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

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Show me you're capable of answering a simple question. You replied to me with this 1938/1939 shit FIRST, and now you're refusing to actually explain what the fuck you were talking about.

Which tells me you're just full of shit.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You'll think that regardless, and you'll twist whatever my answer is to you even if I do bother. So no, I'm not playing your game anymore - when you show some basic competence here, I'll be glad to continue it. Not before.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Look, forget the court packing thing. Your claim, even at its most docile, is that FDR "fucked with the process". There is no evidence for this claim, and you certainly made no attempts to back it up with any citations.

The same court upheld legislation it previously struck down. You have zero explanation for this other than some vague concept of FDR threatening them.

And now you're refusing to answer a very simple question about The New Deal. I'm not playing any games right now.

You are.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Look, forget the court packing thing.

I stopped reading here deliberately. I won't simply forget it until you correct the record. There's no reason why I should simply accept blatant falsehoods coming from you, sorry.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

What record should I correct? You said FDR threatened to pack the court. I said he never accomplished this, so it's an irrelevant point that has nothing to do with New Deal legislation.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

This is pathetic and unfortunate.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I'm trying to work with you here and you resort to petty insults. Let's just go back to the very beginning here:

SCOTUS was striking it down until FDR decided that he was going to pack the Court because he wasn''t getting his way.

The implication here is that SCOTUS stopped striking down New Deal legislation because of FDR's threat of 'packing the court'. Tell me if any of this is inaccurate, and then proceed to tell me why, instead of just going "it's inaccurate" and then having me read your mind.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

As for as 1938/1939, which I assume you're referring to New Deal part 2, nothing was struck down there except for a tax increase.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Game, set, and match.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Indeed. Instead of correcting the record, you chose stonewalling. Maybe next time you'll step up.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Uh, I specifically asked what I needed to correct, and you ignore that but then reply to this. Are you trolling?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I could very well ask you that, given what you've been doing in this thread. Do keep up.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Your ability to ignore the content of posts to focus on a single phrase is amazing.

Let me try again, although I don't know why I'm bothering:

What did I need to correct, exactly?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'The same court upheld legislation it previously struck down. You have zero explanation for this other than some vague concept of FDR threatening them.'

How is that a vague concept?

When you threaten someone and they change their mind post threat. That's the concept.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Where's the evidence that his threat to 'pack the court' caused the court to do a 180?

The reason the revised legislation was upheld was due to the wording in the bills. The wording was slightly changed so as to conform to standards of the time and then it was upheld. It wasn't a case of something clearly unconstitutional that was nearly unchanged being upheld the second time around.

There is a goddamn mountain of information about this.