New EEOC rule makes it clear: abortion protections for workers are not discriminatory against men

[thomdunn]

Originally published at: New EEOC rule makes it clear: abortion protections for workers are not discriminatory against men | Boing Boing

…

[anothernewbbaccount]

forcibly require every employer in America to provide ‘reasonable accommodations’ for their workers’ elective abortions,"

And what business of any employer is it to know whether an abortion was ‘elective’ or medically necessary/a medical emergency?

[gracchus]

Alliance Defending Freedom

Is there an iron law out there stating that when you see an American organisation or publication or political party with the word “freedom” in its name, the more likely it is that it’s trying to restrict someone’s freedom?

[VeronicaConnor]

I can’t even figure out what the opposition’s argument was here. They’re trying to claim this allowance somehow discriminates against women who don’t choose an abortion? It’s very weird. They talk in vague legal circles but never form a cogent argument for how this is discriminatory and against whom. They’re seemingly demanding that a woman who doesn’t want an abortion still has the right to drive to the clinic and back without getting fired, I guess?

[thomdunn]

I believe the opposition’s argument is that they have a constitutional right to dictate how and when everyone uses their uterus, and that said uterus shall not compromise the labor value of the human attached to it.

Or, less sarcastically, they’re just pissed that the government is using labor law to circumvent state abortion laws. Which is to say, they’re pissed that some companies are willing to reimburse or accomodate their employees who are forced to travel out-of-state for abortions. Which is a slap in the face to “states rights” conservatives, because it’s a loophole they can’t beat without encroaching on the rights of private business to spend money and enter into contractual agreement with their employees.