|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
America First Policies, a group started by some of President Donald Trump’s campaign advisers, is set to launch an advertising blitz against Nevada's Republican Sen. Dean Heller, who on Friday came out against the Senate's Obamacare repeal bill without significant changes.
Heller is up for re-election in 2018 and is seen as one of the most vulnerable Senate Republicans in that cycle.
The ad blitz is backed by more than a million dollars, according to a source familiar with the planning, and the digital component is set to launch this weekend. The television and radio component will launch next week. Heller, according to the official, has also indicated privately to the White House that he is unlikely to get to “yes” on the current Senate version of the bill.
For America First Policies, the ad blitz is an opportunity to show that groups aligned with Trump’s base are ready to go to bat for the president.
"You do not want to mess with Donald Trump’s base in a primary, particularly in a place like Nevada,” said the source. “This kind of money in Nevada is real. … This is a beginning.”
The ad campaign will paint Heller as a “typical politician,” the source said, and will characterize him as standing with Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi against the White House.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/23/pro-trump-group-to-target-gop-sen-heller-over-health-care-bill-239911
|
Not really sure the state that elected Harry Reid for 30 years is going to be receptive to a bunch of super pro-Trump attack ads. This is a state actively working on a single payer healthcare system. But I am sure the state would love the money.
|
Maybe its a reverse attack then. Trump is attacking him for being an anti trump republican and that will boost him image in the state? The establishment can still support him because they're somehow apart from trump and he can win his seat more comfortably next cycle?
|
|
|
heller is more than likely gone next election, regardless.
|
A new Missouri bill would target abortion providers and sanction employment and housing discrimination against people who use birth control or have an abortion. Blessed be the fruit.
Yesterday, the Missouri House voted to pass SB 5, a bill imposing several highly burdensome and even more unnecessary restrictions on abortion providers; for example, the bill would require abortion providers to send fetal tissue samples to a pathologist within five days. While supporters of targeted restrictions of abortion providers (aka TRAP laws) claim they’re supporting women’s health, regulations like these often serve no medical purpose whatsoever. In reality, anti-choice legislators use them as a pretext to impose costs and red tape on abortion clinics, forcing them to close.
But SB 5 has another insidious purpose: to overturn a St. Louis ordinance that bans employers and landlords from discriminating against people on the basis of their reproductive health decisions. In other words, if SB 5 is passed, you could be evicted in the state of Missouri for having an abortion, using birth control, or becoming pregnant while unmarried.
This extremely common-sense city ordinance, which St. Louis passed this spring, was apparently Too Far for Missouri Governor Eric Greitens, who took to the press to complain about “radical politicians” making “St. Louis an abortion sanctuary city.” Ah, yes, the radical idea that an adult woman should be able to plan when, and whether, to have kids without risking her job or home. Greitens called state legislators back to the Capitol this summer specifically to overturn the St. Louis law, and to respond to the fact that Missouri’s last attempt to shut down abortion clinics ended up getting shut down by a federal judge.
The result of that special session is SB 5, which the Missouri Senate passed last Wednesday after 10 hours of negotiations behind closed doors. The House passed an amended, even more anti-choice version late yesterday.
That’s right. Missouri lawmakers are going out of their way to say that if an employer has a problem with you taking the pill, he can fire you – and he’ll have a seal of approval from the state of Missouri.
SB 5 puts women across Missouri at risk of losing their jobs or their homes: according to the CDC, 99% of sexually-active, reproductive-age women have used contraception. And whether or not someone is part of that 99% is none of their boss’ goddamn business. The state is outrageously, invasively giving employers and landlords the power to police highly personal choices women make about their bodies and lives. Missouri is sending the message that a woman’s livelihood, independence, even her ability to provide for her kids is all less important than her boss’ personal need to impose his narrow beliefs on her.
Missouri legislators may not have gotten the memo, but the Federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act already prohibits employment discrimination against women because they’ve had or considered an abortion. But federal protections for people who use birth control are less clear – and as the Trump Administration rolls back civil rights enforcement across the board, it’s imperative we maintain protections at the state and local levels.
As if all of this wasn’t enough, SB 5 also limits regulation of so-called “Crisis Pregnancy Centers” (anti-choice “clinics” that feed pregnant people misinformation to trick them out of having abortions), gives Missouri’s virulently anti-choice Attorney General Josh Hawley power to prosecute potential violations of Missouri’s TRAP laws, and allow the state to harass abortion clinics with unannounced inspections. The House’s version of the bill is headed back to the Senate, with amendments making it even harsher – and if it passes there it’ll head straight to Governor Greitens’ desk.
