their exclusive representation on behalf of pay negotiations, and whether a lower court was wrong in holding the claims of providers.

Cornell Law offers a fairly detailed explanation of the case written and edited by Jordan Kobb, Craig G. Steen, and Z. Angela Lu. Of course a lot of this has to do with Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which said Illinois had a legitimate interest in “labor peace.” Quinn side says labor unrest can lead to public problems, while Harris supporters say that Abood was intended to protect individuals from being forced to support political organizations they oppose, which is required y exclusive representation. So union dues enable unions to have more political power, while not requiring fair share fees leaves unions providing representation for those not contributing and then there is the “free-riding” problem. Revisiting Abood would have long reaching consequences for organized labor.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTW), an anti-union group who aim to “eliminate coercive union power and compulsory unionism abuses through strategic litigation, public information and education programs, brought the challenges. NRTW attorney William Messenger argued that exclusive representations and fair share fees by unions violate workers’ First Amendment rights. Messenger claimed that public employee unions bargain over matters of public concern, and the fees are contributed to the speech, which the workers might not agree with.

This is when Justice Scalia smacked Messenger down. Scalia questioned the premise of the NRTW’s case, which set the tone going forward. Scalia presented a hypothetical about a police officer who asked for a raise several times, and was denied access to the police commissioner. The police officer did not have his rights violated because the Supreme Court has recognized the government has a wider latitude in dealing with employees than with citizens. The police commissioner refusing to see the police officer didn’t violate the officer’s rights and neither did the healthcare workers fair share fees.

Justice Kagan suggested that Scalia believed the NRTW position was valid, and Scalia corrected her, “I want to hear the answer, too, because, contrary to what Justice Kagan suggests, I didn’t say your First Amendment argument was valid….I said at least it was a comprehensible argument.”

Messenger then went on to say that homecare workers pay negotiations is not internal workplace speech, but instead political speech, which Scalia smacked down as well. Scalia said, “Why isn’t it? I mean, it is for private employers.” He continued to say, “There are some private employers who think they’re better off with a closed shop and they just want to deal with one union…They do this as private employers because they think it is in their interest as an employer. Why can’t the government have the same interest?”

These are fairly shocking statements coming from Scalia. Marvit argues that in a state’s rights context these statements are a bit more expected. The case is about whether a state can make their own police choices, which is a federalist argument.

Needless to say, which side I fall on *Labor, always labor* I also suspect JJ will put something up on this case, so I won’t prattle on too long, instead I’m going to focus on Scalia. First, I wish Justice Kagan had smacked him, but then again he may have realized what he was doing and run back to the right. When looking at Scalia’s comments as state’s rights (frustrating and at times scary) it does bode well for team labor. Also, I’m liking him drawing comparisons between government and private companies. I know, I know, we don’t want the government run like a corporation, but the reality is we’re already falling down that rabbit hole, and if corporations are going to be considered people under the law, with a right to religious freedom then the government, which includes the separation of church and state, might be something to keep in mind as they come for women and gays.

Abortion post! A privacy argument, you might not have heard.

I know, it has been so long. First, the good news, the Supreme Court refused to review Arizona’s 20-week abortion ban. So it stands as unconstitutional. Of course, this doesn’t mean that we’re all safe, what it mean this one is good. The Ninth Circuit’s decision said the measure was unconstitutional, and an extreme measure. Of course, other abortion cases are coming: Wednesday, the Court will hear augments in McCullen v. Coakley, on the constitutionality of a Massachusetts reproductive health-care clinic buffer zone law.

However, I really wanted to write about a post I saw last week on Role/Reboot entitled, “I got an abortion and didn’t tell the guy: Did I do the right thing?” by anonymous. The author describes her situation and how she came to the conclusion. Specifically, she knew she couldn’t have a child, and assumed her partner would have been opposed to abortion. Now, she wonders if she did the right thing, not on the level of what is right for her, but instead what is right ethically. It is a personal story, and the read really feels for the author, and I highly recommend reading it.

That said, yes, to answer the author’s question, she did the right thing because it was the right medical procedure for her. See what I did there? In the text, the author doesn’t really talk about how it is a medical procedure. I think that is best way to begin, and then we can get into the other ethics…if they exist at all.

First, the author had a medical procedure to maintain her quality of life. Any other medical procedure, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. For example, if a person had a benign tumor removed to maintain his/her quality of life, we won’t be having this conversation. It wouldn’t be something they would have to discuss with a partner. If there was a discussion it would be a courtesy. Now, I’m not saying people shouldn’t discuss medical procedures with their partners, but if the partner isn’t on the hook financially then *shoulder shrug*.

The author however, appears to have some misgivings about her decision to have an abortion without telling her partner. I have to infer the full reasoning being guilt and the idea the people have a right to their genetic material via privacy. The first, throughout the post, the author spends time trying to convince the reader the abortion was the right decision. After all she and her partner have a casual relationship. Also, women are judged harshly for their decisions to exercise their rights to make medical decisions for themselves. So the expectation that she would have to convince her readers is there, as well as the assumption that her readers wouldn’t be very favorable if she exhibited no remorse at all. After all, aren’t we all supposed to feel bad? The answer to that is no. Many women obtain abortions with no guilt or remorse because it was the appropriate medical decision for that individual.

