![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics
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
(no subject)
Date: 16/3/12 02:11 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 16/3/12 02:29 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 16/3/12 02:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/3/12 02:39 (UTC)Which tells me you're just full of shit.
(no subject)
Date: 16/3/12 02:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/3/12 03:01 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 16/3/12 03:05 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 16/3/12 03:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/3/12 03:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/3/12 03:13 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 16/3/12 03:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/12 03:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/3/12 12:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 05:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/3/12 12:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/3/12 06:32 (UTC)Let me try again, although I don't know why I'm bothering:
What did I need to correct, exactly?
(no subject)
Date: 16/3/12 04:08 (UTC)How is that a vague concept?
When you threaten someone and they change their mind post threat. That's the concept.
(no subject)
Date: 16/3/12 04:32 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 16/3/12 02:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/3/12 02:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/3/12 03:01 (UTC)