There may have been a worse time to be an American woman but it's hard to see how

By now, practically the entire world has heard the decision of the Supreme Court on the case of Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties vs. Burwell on whether requiring 'closely held' for-profit companies to provide certain types of contraceptive coverage in their health plans violates their sincerely held religious beliefs in violation of their First Amendment rights. That this extremely conservative court ruled in Hobby Lobby's favor is not exactly surprising but it is disappointing, especially as the primary reason against it stemmed from a willful ignorance in understanding how the contraception in question (certain types of oral contraceptives and IUDs) works on both the part of the justices and the companies.

Time for a quick biology lesson: IUDs (intrauterine devices) primarily work as both ovicides and spermicides though there are some who believe that there *may* be some secondary effect on already implanted embryos and this is where the objection lies. Similar with the combined oral contraceptive pill, the primary function is the prevention of ovulation though it *could* have an effect on implanted embryos. Hobby Lobby regards these types of contraceptives to be abortifacients and therefore contrary to their 'sincerely-held religious beliefs'.

Where their argument falls apart is here: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists  in 1972 adopted the definition of conception as: 'Conception is the implantation of the blastocyst'. Or put in layman's terms: pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation occurs. This was backed up in 2004 by the American Medical Association that hormonal contraception can "affect implantation but not terminate an established pregnancy". So the main ways that contraceptives work (preventing ovulation, preventing fertilization, and preventing implantation) are all prior to the start of a pregnancy and therefore, non-abortifacient.

But there are lots of contraceptives that their health plan does include, why can't those women just pick one of those other types? Because not all contraceptives work for all women and contraceptives are used for reasons other than pregnancy prevention: treatment of severe menstrual cramps, polycystic ovary syndrome, and endometriosis, just to name a few. Most importantly, those are decisions to be made by a woman and her doctor as to what is the best health care for her. No one else should be involved in that conversation. No one. Ever. It's telling that the very folks who want government in as little as possible are first in line to want to peer into the bedrooms and uteri of Americans. Corporations and government have no business being part of that conversation; particularly corporations that purchase products from China (Hobby Lobby) where abortion is not only legal, but also enforced and that invest in companies as part of their 401 (k) offerings that manufacture the very products they refuse to cover for their employees (again Hobby Lobby).

Beyond that, this decision opens a huge can of worms: if 'closely held' corporations whose owners have sincere religious beliefs, even though the majority opinion didn't exempt companies from having to offer vaccines (Mennonites), blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses) and certain products derived from pigs (Muslims), who's to say that those challenges couldn't be mounted in the future? The precedent is now there and could be applied to virtually anything. And as it has been estimated that between 52 and 90% of companies in the US are 'closely held'; that's a huge number of people who could be affected by the religious beliefs of a few.

Now THAT is a true violation of the First Amendment.

Let's see your run at a title, Mr. Armchair Point Guard Quarterback

The big news around these parts (well, to me at least), is that the University of Maryland women's basketball team won their Regional final last night against #3 Louisville to earn their first trip to the Final Four since they won it all in 2006. Pretty impressive, no? Seeded at #4, they knocked off #1 Tennessee in the semis to advance to the final. From all accounts, it was a good game: evenly matched opponents, lots of lead changes and it all coming down to fundamentals in the end. So I've been feeling pretty pumped; I played ball in high school and Noelle wants to play too. In fact, I almost panicked over when the Final Four games start so I can make sure she gets to watch it.

The point is, these kids are good. They are so much better than I could ever dream of being (let's just say that talent-wise, basketball was a distant third for me. Swimming, holla!). They are better than probably 90% of the population; they got to where they are now by hard work, dedication and a heaping dose of talent. It's a beautiful thing to watch; women's basketball. It's the game at it's finest. Yes, strength and endurance play heavily into the mix but the nuances of the game are captured more perfectly by women's ball than any other form. No, they can't (for the most part) go toe to toe with their male counterparts for a long period as size, in this case, does if not matter then certainly affects the outcome. So they play smarter. They play the game the way it's meant to be played: not with monster dunks but with patience and cunning, exploiting weaknesses and chinks in the defense like a battle-hardened general. I love it.

So when I was pulling samples earlier today with sports talk radio playing in the background, the Lady Terps' victory naturally came up. It was a huge win, it should be celebrated and discussed. (Note that the men's team failed to make even the NIT - the consolation playoff.) But what happens? The first caller in immediately cheapens their accomplishment by trotting out the age-old line of 'but it's really not all that impressive since they're girls and any good high school team could beat them.' Um, probably not. See the above paragraph for reference if needed. Is it worth mentioning that Alyssa Thomas, the Two-Time All American forward now owns the University of Maryland all-time scoring record for both men AND women? To put it bluntly (as subtlety is lost on you) THAT'S REALLY REALLY FUCKING IMPRESSIVE.

That drives me crazy: well, against a men's team they wouldn't win so it's not as impressive and not really basketball and you should just get back to home ec where you belong. Yes, 40 years ago girls were only allowed to play half-court ball and with six players because, and this is important, NO ONE EVER THOUGHT TO LET THEM TRY IT FULL-COURT. Not that they couldn't, they weren't allowed. Weren't encouraged. Weren't challenged. Fast forward 40 years and these girls, these women will knock your ass all over the court. They are strong, they are fearless and they own their game. There is nothing left at the buzzer; they've left it all out on the floor. Their elation and dejection is the same as the men's. If that's not the point of athletics, male or female, I don't know what is.

Therefore Mr. Armchair Point Guard Quarterback, I challenge you to find a women's game and go against them with a team of your own. You can recreate the Billie Jean King/Bobby Riggs throw-down but with basketballs. And you will learn to your chagrin that these 'girls' have skills. They have moves. And they will chew you up and spit you out.

Enjoy your comfy seat Mr. Armchair Point Guard Quarterback; obsolescence is calling.