« Decisions. . . Decisions. . . | Main | Just some random thoughts. . . »

November 2, 2005

A response. . .

The following comment was made to this post regarding the nomination of Samuel Alito. The commenter remains anonymous, and I allow such comments, so that's ok. If the commenter would have included a valid email I'd be happy to make my response in private, but since they did not, it's gonna have to be public.

So, here we go. . .

Planned Parenthood is one of this country's largest organizations to supply women with various methods of birth control (condoms, the Pill, etc), reproductive education, and let's not forget gynecological services, all on a sliding payment scale. They don't tell women to have abortions, they present it as an option non-judgmentally along with everything else. I understand that you'll never have had reason to use any of their services, but please try to educate yourself about what they do for the sakes of those of us who rely on them for our pills.

Well, all those pre-pregnancy services you mention weren't the issue were they. Only the "options" after a pregnancy has begun is the topic we're discussing on the national stage and in my post. The commenter claims that Planned Parenthood presents abortion as an "option", well, I'm sorry commenter, but in order to present an "option" you have to have more than one. Planned Parenthood has gone to great lengths and spent millions to fight any attempt to bring the "option" of adoption into their clinics. Planned Parenthood does not present the "option" of adoption to those that visit their clinics, do they?

As for spousal notification, no. Sorry. Your terror imagery has been the reality for too many women I've known. With two exceptions, the married women I've known who have had abortions did so because they *were* escaping abusive husbands (they also had other children who were escaping with them) and spousal rape, while common, is next to impossible to prove in court. In the case of the exceptions, one was therapeutic (the child would have been born without several major organs) and the other was in fact a joint decision. In a healthy relationship, that's what happens. It's like you believe (and I'm not saying you do, merely that it's the impression you're giving off by your statements) that wives all over are scheming behind their husbands' backs. Because women always lie, you know. Spousal notification carries the terrible implication that while you can always trust a man to make the proper decision for his family, you can't trust the woman to make that exact same decision. And that's creepy.

Well, commenter, the "spousal notification" requirement in question, specifically allows exemption for a woman who fears abuse arising from said "notification". And my point was that we were now going to be barraged with imagery of abusive husbands by anti-Alito activists. Guess what, I was right, the pro-abortion talking heads that are making the rounds in the newsmedia are doing just that, conveniently leaving out that in cases of spousal abuse or fear of such abuse the requirment no longer exists. They, and you, are mischaracterizing the law in question and leaving out those exemptions that are there. They, and you, do this to pretend that there's a risk that is not specifically accounted for. It's dishonest, and only serves to cloud the issue for some groups you mention later.

On to child support. Did you have sex? Okay. That means you're responsible for the consequences. For the woman, that means the following potentials: pregnancy, risk of death, lifetime decrease in her wage-earning ability, increased likelihood of living in poverty, and responsibility for someone for the next eighteen years. She can deal with these by having an abortion, by giving the baby up for adoption, or by choosing to keep and raise the baby. All of these are legal options for her. The man, not being pregnant, does not have the option for an abortion because, let me repeat, he is not pregnant. Only someone who is pregnant can have an abortion. He can choose to stay with the woman and the child and raise a family, or he can choose to leave. Either way, he still has a responsibility to the child he fathered because he fathered a child. If he did not want to father a child, he should have taken steps to prevent this outcome. A vasectomy would be choice, but a condom would be a reasonable attempt, too. And if either method fails, he is still responsible for what he did because a man is responsible for the children he fathers.

Again, you're not responding to my comments but parroting others talking points. My contention delt with the "responsibility" of the man to pay child support, but the man has no place in the decision. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're fine with the "repsonsibility" of paying child support for a child who isn't his, you're fine with requiring child support for a sperm donor to a lesbian couple, but when it comes to merely NOTIFYING a man that his child is to be aborted you rankle? Come on now, for women to demand a new double standard of responsibility is a little ironic don't you think? So the man is responsible, so is the woman, and I'll grant you both of those, I agree with those responsibilities. However, in a spousal relationship, when financial, physical and emotional descisions are to be made, lets continue with that same responsibility for both parties. Remember, this is only in a spousal relationship, and there are provisions for abuse (or fear thereof), adultery, non-location, etc. You can have all the responsibility you want from men, I'll agree to that, but lets continue that responsibility in spousal relationships forward to the totality of the "event", not just drop responsibility and add it when it suits one party. The goal is equality in relations between man and woman. . . correct? Cake? Eat? You gotta make a choice.

Finally, FMLA only affects employers of a certain size and employees of a certain length of service and location relative to the other employees in the company. So please, stop pretending that Mom and Pop will go out of business for letting Sally off (unpaid) for a few weeks after she's recovering from delivering her baby unless of course you'd prefer she had an abortion). Mom and Pop aren't affected by FMLA, and implying that they are just confuses the stupid people.

Ah, but wait? There are plenty of employers out there that are of that "certain size" and have a large number of employees co-located that are also privately held "Mom and Pop" companies, some of those companies, many in fact, operate on a VERY slim profit margin, some are even losing money. Placing regulatory burdens of this type on such companies can cause them to fail. There are significant costs to bringing in replacement workers over and above the salary, there are exponential training and productivity costs as well. The government should not be in the practice of deciding what benefits are offered to employees beyond worker's compensation insurance and minimum wage restrictions. Beyond that, in a free market capitalist society, it is the market forces that determine the rest. By dictating benefits employees receive, government is affecting the operation and profitability of businesses in a manner inconsistent with the concepts of free market economics and capitalism. By glossing over the possibilities and consequences, and saying that these private "Mom and Pop" businesses are not covered, it is confusing the issue for (not to mention lying to) those "stupid people" you mention. You're only allowing for a portion of the facts to be admitted with regard to how FMLA is applied. You want to say that it's only the large mega-corps that are covered, but that is simply untrue, many privately held businesses are affected and many of those owners choose to run their businesses with very little profit margin that can be thrown out the window when FMLA is forced upon them. So if you want to help the "stupid people", give them all the facts, don't just trick them into thinking this is only applicable to the "corporate suit" types.

Alito thinks I can't be trusted in my own relationship with my husband. He thinks my multi-billion dollar employer shouldn't be told they can't fire me just because I'm taking a few unpaid weeks off recovering from surgery. Why on earth would I want him helping to interpret the law of the land? Sounds to me like he wants me barefoot, pregnant, and unemployed. That makes him an ass. If you agree with him, well, birds of a feather, I guess.

No commenter, Alito thinks the State has the right to create laws through their legislative process. Alito recognizes that not all companies are (in fact most aren't) mutli billion dollar employers and recognizes that employee benefit packages are something to be determined by the free market. If you don't believe that your legislature has the right to make laws and you don't support the free market, then by all means oppose his nomination, but don't make up things out of whole cloth and only examine the half of the issue you want to examine and then declare it as fact.

You are "hearing" what you want to be predisposed to hear obviously. You're not being honest with yourself and you're propagating such dishonesty by saying it out loud. Please commenter, examine the issues in their totality, unless you yourself want to be among your so-called "stupid people."

--Jason

Posted by JasonColeman at November 2, 2005 10:19 AM