House Votes to Allow D.C. Employers to Fire Women for Using Birth Control

originally posted by: buster2010
And the American Taliban just keeps wanting to force their Religious nonsense on the American people after all who needs Sharia when you have Christian dogma. This piece of nonsense should be viewed as respecting the establishment of religion and then thrown out along with the idiots that voted for it.

whose forcing whom here?

They are wanting to have the right to not have to provide that.......

And the liberal left is trying to FORCE them to....so whose forcing what?

Taliban huh? inflamitory much? please take that bs somewhere else buster, I dont see conservatives out lynching people in the streets, cutting gays heads off, or throwing them off of buildings...

Stop being so intellectually dishonest...

No one is trying to force people not to have birth control......period....

They can even have it if they want, they just dont want to pay for it.......its called RIGHTS, they arent trying to take that away

Take the drama somewhere else

THere is a hell of a lot more important things going on in this country then someones damn birth control

a reply to: schuyler

The house bill is to repeal (not sure that's the proper word) a law passed by the local DC government:

The DC BIll was amended only to clarify that it was not forcing any business to pay for anything having to do with reproduction (and why not is my question).

The original, and law, is to ensure that people are not discriminated against (fired) because of their reproductive health decisions. That people, human people, can practise their rights without fear of losing their livihood.

A new Washington, DC, law that prohibits employers from discriminating against workers on the basis of their reproductive decisions will take effect on Saturday despite a Thursday House vote to strike down the law.

jurist.org...

That is what the House of representatives has voted to overturn.

here is the full text of the DC law:

lims.dccouncil.us...

The bill simply expands the definition of "discrimination on the basis of sex" to include reproductive decsions.

There reasoning, as noted in the document is that there is a loophole that allows such discrimination.

Now posters are confused.

The house bill is to repeal this locally enacted law. Or, in actuality, a political publisity stunt.

The DC bill which is referenced above and was amended to clarify language in the bill and nothing else.

Without the law - employers, or anyone I suppose, could discriminate against people who made personal decisions about private reproductive matters, in any manner they might choose. This law makes such discrimination illegal in the District of Columbia. The right ring noise machine doing it's finest work - but this time at the expense of You and Me.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Without the law - employers, or anyone I suppose, could discriminate against people who made personal decisions about private reproductive matters, in any manner they might choose

bullcrap, loose verbage, and typical left wing spin........

Thats not what it does, what it does is make employers NOT have to pay for birth control if they do not choose to, thats not discrimination thats maintaining your rights....

It doesnt say that people cant use contraceptives...

Stop trying to spin this into something its not, you know it and I know it....

Again, is this the most pressing issue in the US? why are people focusing on this and not trying to fix the REAL problems?

progressive nutjobs i swear

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: FyreByrd
Its not pandering to anything, its letting businesses keep their rights to what they want to provide...

You made a bogus thread, with a bogus thread title , and its been pointed out its not even true
And youre worried about businesses providing birth control?

That's not quite right, the OP used the same link heading as ATS requests we should do. The thread is not bogus either, and the Washington Post story is essentially the same, because it's not just about contraception on offer by an employer, it's also about the mindset of anti-pill employers who would be allowed to sack someone, IF THEY KNEW that someone in their employ was using contraceptive...that's how stupid it gets, that much I agree, and obviously it's not going to ever be enforceable, unless any anti-pill employer can make the case. But anyone can see the sneakiness of it all, it's a sleeked piece of legislation, as Buster rightly says...the American Taliban.
The thing to keep in mind, is that the dogma of Salem was only a few hundred years ago, a mere half dozen lifetimes or less. What a misrepresentation of Christianity that was...by so-called Christians. Come to think of it, God help all the carrot pullers of this world, because they are doomed...except those on Capiltol hill of course!

I need to add this:

www.hrc.org...

This is pure political theatre:

The resolution to disapprove RHNDA was a late addition to the week’s floor schedule after the House Freedom Caucus demanded that House Republican Leadership schedule the vote. Although the House voted 228-192 to block RHNDA from going into effect, action by the Senate had to occur by May 2, when the 30-day period for congressional review expires. Because the Senate adjourned for the week before the House vote was taken, the resolution is effectively dead.

LOL - the House Freedom Caucus - really???? Orwellian Doublespeak at it's finest.

Who are the members of this (cough, cough) august body:

Wohoo - it's a 'by invitation only private-members only' club. How aristocratic of them:

www.politico.com...

The founding members include Republican Reps. Scott Garrett of New Jersey, Jim Jordan of Ohio, John Fleming of Louisiana, Matt Salmon of Arizona, Justin Amash of Michigan, Raúl Labrador of Idaho, Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, Ron DeSantis of Florida and Mark Meadows of North Carolina.


Read more: www.politico.com...

The Freedom Caucus will be an invite-only group, and members involved with the planning said they will invite around 30 lawmakers to join. If the caucus can boast a 29-person membership, it would be in a position to block Republican legislation that members don’t support.

Read more: www.politico.com...

And a boys club:

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: FyreByrd

Without the law - employers, or anyone I suppose, could discriminate against people who made personal decisions about private reproductive matters, in any manner they might choose

bullcrap, loose verbage, and typical left wing spin........

Thats not what it does, what it does is make employers NOT have to pay for birth control if they do not choose to, thats not discrimination thats maintaining your rights....

It doesnt say that people cant use contraceptives...

Stop trying to spin this into something its not, you know it and I know it....

Again, is this the most pressing issue in the US? why are people focusing on this and not trying to fix the REAL problems?

progressive nutjobs i swear

If you read the text of the DC bill is clearly states that they are expanding the definition of discrimination by sex to include reproduction decisions. Period. Read the Bill

The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES bill is about denying DC the ability to put that law into effect in DC only.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone having to pay for anything. Either the DC bill or the contraveneing bill. Which btw has no legal effect because it was passed after congress had adjourned - hence the RIGHT WING POLITICAL pandering.