Are you in Missouri? Find your state representatives and call them to say you oppose SB 5, restrictions on reproductive freedom, and discrimination based on reproductive health decisions.
Source
This shocked me. Is it liberal fake news, or are some states actually interfearing with pople's sex life in this horrible manner?
|
my guess is the law is a more general religious exemptions/freedom bill that could theoretically be used in this way if people so choose. It's unlikely in my opinion however to go that far although technically it could and then it would be up to the courts to decide exactly what is covered.
It's also possible that this is incorrect/false reporting by an obviously partisan site. I'm too lazy to look into it more at the moment.
if what I'm reading is accurate that's just weird. I've never heard of right to discriminate based on that.
|
Missouri is attacking planned parenthood, which is likely the only group willing to provide medical services in Missouri because that state is fucking poor. So now they get no rural hospitals and no health clinics. Babies will be born in bathtubs.
Edit: the law is real and appears to contain a lot of the provision described.
Annual inspections of abortion clinics, pre-empting St. Louis ordinance part of House proposal
It seems like the state goverment is at war with the local goverment of Saint Louis, that wants to provide health services and abortions.
|
On June 24 2017 06:58 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +A new Missouri bill would target abortion providers and sanction employment and housing discrimination against people who use birth control or have an abortion. Blessed be the fruit.
Yesterday, the Missouri House voted to pass SB 5, a bill imposing several highly burdensome and even more unnecessary restrictions on abortion providers; for example, the bill would require abortion providers to send fetal tissue samples to a pathologist within five days. While supporters of targeted restrictions of abortion providers (aka TRAP laws) claim they’re supporting women’s health, regulations like these often serve no medical purpose whatsoever. In reality, anti-choice legislators use them as a pretext to impose costs and red tape on abortion clinics, forcing them to close.
But SB 5 has another insidious purpose: to overturn a St. Louis ordinance that bans employers and landlords from discriminating against people on the basis of their reproductive health decisions. In other words, if SB 5 is passed, you could be evicted in the state of Missouri for having an abortion, using birth control, or becoming pregnant while unmarried.
This extremely common-sense city ordinance, which St. Louis passed this spring, was apparently Too Far for Missouri Governor Eric Greitens, who took to the press to complain about “radical politicians” making “St. Louis an abortion sanctuary city.” Ah, yes, the radical idea that an adult woman should be able to plan when, and whether, to have kids without risking her job or home. Greitens called state legislators back to the Capitol this summer specifically to overturn the St. Louis law, and to respond to the fact that Missouri’s last attempt to shut down abortion clinics ended up getting shut down by a federal judge.
The result of that special session is SB 5, which the Missouri Senate passed last Wednesday after 10 hours of negotiations behind closed doors. The House passed an amended, even more anti-choice version late yesterday.
That’s right. Missouri lawmakers are going out of their way to say that if an employer has a problem with you taking the pill, he can fire you – and he’ll have a seal of approval from the state of Missouri.
SB 5 puts women across Missouri at risk of losing their jobs or their homes: according to the CDC, 99% of sexually-active, reproductive-age women have used contraception. And whether or not someone is part of that 99% is none of their boss’ goddamn business. The state is outrageously, invasively giving employers and landlords the power to police highly personal choices women make about their bodies and lives. Missouri is sending the message that a woman’s livelihood, independence, even her ability to provide for her kids is all less important than her boss’ personal need to impose his narrow beliefs on her.
Missouri legislators may not have gotten the memo, but the Federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act already prohibits employment discrimination against women because they’ve had or considered an abortion. But federal protections for people who use birth control are less clear – and as the Trump Administration rolls back civil rights enforcement across the board, it’s imperative we maintain protections at the state and local levels.
As if all of this wasn’t enough, SB 5 also limits regulation of so-called “Crisis Pregnancy Centers” (anti-choice “clinics” that feed pregnant people misinformation to trick them out of having abortions), gives Missouri’s virulently anti-choice Attorney General Josh Hawley power to prosecute potential violations of Missouri’s TRAP laws, and allow the state to harass abortion clinics with unannounced inspections. The House’s version of the bill is headed back to the Senate, with amendments making it even harsher – and if it passes there it’ll head straight to Governor Greitens’ desk.
