Meaning what? Pregnant women, or women who might be pregnant, cannot drive on their highways? So, no women between, what, 12 and 50 are allowed on their roads? Do cops carry pregnancy tests to check, or is it just “you might be, so get home little lady?” Margaret Atwood, they think you wrote a manual rather than a warning.
They’re going to have to give back all the FHWA grants they ever received to build highways because of sex discrimination.
From what I’ve read, it’s not the pregnant women who will be prosecuted. It’s the people who transport the pregnant women. Like it’s some sort of crackdown on trafficking.
Sometimes, rather than a sustained strike (like we’re seeing the hollywood and auto workers), a one day strikes is employed, because the kind of work people do is critical to other’s health and welfare (nurses, for example - there was a recent healthcare strike). Given that the women are coming from across fields, and are critical to care for children and often the elderly in their families, a one day strike probably makes more sense.
But yeah, a sustain women’s strike would be nice, but if a one day strike can get this done, then awesome. All the better.
I’m curious to see what actions (if any) this league will take. There are lots of employers whose contracts enable them to penalize employees for actions that haven’t been through the courts yet. Will the threat of action by employers lead to more positive change than law enforcement?
I gotta say, Sir Charles has been a far more effective ally than I would have expected. He’s a good guy!
And he’s got a good sense of humor…
Nice try at both-siderism in that report, but last I checked the ACLU and Planned Parenthood don’t write our laws. GOP pols should be publicly shamed for their inaction and publicly stated positions against a ban until we get them enacted in every state and on the federal level.
I just now saw this. Yeah, context is everything. One thing that is important when you see things you don’t expect (like the ACLU and Planned Parenthood opposing bans on child marriage) is to find out why. That article on the Hill didn’t do that. So I did. Here’s why:
“We’re not convinced that banning legal marriage will stop these coercive relationships from happening,” said Phyllida Burlingame, the reproductive justice policy director at the ACLU of California. “They will push these young women further from the reach of social services.”
The Children’s Law Center of California, which works with children in the state’s foster care system, also opposed the bill. It said some minors who are pregnant may not want their children to be born out of wedlock. The group also argued that raising the marriage age would strip minors of one of their only pathways to exit foster care through emancipation.
In short, they didn’t oppose banning child marriage. They just want to make sure the underlying problems are addressed and that those problems aren’t just assumed to have been fixed just because a law was passed. I still don’t really agree with them opposing the laws, and they should have made it clearer why they were opposing them, but to equate their opposition with the opposition from conservatives is just bad journalism.
Now do professional hockey.
