…complete with a late-afternoon super-soaker battle, X-box 360 gaming, movies and ghost stories around a bonfire.

Teresa’s last blog post..“Sit down, shut up, and take off that scarf…welcome to the home of the free.”

I should have made it more clear - the actual text that is in question is what I quoted: “An employer cannot institute an occupational qualification that an employee or applicant seek or obtain an abortion.”

Judges on the right aren’t going to read language more broadly than written (and this is written rather narrowly); those on the left aren’t going to want to read too much into this particular statute, so I think it’s a non-issue. To me, preventing an employer from saying, “You have to abort if you want to continue to work here,” is pretty basic.

The “coercion” requirement doesn’t apply to employers, presumably, because they are covered by a more specific section.

I read the link you particularly recommended, and the objections I saw described went along the lines of there being not enough definition of what constitutes “coersion” in the bill. In other words, a doctor is put in the position of having to read the woman’s mind and is responsible for dicerning wether she is being coersed or not.

An employer who puts a woman in a lower-pay bracket because she can no longer perform her job due to pregnancy could be seen as “coercing” an abortion…despite it being the regular course of business (presuming maintaining her full duties is impossible or unhealthy for the mother)…and having nothing to do at all with the employer coercing her to have an abortion.

A man frankly discussion his emotional reactions to an unplanned pregnancy could be interpreted as coercing her to end the pregnancy.

Wether these interpretations are valid or not (haven’t had a chance to look at the wording of the bill), those are the actual objections raised in the article. The person in no wise expresses a desire to see women coerced into having an abortion.

Teresa’s last blog post..Wrong. But funny in a wrong sort of way.

If you read any of them, read the Coathanger blog one. It’s the one from which I took the final quote (regarding making abortion a condition of employment). I’m sickened that someone who would call herself anything BUT anti-choice and pro-abortion would say that such a requirement is a bad thing.

Of course you strenuously disagree…no problem there…

That’s the whole reason I’m interested in talking to you.

I hope to have a spare moment to check out the links you rprovided more thuroughly after I am done replaceing the faucet in my kitchen sink…which will probably take all day. My dishwasher broke down at the same time as the kitchen sink faucet. Can’t let those dishes pile up so…everything else is on hold as soon as the hardware store opens…

grumble.

Teresa’s last blog post..Hate or not hate?

Your last comment is thought provoking. I tend to agree with some of it and disagree with other parts to varying degrees. I am not yet (I don’t know that I ever will be) about some of the issues you raise.

I think the financial support should come from the father first and I believe his refusal to help should be criminally punishable. I believe the bulk of any assistance should be through charity and not government. As part of this, I believe the government should butt-out of many things, including charity regulation. As for the inevitable argument that anti-abortion people don’t care, I offer examples such as Arms Of Love in Alton, IL. My family donated regularly to this organization that provided for pregnant women and women with young children. When we left the area, they were opening a facility in a building that was formerly a nursing home, that would provide a place to stay until they could get on their feet.

I do believe that government assistance is acceptable as a last resort and should be greatly restricted in comparison to its current availability. Public Aid should not buy alcohol and cigarettes for the mother or her boyfriend. It should be temporary.

As for the “burden to sustain life that benefits someone else,” except in the case of rape, the “burden” was a product of a choice. Again, the father should be legally bound to as equal a share of the burden as possible. (No, I am not minimizing what only a woman can do, which is why I say as equal as possible.)

As far as retaining employment, I can see no way that could work without an unjust government intrusion on the employer. The employer, unless he is the father, played no role in the act of becoming pregnant. I believe that it should be left to the employer to decide to retain the employee, as I believe they should if they can afford to and not hurt their business.

You have certainly given me cause to examine my position.

Sam Pierce’s last blog post..“Big Brother” Barry On Rationing And Michelle’s Big Mouth

I concur. I can see how feminists may want to ensure that women don’t die in back-alley abortions, but this is nuts.

While there is no right to commmit a crime safely, and it is not the job of the government to ensure that we can commit crimes without harming ourselves, there is some need, IMHO, to ensure that women aren’t forced into back-alley abortions. I would say, first and foremost, that such includes financial support for pregnancy, prenatal care, labour and delivery, and child support from the father. While I’m very libertarian, I do understand that pregnant women have a burden to sustain a life that benefits someone else, at her expense, and cannot be outsourced. To some extent, I do think that our society ought to share some of the burden of pregnancy, to whatever extent practicable. That would include, though, getting the father to pay up, ensuring that pregnant women can retain their employment, ensuring that women aren’t coerced into abortions, and providing resources for those too poor to help themselves. Oddly, those are pretty much the exact provisions of this bill at issue.

One can only conclude that feminists want women to have back-alley abortions…? Or, to be less snide, that they want women to have no other options BUT abortion, so that they can say, “Women need abortion!” and keep it legal.

I will strenuously disagree with you. Those quotes are from pro-choice advocates and pro-choice blogs. I’m not making them up or repeating pro-lifers. Those are the justifications that they use to oppose this bill.

If you don’t believe me, click on the links. Until then, I don’t want to hear pretzel logic - because there is little reason for me to impute rationale to people who do not espouse it themselves.

By the way, gun advocates SHOULD oppose trigger guards. Also, guns, unlike abortions, are actually protected by the Constitution (and not by some screwed-up interpretation thereof devised for the sole purpose of making social policy). Trigger guards - how does that work when someone’s in your house? How does that work if they fail - like fingerprint recognition? How does it meet Constitutional muster?

Or it could be that there is actually some other tiny little rider in the bill that the legislator actually objects to, but the interested groups are framing it this way to build false outrage.

Like when all the religious-types were up-in-arms about that teacher that was supposedly fired for having a Bible in his desk, andit turns out that it’s actually because he was prostelitizing in class and was accused of burning the shape of the cross into a student’s arm.

It just got reported in a scewed way and people passed it on, ’cause, who would lie about something like that, and it was reported the same way in lots of places and seemed to check out?

Teresa’s last blog post..Hate or not hate?

Sam Pierce’s last blog post..“Big Brother” Barry On Rationing And Michelle’s Big Mouth