I have written in recent posts about how profit seeking businesses, despite being universally hated and despised by the majority of the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, are made the patsy for practically every hair-brained government wealth transfer program conceivable. Two posts on that topic can be found here and here. Today I continue with another post on that theme. Something happened in the Colorado legislature last week that you must know about. But first, I have a quick story to tell you.
I was watching the nightly local news two days ago when the talking head on the screen informed me that her station needed funds to help out the poor person of the day. You know about these soft "news" stories. The local affiliate goes about town looking for some person who is down on his luck, publicizes the story, and then sits back to take credit when various good Samaritans contribute money to a bank account set up for the person by the local network affiliate. In this case the reporter finished the report by making an appeal to the "local businesses," asking that they would take some of their profits and donate them to that night's cause. As she uttered the words from her mouth it occurred to me that I had heard similar things many times before. In fact, I realized that profit seeking businesses, despite being universally despised and hated, are usually one of the first entities to be hit up for cash when someone believes there is a need for cash. Now that makes good sense since businesses are the only entity in this socialistic country that actually create new wealth and realize profits. What does not make sense, until I ponder the sinful nature of man, is why businesses and the people who run them would be so universally despised for doing precisely what people want them to do.
But let's get back to my original story. According to the Denver Post, "Activist groups and the lawmakers sponsoring a bill seeking to protect pregnant Colorado women in the workplace urged support for the legislation on Wednesday as it begins its path through the Capitol. 'This is about healthy pregnancies, healthy children,' said Representative Faith Winter, a Westminster Democrat who is the legislation's lead sponsor. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act bars pregnancy based discrimination from employers, and mandates accommodations for pregnant women, including bathroom breaks, water and seating....Winter told reporters that she is pushing the bill because Colorado's workplace laws do not do enough to prevent pregnant women from being fired when they need simple, reasonable accommodations." The report goes on to tell the sad story of a pregnant woman who was working as a clerk in a clothing store. She demanded that her employer agree to allow her to essentially take home a paycheck but not do any of her usual duties because her pregnancy made it difficult and dangerous for her to perform them. She had a note from her doctor informing the employer that she should not perform any of her usual duties because doing so could endanger the baby. The employer told her to keep performing her usual duties. She quit her job and now desperately wants to sue her former employer, hoping that winning the litigation lottery would alleviate her emotional pain and suffering. This new law would allow her to do so and, most likely, guarantee that she would win her lawsuit. Of course, she said that she supports the law so "this sort of thing would never happen again." Isn't it amazing how altruistic all of these parasites are?
The proposed new law raises several issues in my puny little brain. First, why are we worried about a bunch of cells bunched together inside the body of a woman? The law of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika has already declared that a pregnant woman is not carrying a baby, or even a human being for that matter. The glob of cells growing inside her has no rights, including the right to life. So what if being required to perform her job duties causes a spontaneous abortion? How would a spontaneous abortion be any different than a liposuction procedure? In the eyes of the law the two events are identical. My goodness, the woman can legally execute her baby and we are spinning our wheels talking about forcing the employer to give the woman a drink just because she is pregnant, whatever it means to be pregnant, although we know that it certainly does not mean she is carrying a rights-bearing human being in her body. It is time for women to shut up about the special rights they allegedly want and need when they are pregnant given the legal fact that the extraneous tissue growing inside their bodies has no rights whatsoever. All of this makes me wonder....is Rep. Winter pro-abortion? I bet you she is.
The second issue is equally absurd to me. As an employer I hire people to perform a particular task. If I hire a man to mop a floor I expect the man to mop the floor. If he mops the floor I pay him what we agreed upon for doing so. If he does not mop the floor he does not get paid and our employment contract terminates. This is all very simple and just common sense. If I come to work one day and discover that the employee I hired to mop the floor had both of his arms blown off in a tragic blimp accident why should I be responsible to keep him on the payroll? I would ask him if he can continue to mop the floor, as we agreed upon previously, by using his mouth or his chin. If he could we are okay. If he cannot he will be terminated. Am I terminating him because I am an evil business man, as most everyone would claim? No, I am terminating him because he can no longer perform his job. If I feel sorry for my limbless former employee I might throw a couple of dollars his way but I have no legal or moral obligation to do so.
If, as a result of being pregnant, a woman can no longer perform her job description, why should the employer be required to pay her for work she does not do? Why should the employer be the patsy for her medical condition? Why should her family not be required to pick up the slack for her while she is pregnant? Why should her husband not pick up the slack for her when she is pregnant? If she is a Christian, why should her church not pick up the slack for her while she is pregnant? Why must the law of the land always require the profit seeking businessman (hated by the way for seeking the profits that will be used to pay off this woman) to pick up the slack for her while she is pregnant?
There is no moral reason why a profit seeking businessman should be legally required to subsidize the voluntary pregnancy of a female employee. When the woman decided to become pregnant she also decided to take on the responsibilities associated with her pregnancy. One of those responsibilities is determining what she can and can't do in the market place. If she can no longer perform her duties as described in her employment contract she should resign from her position rather than forcing her employer to fire her. That would be the noble thing to do. That never happens in the SDA. There is precious little nobility to be found in the citizens of this immoral and disgusting land. On the contrary, in the SDA pregnant women run screaming to their god of civil government and ask for a law that will force their employers to subsidize their pregnancies. Once again profit seeking businessmen are made the patsy for a government protected class. No doubt when businessmen complain that they are being made the patsy for another politically protected group they will be cast as greedy monsters who are not paying their fair share of taxes to finance the socialist heaven we all live in. Praise Bernie!