The Right Wing's Idea of "Freedom"

[paft.livejournal.com]

From Statepress:

Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.


‘I believe we live in America. We don’t live in the Soviet Union,’ Lesko said. ‘So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom and pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs.’

Jezebel points out that Arizona is an “at will” state. This means that bosses in Arizona will be able to fire women for being depraved enough to take birth control pills to prevent pregnancy.

As we all know, what made the Soviet Union infamous were not the gulags, its treatment of dissidents, and the rigid control over the press, but the fact that women could take pills for the purpose of contraception without fear of losing their jobs over it.

Yes, here it is -- the right wing's idea of "freedom" is a society where a woman has to ask her boss' permission to use oral contraceptives.

Does anyone else find this more than a little weird?

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Based on what, though? Birth control is entirely uncontroversial.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

To most, sure. To all, no.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Sure, there's a small minority who think it's still an issue. They really have no real voice in the process, and in the rare cases where they gain power, can't do anything with it.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

It would seem they do in fact have a voice in the process doesn't it?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Not really.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

So the majority whip has no say in the process in Arizona? That seems like a weird setup.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The majority whip can propose any legislation s/he wants. That doesn't mean anyone's going to listen to it.

Except, of course, the media desperate to keep the narrative alive.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

The majority whip has a say then right?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

In the sense that she can propose legislation, sure. I noted this earlier - the voice exists, but it doesn't mean much.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Seems like someone a while back was complaining about moving goalposts, I can't remember who it was though.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Good thing I didn't move any goalposts, then. I suppose you're done with this.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Well I'm not sure. See, you said that this movement, as illustrated in the OP had no voice in the process, but it was authored by the majority whip for the Arizona House. Then you're saying that the Arizona House whip does have a voice in the legislative process, which I agree with-- I mean she's majority whip, not only did she get elected meaning she has supporters, but she's in a position that has significance, but there's a disconnect going on here, see?

You said there was no real voice in the process but there is. Then you said "but it doesn't mean much", which would be a different assertion than there is no voice in the process. And THEN you said that you didn't "move the goalposts", which last time I checked, means dismissing your previous assertion and backing a different assertion as if you meant that all along.

By definition, that's exactly what you did-- move the goalposts, but now you're saying you didn't. How can that be? You said there was no voice in the process, it's right up there:
http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1381463.html?thread=110042967#t110042967

And now you are saying they do have a real voice in the process but it doesn't matter, which would be, by definition moving the goalposts. So I don't understand you saying you did not, it seems to conflict the evidence that is right there.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'You said there was no real voice in the process but there is.'

Actually, he said:

In the sense that she can propose legislation, sure. I noted this earlier - the voice exists, but it doesn't mean much

What's happening here is as the debate extends the argument is changing focus. First it was about attacks on birth control. Your assertion connected prima facie this issue to an attack on birth control. Further arguments were on the power of the whip in terms of getting legislation proposed and passed.

As this wasn't an attack on birth control then further arguments over whether there was an effort by the whip to attack it is fallacious.

If you criticize someone for criminal behavior and demand imprisonment and we later find out they're innocent, the argument can't be over whether or not they deserve to go to jail or that if the supposed crime is deserving of jail time.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

you're taking posts all out of order.

He said -the voice exists way after, that was the actual process of moving the goalposts. the -but it doesn't mean much.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So you didn't really follow the thread.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

/random condescending assertion

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

/unnoted personal eyeroll followed by closing of tab with resigned sigh

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Perhaps next time if you follow the thread and you might not say so many statements incongruous with facts :) Just trying to help out.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Riiiight.