Fair characterization?

[Bob78164]

I received an e-mail a short time ago claiming that last night, the House passed a bill that would allow employers to fire women employees for using birth control. I am somewhat skeptical that the House would pass a bill so brazen. Does anyone know what actually happened? --Bob

[TheConfessor]

Does anyone know what actually happened?

Maybe your spam filter quit working.

[silvercamaro]

I received an e-mail a short time ago claiming that last night, the House passed a bill that would allow employers to fire women employees for using birth control. I am somewhat skeptical that the House would pass a bill so brazen. Does anyone know what actually happened? --Bob

Who sent the email? Perhaps there is a group of wacko, paranoid left-wingers out there.

[BackInTex]

Apparently the Washington Post got the same email.

Though it is not exactly what your email said was happening. Your email was filtered through the fanatical lens of a far left person.

[BackInTex]

Btw, I Googled "house bill allowing employers to fire women using birth control" and found it right away.

[Bob78164]

Apparently the Washington Post got the same email.

Though it is not exactly what your email said was happening. Your email was filtered through the fanatical lens of a far left person.

The House bill (which has no chance of becoming law) would disapprove D.C.'s passage of a bill prohibiting employers from making employment decisions based on an employee's reproductive health choices. In other words, under current law, if an employer somehow learns that a woman uses birth control, or chooses to have an abortion, there's no legal impediment to the employer firing her for that reason. Reproductive health choices are not a protected category under employment law. (Similarly, in many states there is no legal impediment to an employer firing someone solely based on their sexual orientation.)

D.C.'s law would change that. The House voted (futilely) to disapprove that law. The e-mail, therefore, strikes me as a fair characterization of the House's action.

For those who are wondering, the e-mail came from the DNC. --Bob

[BackInTex]

The House bill (which has no chance of becoming law) would disapprove D.C.'s passage of a bill prohibiting employers from making employment decisions based on an employee's reproductive health choices. In other words, under current law, if an employer somehow learns that a woman uses birth control, or chooses to have an abortion, there's no legal impediment to the employer firing her for that reason. Reproductive health choices are not a protected category under employment law. (Similarly, in many states there is no legal impediment to an employer firing someone solely based on their sexual orientation.)

D.C.'s law would change that. The House voted (futilely) to disapprove that law. The e-mail, therefore, strikes me as a fair characterization of the House's action.

For those who are wondering, the e-mail came from the DNC. --Bob

I'm just thankful you can still fire someone for driving a Prius.

[Bob78164]

The House bill (which has no chance of becoming law) would disapprove D.C.'s passage of a bill prohibiting employers from making employment decisions based on an employee's reproductive health choices. In other words, under current law, if an employer somehow learns that a woman uses birth control, or chooses to have an abortion, there's no legal impediment to the employer firing her for that reason. Reproductive health choices are not a protected category under employment law. (Similarly, in many states there is no legal impediment to an employer firing someone solely based on their sexual orientation.)

D.C.'s law would change that. The House voted (futilely) to disapprove that law. The e-mail, therefore, strikes me as a fair characterization of the House's action.

For those who are wondering, the e-mail came from the DNC. --Bob

I'm just thankful you can still fire someone for driving a Prius.

Used to be (maybe still is) that you could get fired from a Detroit auto company for driving a Japanese car to work. --Bob

[a1mamacat]

Apparently the Washington Post got the same email.

Though it is not exactly what your email said was happening. Your email was filtered through the fanatical lens of a far left person.

The House bill (which has no chance of becoming law) would disapprove D.C.'s passage of a bill prohibiting employers from making employment decisions based on an employee's reproductive health choices. In other words, under current law, if an employer somehow learns that a woman uses birth control, or chooses to have an abortion, there's no legal impediment to the employer firing her for that reason. Reproductive health choices are not a protected category under employment law. (Similarly, in many states there is no legal impediment to an employer firing someone solely based on their sexual orientation.)

D.C.'s law would change that. The House voted (futilely) to disapprove that law. The e-mail, therefore, strikes me as a fair characterization of the House's action.

For those who are wondering, the e-mail came from the DNC. --Bob

There had better be one to fire men who use condoms, or have a vasectomy then...

[BackInTex]

There had better be one to fire men who use condoms, or have a vasectomy then...

There isn't. There isn't a law saying you can fire a woman for using birth control. Bob's side of the aisle always gets confused with the concept of liberty.

There wasn't a law saying anything, saying you couldn't, saying you could. No law. By default, in a land of liberty this means you can. Doesn't mean you should. Just that there is no law saying you can't.