Are you in Missouri? Find your state representatives and call them to say you oppose SB 5, restrictions on reproductive freedom, and discrimination based on reproductive health decisions. SourceThis shocked me. Is it liberal fake news, or are some states actually interfearing with pople's sex life in this horrible manner? It's a breaking story, but tomorrow should bring some more comprehensive write ups. Feministing may have a fair write up here, I don't know yet, but it has a strong editorial position on regulations involve abortions/abortion providers.
|
wouldn't that kind of law immediately be a violation of privacy? Like you can't ask them that on the forms right?
I mean in California thee's a massive list of what you're not allowed to ask during job interviews.
|
On June 24 2017 07:17 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: my guess is the law is a more general religious exemptions/freedom bill that could theoretically be used in this way if people so choose. It's unlikely in my opinion however to go that far although technically it could and then it would be up to the courts to decide exactly what is covered.
It's also possible that this is incorrect/false reporting by an obviously partisan site. I'm too lazy to look into it more at the moment.
if what I'm reading is accurate that's just weird. I've never heard of right to discriminate based on that.
If it's a specific law targeted against the Saint Louis ordinance designed at a special session by the legislature, it's hard to argue part of the purpose is not giving landlords that right. Having grown up in MO, it's an insantely weird place when it comes to rights-only place left in the country to not have a state-wide controlled prescription drug monitoring system, spent decades fighting seatbelt laws, even some resistance to distracted driving laws.
Fighting for the landlord's right to fire people for reproductive health decisions doesn't seem too far-fetched to me.
|
On June 24 2017 06:58 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +A new Missouri bill would target abortion providers and sanction employment and housing discrimination against people who use birth control or have an abortion. Blessed be the fruit.
Yesterday, the Missouri House voted to pass SB 5, a bill imposing several highly burdensome and even more unnecessary restrictions on abortion providers; for example, the bill would require abortion providers to send fetal tissue samples to a pathologist within five days. While supporters of targeted restrictions of abortion providers (aka TRAP laws) claim they’re supporting women’s health, regulations like these often serve no medical purpose whatsoever. In reality, anti-choice legislators use them as a pretext to impose costs and red tape on abortion clinics, forcing them to close.
But SB 5 has another insidious purpose: to overturn a St. Louis ordinance that bans employers and landlords from discriminating against people on the basis of their reproductive health decisions. In other words, if SB 5 is passed, you could be evicted in the state of Missouri for having an abortion, using birth control, or becoming pregnant while unmarried.
This extremely common-sense city ordinance, which St. Louis passed this spring, was apparently Too Far for Missouri Governor Eric Greitens, who took to the press to complain about “radical politicians” making “St. Louis an abortion sanctuary city.” Ah, yes, the radical idea that an adult woman should be able to plan when, and whether, to have kids without risking her job or home. Greitens called state legislators back to the Capitol this summer specifically to overturn the St. Louis law, and to respond to the fact that Missouri’s last attempt to shut down abortion clinics ended up getting shut down by a federal judge.
The result of that special session is SB 5, which the Missouri Senate passed last Wednesday after 10 hours of negotiations behind closed doors. The House passed an amended, even more anti-choice version late yesterday.
That’s right. Missouri lawmakers are going out of their way to say that if an employer has a problem with you taking the pill, he can fire you – and he’ll have a seal of approval from the state of Missouri.
SB 5 puts women across Missouri at risk of losing their jobs or their homes: according to the CDC, 99% of sexually-active, reproductive-age women have used contraception. And whether or not someone is part of that 99% is none of their boss’ goddamn business. The state is outrageously, invasively giving employers and landlords the power to police highly personal choices women make about their bodies and lives. Missouri is sending the message that a woman’s livelihood, independence, even her ability to provide for her kids is all less important than her boss’ personal need to impose his narrow beliefs on her.
Missouri legislators may not have gotten the memo, but the Federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act already prohibits employment discrimination against women because they’ve had or considered an abortion. But federal protections for people who use birth control are less clear – and as the Trump Administration rolls back civil rights enforcement across the board, it’s imperative we maintain protections at the state and local levels.