The second issue is the issue of privacy. Of course, this isn’t a privacy issue because he voluntarily gave his genetic material without a condom to his partner. So there is no expectation of privacy, and the outcome, birth or abortion, he can’t claim he was uninvolved. Now, I know that sounds harsh, right? What about the men who don’t want to have babies, but their partners’ do? Well, that sucks, and ideally we’d all have relationships where communication was open and clear. That said, if you discard your genetic material then it can be used, at least according to the police. This is one of those times when men (usually white heterosexual men) complain to me that women can trap them with children sounds ridiculous to me. You’ve made a decision there were other options: condom, vasectomy, pull out method, etc. These have varying rates of success of course, but I’m just saying. But men aren’t biologically tied to their offspring the way women are so there isn’t really a comparable situation. Of course, this is complicated because of the financial responsibility that the fathers’ have…of course to equate the financial responsibility between both parents when including medical costs over time is a bit ridiculous.

However, let’s look at financial responsibilities we might have issues with, but the government gives zero fucks. Given the weather last week, I witnessed several car accidents that resulted in property damage to other person’s property outside of the driver’s. So if car one hits car two because of black ice because the city salted the roads, but the temperatures were so low the moisture immediately froze, who is responsibility for the damages to car two? Well, car one because you’re supposed to be in control of your car at all times regardless of road conditions. So I can’t really break out a tiny violin for people who want to get out of financial responsibility for a child.

So again, just to return to the beginning, the author of that post did the right thing personally, the right thing legally, and the right thing ethically.

Racism is over, says Supreme Court

Colorlines has a piece up by Brentin Mock on the Supreme Court ruling that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which determines what states and jurisdictions are covered by Section 5, is invalid. The areas covered are places where disenfranchisement of people of color or for whom English is their second language. USA! USA!

Chief Roberts, who has hated the Voting Rights Act since the 1980s, ruled the formula, which was last created in the late 1960s/early 1970s, needs to be updated by Congress so it covers areas that violate voting rights today…So everywhere with voter ID laws, the south, any place that has racist institutions and policies. I have it you guys, everywhere. Section 4 should apply everywhere.

Roberts majority opinion:

“In assessing the ‘current need’ for a preclearance system treating States differently from one another today, history since 1965 cannot be ignored. The Fifteenth Amendment is not designed to punish for the past; its purpose is to ensure a better future. To serve that purpose, Congress—if it is to divide the States must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions. It instead re-enacted a formula based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relation to the present day.”

Ginsburg naturally doesn’t agree:

“The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the VRA has proven effective. The Court appears to believe that the VRA’s success in eliminating the specific devices extant in 1965 means that preclearance is no longer needed.”

She continued to write:

“[T]he record for the 2006 reauthorization makes abundantly clear [that] second-generation barriers to minority voting rights have emerged in the covered jurisdictions as attempted substitutes for the first-generation barriers originally triggered preclearance in those jurisdictions.”

Mock says it isn’t a total loss because Section Five can stand if Congress is able to fix the formula so that areas currently running afoul of voting rights. This would be everywhere. Also, in what world is it a good idea to rely on Congress?

The states that this ruling affects are North Carolina, Virginia, Alabama, and Mississippi.

North Carolina: voter ID laws, which they are trying to restrict, cut early voting, penalize parents of college students who vote away from their parents’ home, implement the strictest felony disenfranchisement in the nation (which is impressive). Nothing is laws pass federal preclearance review under Section 5.

Virginia: voter ID bill which passed federal preclearance review last year, but they doubled down like idiots do. It won’t have to clear it this time.

Alabama: voter ID that goes into effect in 2014; it was submitted for review under Section 5, but was withdrawn last month.

Mississippi: voter ID bill passed last year, which will make it harder to black candidates to get elected.

None of these states have elected an African American to statewide office. But racism is over SCOTUS says so.

The most important part of Section 5 is that it prevents discrimination in the allocations of local power. So most likely, we’ll see the most passage of discriminating/racist bills not on a state level, but in the localities where they will be received with less of a fight.

SCOTUS wants us to trust Congress to revise the formula and then everything will be good, but we won’t see this passed unless we cut billions from SNAP and set up a militarized boarder because the House GOP are batshit crazy. So now we wait for the gays. Speculation is that DOMA will stand because Congress passed it despite Congress’ reauthorizing of the VRA. SCOTUS, now actively disenfranchising citizens. Don’t worry, Roberts will have corporations voting in no time so it won’t matter how many people they disenfranchise. #IHateEverything.

As an aside, I stayed up to watch Sen. Wendy Davis' filibuster, that was ended by the Texas GOP. The Dems held on and the gallery errupted to prevent the vote. The vote was taken after midnight. That is against the law. So just to be clear, the day SCOTUS repeals legislation to protect people when voting, the TX GOP broken the rules to restrict rights of women. 

Quote of the night belongs to Sen. Leticia Van de Putte who returned from her father's funeral for this: "At what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be heard over the male colleagues in the room?"

At this point, I'd like to say: Sue all the things.