Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: Law Will Allow Employers to Fire Women for Using Whore Pills

  1. #1

    Law Will Allow Employers to Fire Women for Using Whore Pills

    [url]http://jezebel.com/5893011/law-will-allow-employers-to-fire-women-for-using-whore-pills[/url]

    SLIPPERY SLOPE!



    Law Will Allow Employers to Fire Women for Using Whore Pills

    A proposed new law in Arizona would give employers the power to request that women being prescribed birth control pills provide proof that they're using it for non-sexual reasons. And because Arizona's an at-will employment state, that means that [B]bosses critical of their female employees' sex lives could fire them as a result.[/B] If we could harness the power of the crappy ideas coming out of the state of Arizona, we could probably power a rocket ship to the moon, where there are no Mexicans or fertile wombs and everyone can be free to be as mean a cranky ******* as they want at all times! Arizona Heaven!

    Yesterday, a Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed Republican Debbie Lesko's HB2625 by a vote of 6-2, which would [B]allow an employer to request proof that a woman using insurance to buy birth control was being prescribed the birth control for reasons other than not wanting to get pregnant.[/B] It's all about freedom, she said, echoing everyone who thinks there's nothing ironic about claiming that a country that's "free" allows people's bosses to dictate what medical care is available to them through insurance. First amendment. The constitution. Rights of religious people to practice the treasured tenets of their faiths, the tenets that dictate that religious people get to tell everyone who is not of faith how they're supposed to live, and the freedom to have that faith enforced by law. Freedom®.

    Further, Lesko states, with a straight face, that this bill is necessary because "we live in America; we don't live in the Soviet Union."

    Ah, yes, the Soviet Union. The sort of place where a woman might think about getting birth control through an insurance plan to which she contributes premiums without having to show her boss her prescription in order to prove that she wasn't using it to not get pregnant. The Soviet Union. A hellscape where women don't run the risk of losing their jobs over their sexual practices. What a horrible, awful place where herds of sluts run wild like feral ponies, humping everything in sight. The nightmare of unwilling motherhood evaded is a constant spectre in The Motherland.

    Anyway, this bill probably won't get anywhere; it violates all sorts of privacy laws and I can't imagine that female citizens of Arizona would be in favor of having their rights further legislated away by a chamber of mostly dudes trying to win votes from Team Jerk Version of Jesus. But that doesn't make it any less depressing. In fact, it's almost depressing enough to make a lady consider building a time machine so that she can take it back to 1985 and find some job security in the Soviet Union.

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,197
    LMAO @ this country.

    I also think that credit card companies should be allowed to refuse to let people use rewards points for hotel rooms if said hotel rooms were going to be used to engage in sexual activity that does NOT result in pregnancy.

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4397823][url]http://jezebel.com/5893011/law-will-allow-employers-to-fire-women-for-using-whore-pills[/url]

    SLIPPERY SLOPE!



    Law Will Allow Employers to Fire Women for Using Whore Pills

    A proposed new law in Arizona would give employers the power to request that women being prescribed birth control pills provide proof that they're using it for non-sexual reasons. And because Arizona's an at-will employment state, that means that [B]bosses critical of their female employees' sex lives could fire them as a result.[/B] If we could harness the power of the crappy ideas coming out of the state of Arizona, we could probably power a rocket ship to the moon, where there are no Mexicans or fertile wombs and everyone can be free to be as mean a cranky ******* as they want at all times! Arizona Heaven!

    Yesterday, a Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed Republican Debbie Lesko's HB2625 by a vote of 6-2, which would [B]allow an employer to request proof that a woman using insurance to buy birth control was being prescribed the birth control for reasons other than not wanting to get pregnant.[/B] It's all about freedom, she said, echoing everyone who thinks there's nothing ironic about claiming that a country that's "free" allows people's bosses to dictate what medical care is available to them through insurance. First amendment. The constitution. Rights of religious people to practice the treasured tenets of their faiths, the tenets that dictate that religious people get to tell everyone who is not of faith how they're supposed to live, and the freedom to have that faith enforced by law. Freedom®.

    Further, Lesko states, with a straight face, that this bill is necessary because "we live in America; we don't live in the Soviet Union."

    Ah, yes, the Soviet Union. The sort of place where a woman might think about getting birth control through an insurance plan to which she contributes premiums without having to show her boss her prescription in order to prove that she wasn't using it to not get pregnant. The Soviet Union. A hellscape where women don't run the risk of losing their jobs over their sexual practices. What a horrible, awful place where herds of sluts run wild like feral ponies, humping everything in sight. The nightmare of unwilling motherhood evaded is a constant spectre in The Motherland.

    Anyway, this bill probably won't get anywhere; it violates all sorts of privacy laws and I can't imagine that female citizens of Arizona would be in favor of having their rights further legislated away by a chamber of mostly dudes trying to win votes from Team Jerk Version of Jesus. But that doesn't make it any less depressing. In fact, it's almost depressing enough to make a lady consider building a time machine so that she can take it back to 1985 and find some job security in the Soviet Union.[/QUOTE]

    It's a convoluted mess but the intent of the law is to allow employers to opt out of mandatory coverage of birth control for religious reasons.

