Sunday, March 25, 2012

STUPID LAW: an Open Letter to Governor Jan Brewer

Dear Governor Brewer:

I’ve heard that our idiotic state legislature is happily passing a law right now that would allow any employer to demand that his female employees tell him whether they are using birth-control or not, and to fire them on the spot if he doesn’t like their answers.

If this piece of incredible stupidity should cross your desk, please Governor, veto the idiot thing.

Not only is this an outrageously unconstitutional invasion of privacy, but it happens to be blatantly sexist. It would inspire countless lawsuits, and worse, at a time when our economy can ill afford them. It’s also guaranteed to outrage citizens on both the Right and the Left, to the point where our whole state legislature may be overturned – and replaced, if you please, by Independents and Libertarians.

For example, I have a neighbor – call him Bear – who’s a biker, recently married, with a pretty young wife who works for a large company in Phoenix. When he heard about this law, he hit the ceiling – which was quite a sight to see, since he really is the size of a small bear. His comment was, in pretty much these words: “If any m----------- boss even tries to ask my Marianne what she does with her own c---, I’ll wipe up the floor with him! It’s none of any f------ boss’ business what we do with our sex-life, and if he tries to fire her for it, I’ll personally beat the s--- out of the s-- -- - -----!” He also promised to tell all his buddies the same, and assured me that he could guarantee that any Red Blooded American Male would agree with him.

For the women’s point of view, I’ll refer you to another neighbor – call her Anita – a single working woman in a medium-sized company in Tempe. When she heard about this bill, she narrowed her eyes and replied through gritted teeth: “The only reason I can see for my boss to ask me if I used birth-control is because he’s planning to put the moves on me. That means, if he asks me that question, that’s Sexual Harassment, if not Attempted Rape, and I’ll sue him for his back teeth.” She also promised to spread that word around to all her friends.

One thing that both Bear and Anita agreed on was that if they or anyone in their families lost their jobs over this question, they would launch mighty lawsuits. Anita promised to take it further: “I’ll sue every legislator in Arizona who voted for this nasty thing, take it right up to the Supreme Court if I can, and I’ll bet I can make millions on it.” I doubt if she’s the only Arizonan who has thought of that.

And of course, they’ve both sworn to “throw the bums out” at the next election. When asked whom to replace the “bums” with, they both evinced disgust with both the Democrat and Republican parties. This set off speculation over whether to hunt through the muddled ranks of the Independents, or to go with the “way out” Libertarians.

In any case, this law is guaranteed to widen the political divisions between classes, and between the citizens and their government.

Please, veto the damned thing!


Mark Horning said...

1) the bill NEVER said what the media lies said it said.

2) the bill was modified to explicitly forbid employers from asking about or receiving employee medical records.

3) it died in the senate.

Leslie Fish said...

Hallelujah! Bear will be relieved, and Anita will be disappointed.

--Leslie <;)))>< )O(

windmills said...

Will nobody speak to the courage of an employer, shrouded only in paper and law, who would dare ask an American woman the question? Even if the bill passed, as stated, and was signed into law... would it give him back his teeth?! Seriously, though... its a perfectly reasonable extension of all the same arguments for random workplace drug screenings, except that one medical condition has been demonstrated to decrease productivity, and the other has not. -J

KateGladstone said...

My modest proposal wherever any such law is passed: A woman who is asked if she uses birth control should answer, wide-eyed: "Does abstinence count?" (she isn't lying & claiming to practice it if she doesn't; she's making a factual inquiry) ... or, even better, ask in reply: "Birth control? What's that?" (again, a factual inquiry). If asked to respond unequivocally on an official form, interview, or some such, indicate "I practice abstinence" because — whether or not you do practice it habitually — AT THE MOMENT OF MAKING THAT STATEMENT you are definitely not having sex right there in the office ... Therefore, you _are_ (at that time and place) abstinent. (Analogy: a man could truthfully state "I wear condoms" even though he doesn't wea them 24 hours a day, 7 days a week ... )