It was never intended to stop the DC law only to cater to the religious wing nuts.

Only the right wing noise machine is claiming it has anything to do with requiring an employer to pay for reproductive health issues.

Read something, try to understand it, and then comment on it. Or not.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: FyreByrd


Thats not what it does, what it does is make employers NOT have to pay for birth control if they do not choose to, thats not discrimination thats maintaining your rights....

I hate slippery slope arguments but.. What prevents an employer from refusing to pay for more expensive medical care and saying it is on religious grounds, when the true reason is financial?

Has anyone ever been fired or discriminated at work for being on the pill or having an abortion? Seriously I'm just asking.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

whose forcing whom here?

Had you even bothered to read the article and see the vote count instead of whining about how there are more important things to worry about then you would know who is trying to force what on the people.

They are wanting to have the right to not have to provide that

No they are wanting the right to force their religious views on people that do not follow their religion.

And the liberal left is trying to FORCE them to....so whose forcing what?

The majority of the vote was Republican so don't try to start the liberal left whinefest. If the left is trying to force anything they are trying to force following the Constitution on the right.

Taliban huh? inflamitory much? please take that bs somewhere else buster, I dont see conservatives out lynching people in the streets, cutting gays heads off, or throwing them off of buildings...

They don't have to since that idiot Reagan thought it was such a great idea to turn the police force here in America into a paramilitary outfit.

No one is trying to force people not to have birth control......period.

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you? If you use birth control you can lose your job. No nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. Get a clue dude.

THere is a hell of a lot more important things going on in this country then someones damn birth control

Yes keep this ignorant whine up because America can concentrate on one thing at a time. As you said take the drama somewhere else.

originally posted by: HighFive

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: FyreByrd


Thats not what it does, what it does is make employers NOT have to pay for birth control if they do not choose to, thats not discrimination thats maintaining your rights....

I hate slippery slope arguments but.. What prevents an employer from refusing to pay for more expensive medical care and saying it is on religious grounds, when the true reason is financial?

Because money is their God.

They don't want anymore Hilliary's in Washington.

www.scientificamerican.com...

a reply to: buster2010

No he's right, there is nothing in that , that even eludes to the situation where you could be fired for using birth control.

You are not being honest, and you have the where-with-all to call someone else ignorant?

I'm with many of the other posters, why are so many focusing on this with the real problems we have?

Cities are in riots, people are being killed, there's going to be a "marshal law" military drill

And you're on about this?

If you were so worried about rights, then why isn't the focus on those issues above?

This OP is complete partisan crap. Why should employers be FORCED to pay for birth control. If I was a company I wouldn't want to pay for people's erection pills and recreational drugs.

The spin of this OP is making me dizzy.

ETA: If you are using birth control you are by definition having sex only for recreation which means no one should have to pay for your entertainment but you. However, if you decide to pay for my cable and internet I might be willing to change my mind.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: schuyler

So true, our country is literally burning, we have rioting in the streets, the police are out of control, our REAL basic rights for freedom are being torched, were in a 15 years war, were on the verge of WWWIII

And people think your employer paying for your contraception should be a focal point....

Our priorities are seriously screwed up, and is exactly the reason this country isin the mess its in...

Ignore all the big stuff ...."LOOK OVER THERE! BE MAD AT THAT!" (drops another bomb on another country)

First world problems.....

Seriously America, pull your heads out of your collective A$$es

It has to start somewhere. We have a leader that is always MIA in these times.Playing basketball or golfing . We have a corrupt Justice Dept , why should it not filter down ? "Stuff rolls downhill". It is not us that "has our heads in the proverbial collective ...." it is the current leadership over at least the last 10 years. We have had leadership that will put a twist on anything in the name of their political party . You know which one that is ( The OP contains the name of one major player. Hint Nancy Pelosi). We are supposed to have a transparent government (remember we have to pass the bill before you can know whats in it) . No Reid , Pelosi , the people should know whats in it before any bill goes to the floor for a vote. And these are just a couple of the 1000s of reasons our country is going downhill ...

originally posted by: Bone75
As with most "progressive" propaganda, I'm sure this is just a twisted version of a half truth.

Prove it.

a reply to: Metallicus

But didn't you know silly?

It is a "war on women" if we don't pay for birth control and on demand abortions.

originally posted by: Bone75
As with most "progressive" propaganda, I'm sure this is just a twisted version of a half truth.

I didn't even have to look at the link. All politicians waste time on bills that will never go anywhere, but republicans tend to create bills that infringe more on rights to privacy.

originally posted by: Metallicus
This OP is complete partisan crap. Why should employers be FORCED to pay for birth control. If I was a company I wouldn't want to pay for people's erection pills and recreational drugs.

The spin of this OP is making me dizzy.

ETA: If you are using birth control you are by definition having sex only for recreation which means no one should have to pay for your entertainment but you. However, if you decide to pay for my cable and internet I might be willing to change my mind.

Most health insurance covers 'erection pills' . I don't see useless bills written over and over to be able to fire men who use them. Basic health coverage should cover birth control, unless, you, personally can take in the unwanted children. You must have a very large home.

I am looking and see nothing of the sort of what the OP is claiming. It seems to be the Hobby Lobby problem, where people opposed to BC are forced to pay for it. This just seems to allow them to not pay for it.

Since no one can even tell if you are taking BC, it's impossible to be fired over it.

If someone requires a pill for hormone regulation because of a medical condition it should be covered, that's my opinion.