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

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Then I don't know what you put in as this is a selection from the first four pages of what I found Googling this:

http://allafrica.com/stories/201112190281.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june11/vatican_05-30.html

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/105359/catholic-church-c-is-for-chastity-not-condom

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-benedict-advocates-right-sexuality-not-condom-use-in-fight-against-hiv/

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=19561

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/at-un-vatican-reaffirms-stance-against-condoms-for-hiv-aids-prevention-anal/

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Bans for me are synonymous with prohibition, not advocacy against "x".

I'm an advocate against using heroin, but I'm not about to argue in favor of banning it or prohibiting it. Certainly not the way it is today.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

In this case the argument against it was after a span when the Church said it was for them. So, frankly, at this point the Church would really rather that Africans died of HIV so long as every sacred sperm is saved. I admit that this is not advocating banning it, it is, however, advocating a useless method that bloats the bill of HIV victims, however, after in 2010 spineless Benedict said he was for using them.