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]

Specifically, that I said what you think I said. I'm sure you think you're 100% positive, but underlankers thinks he is too, and the record doesn't support him at all.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I asked you to show me how to search for these things. Interestingly, you're not denying that you said these things, but that I'm not "understanding" you correctly. I'll take that as a tacit admittance and ignore your usual diversionary tactics until I'm informed of how to search for the comments in question.

And I'm still waiting on your explanation vis a vis the whole 1938/1939 thing. You're the one that offered it as an excuse.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If you have gmail, a quick mail search for my username and whatever it is you think I said should work.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't dare taint my gmail account with livejournal upates.

Also here you go: http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1209470.html?thread=96967038

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Okay, great. So let's see what you're accusing me of:

You told me that FDR was packing the court (he didn't)

You'll note that I even said he didn't get around to it, "because the Court started ruling his way." At no point did I say that FDR got away with it, but his plan was in place and ready to go.

and that the SCOTUS was illegitimate

Nowhere did I say that. Closest I can find is that his court-packing attempt "puts a lot of the post-stitch rulings into question." This does not mean that the SCOTUS was illegitimate, just that the rulings should be taken with the appropriate grain of salt given the state of duress the Court was put under thanks to FDR.

thusly the New Deal legislation doesn't count because you personally believed it was unconstitutional.

Nowhere did I say that, either. Closest thing I can see is that I noted that he "continue[d] passing already-unconstitutional bills to get [his] way," which I stand by, since the bills are unconstitutional no matter what the Court has to say. Myth of judicial supremacy and such.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

When people can't even parse simple and clear statements in an Internet message board, how can their ability to debate anything be accepted?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

As compared with their ability to parse simple and clear statements from The Constitution.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No, see, I'm the habitually unclear one.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

That you believe they're unconstitutional flies in the face of case law for the past 70 years.

And I'm not playing this game. You said they packed the court, then backed up and said they started "ruling his way". It's the same court, jeff. We know that FDR exerted influence but he did not scare the court into passing unconstitutional laws. The court felt they were constitutional, the same court that felt previous legislation was unconstitutional. This time they were fine because of better wording.

I'm not buying your backpedaling. You never own up to a single word you say.

Large parts of The New Deal were NOT dismantled before the war. Instead of moving goals, maybe just one time you can admit that your statement was completely false.

Unless you're about to tell me how it was dismantled in 1938/9. I'm still waiting on that one. If you have any attempt to redeem yourself, you will address this now instead of engaging once again in the "that's not what i REALLY meant' roulette.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That you believe they're unconstitutional flies in the face of case law for the past 70 years.

So?

You said they packed the court, then backed up and said they started "ruling his way". It's the same court, jeff.

No, I didn't say that. I pointed out what I did say, and it wasn't that, sorry.

I'm not buying your backpedaling. You never own up to a single word you say.

In fact, the comment you replied to is me owning up to what I say. That it doesn't match the fantasy of what you think you read is not my problem.

Large parts of The New Deal were NOT dismantled before the war. Instead of moving goals, maybe just one time you can admit that your statement was completely false.

If it were false, I would gladly retract it.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

If it were false, I would gladly retract it.

Seriously, several months and you're still giving me non-answers? Show me how that statement is true. Tell me what happened in 1938/9 that supports your assertion.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Show me you're capable of reading plain english first, and we might get somewhere. You've got a lot of record to correct before you have room to start asking me to correct mine.

[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.

[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.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

You tell me what happened in 1938 that invalidated large parts of The New Deal and I'll drop the whole thing. I promise.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You tell me why you can't read plain english, and I'll answer that for you. I promise.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Ask me again if I stopped beating my wife.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And just to be clear-is this stating that FDR and the New Deal was Stalinist, meaning the forcible collectivization of US farms, a massive military build-up, a secret police empowered to murder its way through everything it wanted to, a gigantic set of slave-labor camps that were the biggest employer in the system, and a system of centralized economic planning with mandated state quotas, and NKVD-led enforcement of said quotas. You are saying that this was the FDR Administration, am I correct?

To which you responded in the following fashion:

Pretty much. The only parts that aren't 100% accurate are the secret police and the slave-labor camps. I'm not sure the internment camps actually involved slave labor.

No, the reality of your own words supports me.