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]

Not at all, no. I've seen a media-generated and left-wing-generated (but I repeat myself) concoction based around the concept that the right wing is supposedly anti-contraception, but no real actual concerted attack by the right or Republicans.

[existentme.livejournal.com]

Yes, right, not concerted in the sense of a symphony with a common conductor, but if all the musicians one side of a hall are playing the same music, conductor aside, it's sure still going to look and act like a concert.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Indeed. That orchestra is sitting off to the left, and the media is printing the programs.

[existentme.livejournal.com]

Pfft, media: an arm of the state who's function is to convince the masses there are significant differences between various of its chosen owners' reps - so yes, left, right, center, you got that right, the show must go on and on.

[paft.livejournal.com]

LOL! Riiight, Jeff. All those legislative attacks on contraception, etc. from the Republican Party are a liberal Democratic plot.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

What legislative attacks, specifically?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Like the one in the OP and the various threats to defund Planned Parenthood.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So one state-level bill that has no evidence of traction, and a defunding attempt because of abortion. That's all you have to sustain your claim?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So list 'em.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So I did make an error, since I should have held you to what was being challenged (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1381463.html?thread=110045271#t110045271), which is that contraception is being fought against. As I've noted throughout, there's definitely continued work against abortion.

Of what you've listed, it's almost entirely about abortion, so you're not doing much to sustain the idea that contraception is being battled against widely. Your opinion piece from the NYT is simply the opinion of one woman that cites no actual attacks on contraception, and your CNN link is about a pretty stupid joke by someone who is not even an elected official, and surrounding the religious exemption clauses at that.

While your links, ThinkProgress aside, are good ones, you're kind of making my point that contraception isn't actually being attacked.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Anyone could claim moral or religious reasons just to not provide it.

So?

Although I wonder what is next. Legislation about how an employer could have the right to not provide maternity coverage if they have a religious or moral issue against it? I mean where does the buck stop.

The buck should stop at the government requiring any sort of coverage in the private sector. Ain't their business.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

that's an opinion, and one that's been not prevailing for decades.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Constitutional fact, actually, but it's unfortunate that the government has been acting illegally for decades, yes.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

I refer you to my previous statement.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That's a leap.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

And I'm pro-abortion, so it's a moot point with me, but the idea that the government has a role in protecting people from being killed is entirely valid.