> Now, sure, this could be because women and others who can get pregnant are getting a benefit that they are not getting
I strongly disagree on that. As a guy - as a guy who does not want kids - let me say, disregarding all the terrible, terrifying health aspects of it, I definitely get a benefit from my wife not having kids if she also doesn't want them... that seems to be a pretty unisex "benefit"...
One of the things that have benefitted republicans is that pro-forced birth voters tend to be one-issue voters. They’ll vote for Jack the Ripper if he promised to outlaw abortion.
Most people who identify as pro-choice haven’t been single issue voters but that seems to be changing now.
Do pregnant people sometimes get some special treatment at work? Yes. Do we need women willing to be pregnant to continue our species, and not having miscarriages from complications or manual labor? Yes. Suck it up, buttercups. Men don't have to be pregnant, go through labor, don't breastfed, don't menstrate, or have a menopause.
Twitter is full of garbage. One wingnut thread includes one saying it is a ruse to allow DOJ to stonewall the House Gop from getting info. Same thread says according to Turley on FOX this is "very bad news." So surprised that Turdley said something stupid and false.
Are we sure all this "bad reviews of senior management" was due to abortion support? And that workers got raises for complaining? Seems coincidental, Fortune magazine!
Cost of living has increased a lot in the last few years. And I can see workers (engineers?) being mad about wages more than mad about abortion.
Companies with whiny man-babies who cry about abortion benefits should have offered those employees free and entirely mandatory castration services as a companion benefit
I'm still mind-boggled that those dudes think it's a "benefit" to have travel costs reimbursed for abortion care, to the point where they got a pay raise across the board when there might not even be anyone in their company AT ALL who needs to use that "benefit". They're simply pissed off at just the *idea* that someone might eventually get something they have no access to.
Also, too, while they'd have no problem with any accommodation needed for an employee with a disability, it's absolutely beyond the ken when that accommodation will only apply to women because, well, software engineers.
That seems to pretty much sum up the conservative mindset. They don't like benefits that some undeserving other might be getting. Just don't mess with their benefits, 'cause they earned 'em.
It's not like companies are providing women with a two week cruise around the Caribbean with flights to and from the port on the company jet. You know, tokens of friendship the billionaire owners provide to Supreme Court justices, not actual benefits or bribes. I doubt any women enjoy that trip 500 miles for an abortion that used to be performed 20 miles away, but they enjoy an unwanted pregnancy even less.
I wonder whether those companies offering that benefit also offer it to the covered dependents of their male employees. If so, the rest of them need to STFU even harder.
"Maybe we should have listened to Republican Rep. Nancy Mace in June when she told The New York Times that our party is "not hearing from the rest of the electorate, the 95 percent of the folks who vote in elections. They’re hearing from the 5 percent who say, ‘You’re not Republican if you don’t want to ban abortions with no exceptions.’”
And maybe we should've considered the backlash that might come after we put enough conservative justices on the Supreme Court to make sure the federal right to abortion got struck down. WHOOPS! Did we do that?
Consider this message one big mea culpa on that one! It was shortsighted, and now that we see that decision might harm our unquenchable thirst for power, we humbly backtrack.
Besides, the Democrats made us do it! (Just kidding.)
Moving forward, please know that the Republican Party's hip new slogan, aimed at attracting the youth vote, is: "Abortion! We're totes OK with it!"
Anyhoo, here's hoping we can all move on as a nation from this minor, multidecade political miscalculation that stands to make us politically irrelevant for years to come. We really didn’t read the room, and we also really wanted to control women. Who knew such a thing might backfire?"
George W. Bush claimed to be a deeply religious Christian. If that was the case, the only thing he could have said when he stood on the rubble of 9/11 with a pair of megaphones would have been, "We forgive you."
Instead the brain surgeon attacks Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, but apparently did try to kill his daddy in the 1980s, and he needed to seek vengeance.
Extra points for "cafones."
Yeah, I like that one too!
> Now, sure, this could be because women and others who can get pregnant are getting a benefit that they are not getting
I strongly disagree on that. As a guy - as a guy who does not want kids - let me say, disregarding all the terrible, terrifying health aspects of it, I definitely get a benefit from my wife not having kids if she also doesn't want them... that seems to be a pretty unisex "benefit"...
So you aren't an incel, right? You might want to rethink your line of deductions.
Yes, by all means, let’s do everything we possibly can to assuage the butthurt of the male whiny-baby assholes and their oh so tender feefees.
I’ve got a couple of ideas, but I’m pretty sure my account would be murderized if I presented them. (They’re really good ideas! Honest!)
One of the things that have benefitted republicans is that pro-forced birth voters tend to be one-issue voters. They’ll vote for Jack the Ripper if he promised to outlaw abortion.
Most people who identify as pro-choice haven’t been single issue voters but that seems to be changing now.
Lots of bumper stickers here saying "I'm Catholic and I vote", which signifies single issue to me.
I don't have a bumper sticker, but "I'm Catholic and I vote." Just not the way the stickers imply.
Do pregnant people sometimes get some special treatment at work? Yes. Do we need women willing to be pregnant to continue our species, and not having miscarriages from complications or manual labor? Yes. Suck it up, buttercups. Men don't have to be pregnant, go through labor, don't breastfed, don't menstrate, or have a menopause.
