Anti-Choice Groups Declare Intent To Illegally Fire The Hell Out Of Birth Control Users

By  | 

479216105By now, most of us have seen Amy Schumer‘s hilarious birth control sketch floating around somewhere online. In it, her character is required to ask a priest, a Boy Scout, a mailman, and her boss whether she should be allowed to use birth control. It’s funny (and depressing) mostly because it’s not all that far from reality.

A local ordinance in the city of Washington, D.C. makes it illegal to fire someone because of their birth control use–sounds great, right? But as Raw Story reports, the bill, called the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014, has come under fire from the House of Representatives, who voted to overturn it. (Washington, D.C. doesn’t benefit from that whole “no taxation without representation” the rest of the country has going on, as there are no voting delegates from the city in the House; but fortunately the attempt to kill the ordinance has stalled out in the Senate.)

And on top of the assault from one branch of the federal government, a group of anti-choice organizations based out of Washington, D.C. have declared their intent to simply pretend the law doesn’t exist. Is … is that something we’re allowed to do? Can we pretend open carry laws aren’t real either? Or same-sex marriage bans? Someone get back to me on that one, please.

According to the joint statement issued by these groups, including among others the Alliance Defending Freedom (defending very specific and limited varieties of freedom, apparently), March for Life, and Concerned Women for America:

RHNDA is aimed squarely at the freedom of our organizations to draw our workforces from among those who share our foundational commitment to the sanctity of human life. … RHNDA is also aimed squarely at our freedom to purchase and provide employee health  plans that comport with our pro-life beliefs.

That’s a lot of square-aiming going on. But I have a hard time believing that a bunch of birth-control-pill-popping, abortion-having, hairy-legged feminists are lined up at the door to seek work from Concerned Women for America. This bill isn’t stopping anyone from hiring the kind of people who share the anti-choice mindset; but it does protect them when they’ve found work in one of these organizations and then learn they need to go on birth control to protect their lives, or to keep them from becoming pregnant with a severely unhealthy fetus, thanks to other conditions or medications they’re dealing with. Or if their teenage daughter starts taking birth control, or if the family health insurance provided by a spouse includes contraceptive coverage–whatever access or proximity to access of reproductive health options happens to crop up, these people shouldn’t lose their jobs over it.

That’s the thing about being pro-choice–we think everyone should have access to reproductive health, even if they’ve previously worked to deprive others of the same. Of course, it would be nice if someone who had benefited from the protection of the RHNDA rethought their participation in groups seeking to defy or overturn the ordinance … but the anti-choice track record on that front isn’t great.

(Image: Diana Taliun / iStock / Getty)