As if all of this wasn’t enough, SB 5 also limits regulation of so-called “Crisis Pregnancy Centers” (anti-choice “clinics” that feed pregnant people misinformation to trick them out of having abortions), gives Missouri’s virulently anti-choice Attorney General Josh Hawley power to prosecute potential violations of Missouri’s TRAP laws, and allow the state to harass abortion clinics with unannounced inspections. The House’s version of the bill is headed back to the Senate, with amendments making it even harsher – and if it passes there it’ll head straight to Governor Greitens’ desk.
Are you in Missouri? Find your state representatives and call them to say you oppose SB 5, restrictions on reproductive freedom, and discrimination based on reproductive health decisions. SourceThis shocked me. Is it liberal fake news, or are some states actually interfearing with pople's sex life in this horrible manner? From the Missouri Senate page http://www.senate.mo.gov/17info/BTS_Web/Summary.aspx?SessionType=S2&SummaryID=57757060&BillID=69407391:
A political subdivision is preempted from enacting, adopting, maintaining, or enforcing any order, ordinance, rule, regulation, policy, or other similar measure that: (1) prohibits, restricts, limits, controls, directs, interferes with, or otherwise adversely affects an alternatives to abortion agency or its officers', agents', employees', or volunteers' operations or speech; (2) has the purpose or effect of requiring a person to directly or indirectly participate in abortion if such participation is contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions; (3) requires a real estate broker, real estate salesperson, real estate broker-salesperson, appraisal firm, appraiser, property owner, or any other person to buy, sell, exchange, purchase, rent, lease, advertise for, or otherwise conduct real estate transactions for, to, or with an abortion facility or for, to, or with a person for the purpose of performing or inducing an abortion not necessary to save the life of the mother if such requirement is contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions; and (4) requires an employer, employee, health care provider, health plan provider, health plan sponsor, or any other person to provide coverage for or to participate in a health plan that includes benefits that are not otherwise required by state law. However, nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit any political subdivision from enacting, adopting, maintaining, or enforcing any order, ordinance, rule, regulation, policy, or other similar measure to assist pregnant women to carry their unborn children to term or to assist women in caring for their dependent children or placing them for adoption.
If you can't parse the legalese, the tl;dr is real news.
|
On June 24 2017 07:32 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: wouldn't that kind of law immediately be a violation of privacy? Like you can't ask them that on the forms right? Yes. That has never stopped state governments from passing these laws. And then they get overturned by the activist judges and the cycle continues.
|
On June 24 2017 07:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 07:17 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: my guess is the law is a more general religious exemptions/freedom bill that could theoretically be used in this way if people so choose. It's unlikely in my opinion however to go that far although technically it could and then it would be up to the courts to decide exactly what is covered.
It's also possible that this is incorrect/false reporting by an obviously partisan site. I'm too lazy to look into it more at the moment.
if what I'm reading is accurate that's just weird. I've never heard of right to discriminate based on that. If it's a specific law targeted against the Saint Louis ordinance designed at a special session by the legislature, it's hard to argue part of the purpose is not giving landlords that right. Having grown up in MO, it's an insantely weird place when it comes to rights-only place left in the country to not have a state-wide controlled prescription drug monitoring system, spent decades fighting seatbelt laws, even some resistance to distracted driving laws. Fighting for the landlord's right to fire people for reproductive health decisions doesn't seem too far-fetched to me.
I didn't read the thing correctly the first time and made assumptions. I need to stop doing that in general.
|
I guess the confusion here is that people think employers/landlords have a right to inspect personal affairs? Which the article itself never said.
But SB 5 has another insidious purpose: to overturn a St. Louis ordinance that bans employers and landlords from discriminating against people on the basis of their reproductive health decisions. In other words, if SB 5 is passed, you could be evicted in the state of Missouri for having an abortion, using birth control, or becoming pregnant while unmarried.
So basically interpret as written: An existing anti-discrimination ban is being overturned.
|
California is restricting publicly funded travel to four more states because of recent laws that leaders here view as discriminatory against gay and transgender people.
All totaled, California now bans most state-funded travel to eight states.
The new additions to California’s restricted travel list are Texas, Alabama, Kentucky and South Dakota.
They join Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee as states already subjected to the ban.
California Attorney Xavier Becerra announced the new states at a Thursday press conference, where he was joined by representatives from ACLU Northern California and Equality California.