So can women get a pay bump for having to pay for prostate exams?
...and boner pills? and vasectomies?
Whiny babies sniff "special treatment! special rights!" like their boner pills aren't covered.
I thought boner pills were always covered.
Twitter is full of garbage. One wingnut thread includes one saying it is a ruse to allow DOJ to stonewall the House Gop from getting info. Same thread says according to Turley on FOX this is "very bad news." So surprised that Turdley said something stupid and false.
On the "Huffy male workers":
Are we sure all this "bad reviews of senior management" was due to abortion support? And that workers got raises for complaining? Seems coincidental, Fortune magazine!
Cost of living has increased a lot in the last few years. And I can see workers (engineers?) being mad about wages more than mad about abortion.
Companies with whiny man-babies who cry about abortion benefits should have offered those employees free and entirely mandatory castration services as a companion benefit
How about this scenario, then, sad gentlemen employees: "sorry about losing that insurance coverage for the cost of your boner pills"
"Which is exactly why the GOP is doing everything they can to prevent those votes. "
Or, they could just, you know, adapt their policy position to match voter preferences? Problem solved? What am I missing here.
But then how would they be able to control women?
That their actual goal is to harm as many people as possible.
So I'm not missing anything, is what you're saying.
people are more than happy to vote for anti-abortion Republicans but less happy to vote to make abortion illegal.
----------------------
There's that R pretzel logic I live to despise. Only to Rs does this make any sense. You assholes are fucking morons. Who's zooming who here?
As for the 'males' who are all butt hurt over abortion -- FUCK YOU.
I'm still mind-boggled that those dudes think it's a "benefit" to have travel costs reimbursed for abortion care, to the point where they got a pay raise across the board when there might not even be anyone in their company AT ALL who needs to use that "benefit". They're simply pissed off at just the *idea* that someone might eventually get something they have no access to.
I'm...help me, my brain hurts.
Also, too, while they'd have no problem with any accommodation needed for an employee with a disability, it's absolutely beyond the ken when that accommodation will only apply to women because, well, software engineers.
That seems to pretty much sum up the conservative mindset. They don't like benefits that some undeserving other might be getting. Just don't mess with their benefits, 'cause they earned 'em.
It's not like companies are providing women with a two week cruise around the Caribbean with flights to and from the port on the company jet. You know, tokens of friendship the billionaire owners provide to Supreme Court justices, not actual benefits or bribes. I doubt any women enjoy that trip 500 miles for an abortion that used to be performed 20 miles away, but they enjoy an unwanted pregnancy even less.
That seems like a really dubious anecdote. Like the reporter looked at the numbers and made up the reason behind them.
Not that there aren't stupid guys out there but I think the explanation isn't so simple.
I was just thinking this same thing.
Males like this are fubar dickheads.
Privileged manbabies.
I wonder whether those companies offering that benefit also offer it to the covered dependents of their male employees. If so, the rest of them need to STFU even harder.
Good question!
"Maybe we should have listened to Republican Rep. Nancy Mace in June when she told The New York Times that our party is "not hearing from the rest of the electorate, the 95 percent of the folks who vote in elections. They’re hearing from the 5 percent who say, ‘You’re not Republican if you don’t want to ban abortions with no exceptions.’”
And maybe we should've considered the backlash that might come after we put enough conservative justices on the Supreme Court to make sure the federal right to abortion got struck down. WHOOPS! Did we do that?
Consider this message one big mea culpa on that one! It was shortsighted, and now that we see that decision might harm our unquenchable thirst for power, we humbly backtrack.
Besides, the Democrats made us do it! (Just kidding.)
Moving forward, please know that the Republican Party's hip new slogan, aimed at attracting the youth vote, is: "Abortion! We're totes OK with it!"
Anyhoo, here's hoping we can all move on as a nation from this minor, multidecade political miscalculation that stands to make us politically irrelevant for years to come. We really didn’t read the room, and we also really wanted to control women. Who knew such a thing might backfire?"
OOPS!
https://news.yahoo.com/post-ohio-message-republicans-abortion-193516828.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_03
Ohio Governor Mike Dewine has now suggested that perhaps we need a compromise on the 6-week ban.
Nothing makes a Republican want to sit down and seriously negotiate like being beaten like they owed Kaiser Soze money.
We need some Salty Jewish Folks to smack the "judeo christians" down.
Life beginning at conception is only a Catholic thing.
I think some Jewish groups are planning to sue the states on religious grounds.
Well, technically, it's also a "Republican Evangelical" thing.
I always say "you're either a Christian, or a Republican, since it's literally impossible to be both."
George W. Bush claimed to be a deeply religious Christian. If that was the case, the only thing he could have said when he stood on the rubble of 9/11 with a pair of megaphones would have been, "We forgive you."
Instead the brain surgeon attacks Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, but apparently did try to kill his daddy in the 1980s, and he needed to seek vengeance.
Oh yeah.
https://news.yahoo.com/christianity-today-editor-evangelicals-call-163440579.htm
Christianity Today Editor: Evangelicals Call Jesus “Liberal” and “Weak”
God, that's really something!