D.C. passed a law saying you can't. This bill simply invalidates that law. This bill doesn't say you can, it just removes the law saying you can't.

Laws don't typically say you can do any particular thing. They almost exclusively are about what you can't do. Bob's side of the aisle thinks there is a finite list of things, actions, that can and should be listed thus laws written telling everyone not only what they can't do, but what they can. That is why they are constantly writing laws restricting our liberties,many times with unintended consequences. And when my side of the aisle tries to eliminate those restrictions, removing them becomes a new law "allowing" those things. Technically no, not new laws, but yes, now allowing something, but not purposefully.

[Bob Juch]

There had better be one to fire men who use condoms, or have a vasectomy then...

There isn't. There isn't a law saying you can fire a woman for using birth control. Bob's side of the aisle always gets confused with the concept of liberty.

There wasn't a law saying anything, saying you couldn't, saying you could. No law. By default, in a land of liberty this means you can. Doesn't mean you should. Just that there is no law saying you can't.

D.C. passed a law saying you can't. This bill simply invalidates that law. This bill doesn't say you can, it just removes the law saying you can't.

Laws don't typically say you can do any particular thing. They almost exclusively are about what you can't do. Bob's side of the aisle thinks there is a finite list of things, actions, that can and should be listed thus laws written telling everyone not only what they can't do, but what they can. That is why they are constantly writing laws restricting our liberties,many times with unintended consequences. And when my side of the aisle tries to eliminate those restrictions, removing them becomes a new law "allowing" those things. Technically no, not new laws, but yes, now allowing something, but not purposefully.

Actually here in Arizona there is a law saying you can fire a woman for using birth control.

[BackInTex]

Actually here in Arizona there is a law saying you can fire a woman for using birth control.

Nope. There isn't.

If you really think there is, list the law number and quote the section saying what you say it says.

[elwoodblues]

Deleted

[Bob Juch]

Actually here in Arizona there is a law saying you can fire a woman for using birth control.

Nope. There isn't.

If you really think there is, list the law number and quote the section saying what you say it says.

The bill, which passed in 2012, is HB 2625.

[Bob78164]

There had better be one to fire men who use condoms, or have a vasectomy then...

There isn't. There isn't a law saying you can fire a woman for using birth control. Bob's side of the aisle always gets confused with the concept of liberty.

There wasn't a law saying anything, saying you couldn't, saying you could. No law. By default, in a land of liberty this means you can. Doesn't mean you should. Just that there is no law saying you can't.

D.C. passed a law saying you can't. This bill simply invalidates that law. This bill doesn't say you can, it just removes the law saying you can't.

Laws don't typically say you can do any particular thing. They almost exclusively are about what you can't do. Bob's side of the aisle thinks there is a finite list of things, actions, that can and should be listed thus laws written telling everyone not only what they can't do, but what they can. That is why they are constantly writing laws restricting our liberties,many times with unintended consequences. And when my side of the aisle tries to eliminate those restrictions, removing them becomes a new law "allowing" those things. Technically no, not new laws, but yes, now allowing something, but not purposefully.

It seems simple to me. The Republicans (and I think they were all Republicans) voting for this law believe that employers should have the right to fire employees because of their reproductive health choices. They went out of their way to make this point by voting on a repealer that has no chance of becoming law. I think that's wrong (as do the local elected officials in D.C.) and I can't imagine why they thought it was a good idea. I hope they pay a political price for it. --Bob

[BackInTex]

Actually here in Arizona there is a law saying you can fire a woman for using birth control.

Nope. There isn't.

If you really think there is, list the law number and quote the section saying what you say it says.

The bill, which passed in 2012, is HB 2625.

That's the silly bill that says your can eat your ice cream with the chocolate on top or on the bottom.

Well, it doesn't actually say that, but it doesn't say you can't so I guess it does say it then.

Pretty much every law then says you can fire someone for reproductive choices, except those that say you can't.

[elwoodblues]

I looked up HB2625. It says employers may deny insurance coverage for birth control pills if the employee is taking the drug to prevent pregnancy and not for health concerns. I still disagree with it, but it does not say anyone can be fired for using birth control.

[Bob78164]

I looked up HB2625. It says employers may deny insurance coverage for birth control pills if the employee is taking the drug to prevent pregnancy and not for health concerns. I still disagree with it, but it does not say anyone can be fired for using birth control.

It doesn't need to. That's the current state of the law. D.C. wants to change its local law to prevent it. The House is voting to block D.C.'s attempt to do so. --Bob