“We will not spend taxpayer dollars in states that discriminate,” Becerra said. The Sacramento Bee
|
On June 24 2017 07:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 06:58 Slydie wrote:A new Missouri bill would target abortion providers and sanction employment and housing discrimination against people who use birth control or have an abortion. Blessed be the fruit.
Yesterday, the Missouri House voted to pass SB 5, a bill imposing several highly burdensome and even more unnecessary restrictions on abortion providers; for example, the bill would require abortion providers to send fetal tissue samples to a pathologist within five days. While supporters of targeted restrictions of abortion providers (aka TRAP laws) claim they’re supporting women’s health, regulations like these often serve no medical purpose whatsoever. In reality, anti-choice legislators use them as a pretext to impose costs and red tape on abortion clinics, forcing them to close.
But SB 5 has another insidious purpose: to overturn a St. Louis ordinance that bans employers and landlords from discriminating against people on the basis of their reproductive health decisions. In other words, if SB 5 is passed, you could be evicted in the state of Missouri for having an abortion, using birth control, or becoming pregnant while unmarried.
This extremely common-sense city ordinance, which St. Louis passed this spring, was apparently Too Far for Missouri Governor Eric Greitens, who took to the press to complain about “radical politicians” making “St. Louis an abortion sanctuary city.” Ah, yes, the radical idea that an adult woman should be able to plan when, and whether, to have kids without risking her job or home. Greitens called state legislators back to the Capitol this summer specifically to overturn the St. Louis law, and to respond to the fact that Missouri’s last attempt to shut down abortion clinics ended up getting shut down by a federal judge.
The result of that special session is SB 5, which the Missouri Senate passed last Wednesday after 10 hours of negotiations behind closed doors. The House passed an amended, even more anti-choice version late yesterday.
That’s right. Missouri lawmakers are going out of their way to say that if an employer has a problem with you taking the pill, he can fire you – and he’ll have a seal of approval from the state of Missouri.
SB 5 puts women across Missouri at risk of losing their jobs or their homes: according to the CDC, 99% of sexually-active, reproductive-age women have used contraception. And whether or not someone is part of that 99% is none of their boss’ goddamn business. The state is outrageously, invasively giving employers and landlords the power to police highly personal choices women make about their bodies and lives. Missouri is sending the message that a woman’s livelihood, independence, even her ability to provide for her kids is all less important than her boss’ personal need to impose his narrow beliefs on her.
Missouri legislators may not have gotten the memo, but the Federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act already prohibits employment discrimination against women because they’ve had or considered an abortion. But federal protections for people who use birth control are less clear – and as the Trump Administration rolls back civil rights enforcement across the board, it’s imperative we maintain protections at the state and local levels.
As if all of this wasn’t enough, SB 5 also limits regulation of so-called “Crisis Pregnancy Centers” (anti-choice “clinics” that feed pregnant people misinformation to trick them out of having abortions), gives Missouri’s virulently anti-choice Attorney General Josh Hawley power to prosecute potential violations of Missouri’s TRAP laws, and allow the state to harass abortion clinics with unannounced inspections. The House’s version of the bill is headed back to the Senate, with amendments making it even harsher – and if it passes there it’ll head straight to Governor Greitens’ desk.
Are you in Missouri? Find your state representatives and call them to say you oppose SB 5, restrictions on reproductive freedom, and discrimination based on reproductive health decisions. SourceThis shocked me. Is it liberal fake news, or are some states actually interfearing with pople's sex life in this horrible manner? From the Missouri Senate page http://www.senate.mo.gov/17info/BTS_Web/Summary.aspx?SessionType=S2&SummaryID=57757060&BillID=69407391:Show nested quote +A political subdivision is preempted from enacting, adopting, maintaining, or enforcing any order, ordinance, rule, regulation, policy, or other similar measure that: (1) prohibits, restricts, limits, controls, directs, interferes with, or otherwise adversely affects an alternatives to abortion agency or its officers', agents', employees', or volunteers' operations or speech; (2) has the purpose or effect of requiring a person to directly or indirectly participate in abortion if such participation is contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions; (3) requires a real estate broker, real estate salesperson, real estate broker-salesperson, appraisal firm, appraiser, property owner, or any other person to buy, sell, exchange, purchase, rent, lease, advertise for, or otherwise conduct real estate transactions for, to, or with an abortion facility or for, to, or with a person for the purpose of performing or inducing an abortion not necessary to save the life of the mother if such requirement is contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions; and (4) requires an employer, employee, health care provider, health plan provider, health plan sponsor, or any other person to provide coverage for or to participate in a health plan that includes benefits that are not otherwise required by state law. However, nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit any political subdivision from enacting, adopting, maintaining, or enforcing any order, ordinance, rule, regulation, policy, or other similar measure to assist pregnant women to carry their unborn children to term or to assist women in caring for their dependent children or placing them for adoption. If you can't parse the legalese, the tl;dr is real news.
