[identity profile] paft.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] 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 03:09 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com
This is pathetic and unfortunate.

(no subject)

Date: 16/3/12 03:13 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

(no subject)

Date: 16/3/12 03:26 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

(no subject)

Date: 17/3/12 12:20 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com
Indeed. Instead of correcting the record, you chose stonewalling. Maybe next time you'll step up.

(no subject)

Date: 18/3/12 05:27 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kylinrouge.livejournal.com
Uh, I specifically asked what I needed to correct, and you ignore that but then reply to this. Are you trolling?

(no subject)

Date: 18/3/12 12:55 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com
I could very well ask you that, given what you've been doing in this thread. Do keep up.

(no subject)

Date: 20/3/12 06:32 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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?

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

May 2025

M T W T F S S
   12 3 4
56 78 91011
12 13 1415 161718
19202122 232425
262728293031