    There is no reason for these mandates and the crappy laws that will crop up to get around them are simply a result of the mandate. Why is the Federal government mandating that private companies must include coverage for birth control?

    The Federal government is being highly intrusive and forcing the State to push back in highly intrusive ways. It’s a bad law trying to circumvent bad law. In a free society women should be able to purchase whatever they want and health insurance should cover checkups and catastrophic care.

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4397823]Law Will Allow Employers to Fire Women for Using Whore Pills

    A proposed new law in Arizona would give employers the power to request that women being prescribed birth control pills provide proof that they're using it for non-sexual reasons.[/QUOTE]

    A staggeringly bad Law. Obscene almost.

    Regardless of if the intent it to cicumvent the Obamacare Mandate on Religious Employers or not, this proposed Law is patently offensive.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,257
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4397842]LMAO @ this country.

    I also think that credit card companies should be allowed to refuse to let people use rewards points for hotel rooms if said hotel rooms were going to be used to engage in sexual activity that does NOT result in pregnancy.[/QUOTE]


    LOL, we really are laser-focused on the important issues. And one of the lead stories on msnbc.com, "Hoops shot made from helicopter!".

    But I'm mostly concerned about making sure no more criminals get on American Idols. Dems are really soft on that, imho. :mad:

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4397886]A staggeringly bad Law. Obscene almost.

    Regardless of if the intent it to cicumvent the Obamacare Mandate on Religious Employers or not, this proposed Law is patently offensive.[/QUOTE]

    Classic case of stupid begets stupider.

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,997
    The attacks on women continue. Keep digging that hole.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=parafly;4398083]The attacks on women continue. Keep digging that hole.[/QUOTE]

    I agree.

    But I'd also point out that "The War on Women" is a pretty loltastic joke tbh, given that Abortion has killed far more women (er, "potential" women) that an y (R) Policy ever has, that debates over free birth control and abortion limits doesn't really amount to a "war" on women, and that it's generally Liberals who sidle up (geopolitically) with regimes that have horrendus records on womans rights. The hyperbole and hypocricy in using a term like "War on Women" is pretty deep my fried, pretty deep.

  9. #9
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,533
    I opened this thread eagerly hoping that a pill had been created that turns women into whores.

    I am dissapoint.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,997
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4398111]I agree.

    But I'd also point out that "The War on Women" is a pretty loltastic joke tbh, given that Abortion has killed far more women (er, "potential" women) that an y (R) Policy ever has, that debates over free birth control and abortion limits doesn't really amount to a "war" on women, and that it's generally Liberals who sidle up (geopolitically) with regimes that have horrendus records on womans rights. The hyperbole and hypocricy in using a term like "War on Women" is pretty deep my fried, pretty deep.[/QUOTE]

    I don't believe there is a major "War on Women," but the way this entire contraception debate has been framed by the right has been grossly mismanaged from the beginning.

    Even though this is just a state law proposition, it's another example that can be used against them.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=parafly;4398132]I don't believe there is a major "War on Women," but the way this entire contraception debate has been framed by the right has been grossly mismanaged from the beginning.[/quote]

    Absolutely, the organized (R) side has grossly flubbed the "issue", which is frankly a non-issue, right from the start.

    With that said, it's been pushing the entire way by a liberal-leaning mainstream media, including at the very beginning, when a certain former Democrat Official-cum-media-head starting asking about States banning contraception, before that "issue" was ever raised, and culminating in an obviously political-minded decision to forgo decades of support for "seperation of church and state", and start having the State mandate that Religious Employers must provide in their choices of coverage plan purchases, both birthc ontrol and abortion, under the misnomer fo "womens health".

    It's dishonest, in my view, to leave out that this is a three sided issue. The (D)'s pushing it, because as a social wedge isue it helps them, the Media assisting (D) in that endeavor by pushing it as an issue (when it's not) above other more pressing (and less (D) friendly) issues.......and of course the (R), who have absolutel flubbed this basic test of distraction-issue politics 101, so badly in fact it calls into question their very abillity to lead at all..

    [quote]Even though this is just a state law proposition, it's another example that can be used against them.[/QUOTE]

    Agreed. Shooting off one's nose to spite one's face.

  12. #12
    [IMG]http://i454.photobucket.com/albums/qq262/rustybindings/417351_407760172582833_108038612554992_1567513_949445418_n.jpg[/IMG]

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,997
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4398161]Absolutely, the organized (R) side has grossly flubbed the "issue", which is frankly a non-issue, right from the start.

    With that said, it's been pushing the entire way by a liberal-leaning mainstream media, including at the very beginning, when a certain former Democrat Official-cum-media-head starting asking about States banning contraception, before that "issue" was ever raised, and culminating in an obviously political-minded decision to forgo decades of support for "seperation of church and state", and start having the State mandate that Religious Employers must provide in their choices of coverage plan purchases, both birthc ontrol and abortion, under the misnomer fo "womens health".