If I understand correctly, all that legalese says is that renters etc. don't have to provide space for abortion services if they don't want to. It says nothing to the effect of "they can kick you out or refuse to rent to you if you've ever had an abortion." It just says they can refuse to allow abortions to occur (except to save the mother) on their property.
edit: and part (4) just says that employers and health care providers don't have to provide services that aren't required by state law (presumably, ...already? I don't get why there would be a law saying they don't have to do anything there isn't a law saying they have to do). Anyway part 4 doesn't mention abortion specifically, but reading between the lines says that it allows health insurance providers the right to deny coverage for abortions (or anything else they aren't legally required to cover).
|
On June 24 2017 07:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:I guess the confusion here is that people think employers/landlords have a right to inspect personal affairs? Which the article itself never said. Show nested quote +But SB 5 has another insidious purpose: to overturn a St. Louis ordinance that bans employers and landlords from discriminating against people on the basis of their reproductive health decisions. In other words, if SB 5 is passed, you could be evicted in the state of Missouri for having an abortion, using birth control, or becoming pregnant while unmarried. So basically interpret as written: An existing anti-discrimination ban is being overturned. I mean was this ordinance in response to landlords and employers getting away with firing for pregnancy or birth control? US News and World report called the city measure largely symbolic, prompting me to wonder if the practice was already banned by city and state anti discrimination law. See for example the pregnancy discrimination act, a victory for feminists around forty years ago, that already makes it a violation for employers to discriminate against that reproductive health decision.
|
On June 24 2017 07:54 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 07:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 24 2017 06:58 Slydie wrote:A new Missouri bill would target abortion providers and sanction employment and housing discrimination against people who use birth control or have an abortion. Blessed be the fruit.
Yesterday, the Missouri House voted to pass SB 5, a bill imposing several highly burdensome and even more unnecessary restrictions on abortion providers; for example, the bill would require abortion providers to send fetal tissue samples to a pathologist within five days. While supporters of targeted restrictions of abortion providers (aka TRAP laws) claim they’re supporting women’s health, regulations like these often serve no medical purpose whatsoever. In reality, anti-choice legislators use them as a pretext to impose costs and red tape on abortion clinics, forcing them to close.
But SB 5 has another insidious purpose: to overturn a St. Louis ordinance that bans employers and landlords from discriminating against people on the basis of their reproductive health decisions. In other words, if SB 5 is passed, you could be evicted in the state of Missouri for having an abortion, using birth control, or becoming pregnant while unmarried.
This extremely common-sense city ordinance, which St. Louis passed this spring, was apparently Too Far for Missouri Governor Eric Greitens, who took to the press to complain about “radical politicians” making “St. Louis an abortion sanctuary city.” Ah, yes, the radical idea that an adult woman should be able to plan when, and whether, to have kids without risking her job or home. Greitens called state legislators back to the Capitol this summer specifically to overturn the St. Louis law, and to respond to the fact that Missouri’s last attempt to shut down abortion clinics ended up getting shut down by a federal judge.
The result of that special session is SB 5, which the Missouri Senate passed last Wednesday after 10 hours of negotiations behind closed doors. The House passed an amended, even more anti-choice version late yesterday.
That’s right. Missouri lawmakers are going out of their way to say that if an employer has a problem with you taking the pill, he can fire you – and he’ll have a seal of approval from the state of Missouri.
SB 5 puts women across Missouri at risk of losing their jobs or their homes: according to the CDC, 99% of sexually-active, reproductive-age women have used contraception. And whether or not someone is part of that 99% is none of their boss’ goddamn business. The state is outrageously, invasively giving employers and landlords the power to police highly personal choices women make about their bodies and lives. Missouri is sending the message that a woman’s livelihood, independence, even her ability to provide for her kids is all less important than her boss’ personal need to impose his narrow beliefs on her.
Missouri legislators may not have gotten the memo, but the Federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act already prohibits employment discrimination against women because they’ve had or considered an abortion. But federal protections for people who use birth control are less clear – and as the Trump Administration rolls back civil rights enforcement across the board, it’s imperative we maintain protections at the state and local levels.
As if all of this wasn’t enough, SB 5 also limits regulation of so-called “Crisis Pregnancy Centers” (anti-choice “clinics” that feed pregnant people misinformation to trick them out of having abortions), gives Missouri’s virulently anti-choice Attorney General Josh Hawley power to prosecute potential violations of Missouri’s TRAP laws, and allow the state to harass abortion clinics with unannounced inspections. The House’s version of the bill is headed back to the Senate, with amendments making it even harsher – and if it passes there it’ll head straight to Governor Greitens’ desk.
Are you in Missouri? Find your state representatives and call them to say you oppose SB 5, restrictions on reproductive freedom, and discrimination based on reproductive health decisions. SourceThis shocked me. Is it liberal fake news, or are some states actually interfearing with pople's sex life in this horrible manner? From the Missouri Senate page http://www.senate.mo.gov/17info/BTS_Web/Summary.aspx?SessionType=S2&SummaryID=57757060&BillID=69407391:A political subdivision is preempted from enacting, adopting, maintaining, or enforcing any order, ordinance, rule, regulation, policy, or other similar measure that: (1) prohibits, restricts, limits, controls, directs, interferes with, or otherwise adversely affects an alternatives to abortion agency or its officers', agents', employees', or volunteers' operations or speech; (2) has the purpose or effect of requiring a person to directly or indirectly participate in abortion if such participation is contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions; (3) requires a real estate broker, real estate salesperson, real estate broker-salesperson, appraisal firm, appraiser, property owner, or any other person to buy, sell, exchange, purchase, rent, lease, advertise for, or otherwise conduct real estate transactions for, to, or with an abortion facility or for, to, or with a person for the purpose of performing or inducing an abortion not necessary to save the life of the mother if such requirement is contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions; and (4) requires an employer, employee, health care provider, health plan provider, health plan sponsor, or any other person to provide coverage for or to participate in a health plan that includes benefits that are not otherwise required by state law. However, nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit any political subdivision from enacting, adopting, maintaining, or enforcing any order, ordinance, rule, regulation, policy, or other similar measure to assist pregnant women to carry their unborn children to term or to assist women in caring for their dependent children or placing them for adoption. If you can't parse the legalese, the tl;dr is real news. If I understand correctly, all that legalese says is that renters etc. don't have to provide space for abortion services if they don't want to. It says nothing to the effect of "they can kick you out or refuse to rent to you if you've ever had an abortion." It just says they can refuse to allow abortions to occur (except to save the mother) on their property. edit: and part (4) just says that employers and health care providers don't have to provide services that aren't required by state law (presumably, ...already? I don't get why there would be a law saying they don't have to do anything there isn't a law saying they have to do). Anyway part 4 doesn't mention abortion specifically, but reading between the lines says that it allows health insurance providers the right to deny coverage for abortions (or anything else they aren't legally required to cover).
Even if it only peripherally counters parts of the Saint Louis ordiance, it will make the Saint Louis ordinance against state law (or at least I can't help but think it will considering that's why they had the session). The other parts of the ordinance will fall by the wayside.
On June 24 2017 08:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 07:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:I guess the confusion here is that people think employers/landlords have a right to inspect personal affairs? Which the article itself never said. But SB 5 has another insidious purpose: to overturn a St. Louis ordinance that bans employers and landlords from discriminating against people on the basis of their reproductive health decisions. In other words, if SB 5 is passed, you could be evicted in the state of Missouri for having an abortion, using birth control, or becoming pregnant while unmarried. So basically interpret as written: An existing anti-discrimination ban is being overturned. I mean was this ordinance in response to landlords and employers getting away with firing for pregnancy or birth control? US News and World report called the city measure largely symbolic, prompting me to wonder if the practice was already banned by city and state anti discrimination law. See for example the pregnancy discrimination act, a victory for feminists around forty years ago, that already makes it a violation for employers to discriminate against that reproductive health decision.
If the state reps thought the ordinance symbolic they wouldn't be calling special sessions to overturn it, I don't think. Unless they just want to symbolic things up themselves
|
|
|
|