    It's dishonest, in my view, to leave out that this is a three sided issue. The (D)'s pushing it, because as a social wedge isue it helps them, the Media assisting (D) in that endeavor by pushing it as an issue (when it's not) above other more pressing (and less (D) friendly) issues.......and of course the (R), who have absolutel flubbed this basic test of distraction-issue politics 101, so badly in fact it calls into question their very abillity to lead at all..



    Agreed. Shooting off one's nose to spite one's face.[/QUOTE]

    Agreed in general.

    One question I have is wasn't this contraception mandate in place since Obamacare was signed into law? From my understanding, this isn't something that was triggered recently, it simply came into the spotlight because it's going into effect now/soon.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=parafly;4398199]Agreed in general.

    One question I have is wasn't this contraception mandate in place since Obamacare was signed into law? From my understanding, this isn't something that was triggered recently, it simply came into the spotlight because it's going into effect now/soon.[/QUOTE]

    Yes and no. Some of it was, but like alot of Federal Law these days, once passed, it has to go through a lengthy process of becoming enforeable regulation at the Federal Dept. Level.

    The questions about it started (from the media) before the official decision was made (by the Administration) as to how Religious Employers would be treated (or excepted/not excepted) under the Law.

    It was the decision to not except Religious Employers, i.e. forcing them to buy coverage that pays for contraception and abortion, that started the debate.

    That led to the hearing on the topic, which (despite talk to the contrary) was not about contraception or abortion themselves, but on the mandate and the issues involving State vs. Church. Can teh State over-rule the "Seperation" and make Churches buy something (in this case coverage that covered X and Y) that their faith mandates is evil or bad or whathaveyou. No women were invited, because the issue wasn't women, it was pure Constitution, and the power the States has (or does not have) to force the Church to do something. As such it was all various Church Leader/Employer types invited to speak.

    The (D), smartly, used it poltiically to force the issue onto contracpetiona nd abortion instead of Church vs. State. They forced that the 30 year old law student get to speak, despite having no basis to do so on the Church vs. State argument, but instead to activist for her cause de jour, i.e. contraception and abortion ont he state dime (or mandated by the State, even if paid privately) as a human right.

    Hence where we stand today.

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,888
    [QUOTE=shakin318;4398126]I opened this thread eagerly hoping that a pill had been created that turns women into whores.

    I am dissapoint.[/QUOTE]

    me 2

    However, I've decided to create a Whore Registry for these poor women, where they can store personal info and nude pix of themselves safely.

    I am a great humanitarian. :cool:

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,997
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4398240]Yes and no. Some of it was, but like alot of Federal Law these days, once passed, it has to go through a lengthy process of becoming enforeable regulation at the Federal Dept. Level.

    The questions about it started (from the media) before the official decision was made (by the Administration) as to how Religious Employers would be treated (or excepted/not excepted) under the Law.

    It was the decision to not except Religious Employers, i.e. forcing them to buy coverage that pays for contraception and abortion, that started the debate.

    That led to the hearing on the topic, which (despite talk to the contrary) was not about contraception or abortion themselves, but on the mandate and the issues involving State vs. Church. Can teh State over-rule the "Seperation" and make Churches buy something (in this case coverage that covered X and Y) that their faith mandates is evil or bad or whathaveyou. No women were invited, because the issue wasn't women, it was pure Constitution, and the power the States has (or does not have) to force the Church to do something. As such it was all various Church Leader/Employer types invited to speak.

    The (D), smartly, used it poltiically to force the issue onto contracpetiona nd abortion instead of Church vs. State. They forced that the 30 year old law student get to speak, despite having no basis to do so on the Church vs. State argument, but instead to activist for her cause de jour, i.e. contraception and abortion ont he state dime (or mandated by the State, even if paid privately) as a human right.

    Hence where we stand today.[/QUOTE]

    Thanks for the explanation.

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=parafly;4398132]I don't believe there is a major "War on Women," but the way this entire contraception debate has been framed by the right has been grossly mismanaged from the beginning.

    Even though this is just a state law proposition, it's another example that can be used against them.[/QUOTE]

    We also have to give women enough credit to think for themselves. There are plenty who don't look at this as a "war on women", but rather one side manipulating women's issues, concerns, etc. for their own political agenda.

    So if anything, they're disgusted by what the left is doing, not the right . . .

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,197
    [QUOTE=brady's a catcher;4397908]...And one of the lead stories on msnbc.com, "Hoops shot made from helicopter!"....[/QUOTE]

    [IMG]http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/uu190/PlumberKhan/StokesChopperShotjpg.jpg[/IMG]

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,997
    [QUOTE=OCCH;4398362]So if anything, they're disgusted by what the left is doing, not the right . . .[/QUOTE]

    Some women but they are definitely in the minority.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=parafly;4398442]Some women but they are definitely in the minority.[/QUOTE]

    If you say so. I admittedly don't hang around with a bunch of liberal people, but I don't know too many women who are truly up in arms about paying $10 for birth control, or hearing Rush use deragatory words.

    I do, however, know ones who think it's ridiculous the media/Democrats are trying to make such a big deal about this.

    In the end, women are gonna vote for who they were going to vote for a month ago . . .

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us