Minnesota Network for Progressive Action

About Comments
The mnpACT! blog welcomes all comments from visitors, which are immediately posted, but we also filter for spammers:
  • No active URLs or web links are allowed (use www.yourweb.com).
  • No drug or pharma- ceutical names are allowed.
  • Your comment "Name" must be one word with no spaces and cannot be an email address.
You should also note that a few IP addresses and homepage URLs have been banned from posting comments because they have posted multiple spam messages.

Please be aware we monitor ALL comments and reserve the right to delete obvious spam comments.

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites

Listed on BlogShares

site search

Site Meter
  Progressive Political Blog

Progressive Politics in Minnesota, the Nation, and the World

Job Interviews Will Be A Changin'

Category: Women's Issues
Posted: 07/01/14 21:19, Edited: 07/01/14 21:22

by Dave Mindeman

Job interviews will be changing in the future..........

Sarah enters the Human resources office at Company Y. She is a top candidate for an executive position.

Company Rep: Thank you for coming Sarah. We are impressed with your resume and credentials and are willing to make you an offer today. Do you have any questions?

Sarah: Yes, what religion is the corporation?

Company Rep: Excuse me?

Sarah: What religion is the corporation practicing?

Company Rep: Well, uh, the owners are Orthodox Seventh Day Adventist, if you have to know.

Sarah: Well, then, in regards to health insurance, will my contraceptive be covered.

Company Rep: Well, we usually don't get into details on that....

Sarah: Well, sorry, these days we have to.

Company Rep: Well, let me check....yes, yes, we do have contraception coverage.

Sarah: I use an IUD - is that included.

Company Rep: Uh, (flips through handbook) well, I stand corrected. That's NOT covered. I guess it is considered an abortion product. So... not covered.

Sarah: I see.....you said Orthodox Seventh Day Adventist?

Company Rep: Yes, that's correct.

Sarah: Do I have to work on Saturdays?

Company Rep: What? Well, certainly - if it is necessary.

Sarah: But Seventh Day Adventists prohibit work on Saturday.

Company Rep: Well, uh, yes the owners do observe the Sabbath...but company work has to continue. Employees must report.

Sarah: So, you are telling me that the owners observe the Sabbath themselves but employees do not. Yet, employees are required to observe the same reproductive restrictions that the owners adhere to.

Company Rep: Well, now that you say it that way, I guess that sounds about right.

Sarah: Does that sound fair to you?

Company Rep: Hey, I just work here - I don't make the rules.

Sarah: Yeah...well I don't have any say in the rules either. But you would think that establishing rules would apply to everybody in the company the same way and not selectively. Or better yet, rules based on religious beliefs shouldn't be involved with the employees. Just a thought......sorry, I can't work here - but if the company gets bought out by a different "religion", I'll reapply.
comments (4) permalink

Corporate Overlords - The End Game Is Coming

Category: Women's Issues
Posted: 07/01/14 20:26

by Dave Mindeman

The more I think about this SCOTUS Hobby Lobby ruling, the less it makes sense. Are they using a round about way of creating a corporation ruling class?

It really is a new protected class. Entities that are complete legal constructs but have more rights than flesh and blood citizens.

Corporations are the new citizenry. They can use unlimited corporate cash to influence governmental control.....and, in addition, this corporate class can manipulate theocratic control over its employee's health benefits.

And this corporate class can do all of this without conscience...without guilt.... without shame....and without fear of retribution.

And because of their control of governmental influence they can avoid taxes altogether, hide profits offshore, change their country of origin at will, get unlimited governmental services, and can have the government pay for their employees living standard.

And without so much as the semblance of a "soul", they get freedom of religion protections. And it is not because of belief - but rather manipulation of the system for advantage.....and control of their flesh and blood employee minions.

Union rights are in the process of being deconstructed. The ability to sue corporations will soon be restricted. Consumers have no recourse for complaints. Workers are either eliminated by machine or by a cheaper work force on the other side of the planet.

And all of this is for the unadulterated pursuit of profit - monetary gain. Which has no other purpose than to gain more control, buy up more companies, and keep shareholders happy enough to not object.

Maybe it is no accident that there are so many people who don't trust the government. It is the perfect corporation cover.....

We have found the enemy -- and it is in a board room near you.
comments (2) permalink

The Hobby Lobby Ruling Has Consequences

Category: Women's Issues
Posted: 06/30/14 16:45

by Dave Mindeman

As expected, we have yet another 5-4 decision in the Hobby Lobby case regarding contraceptives via company insurance.

To digress for a moment.....You would think that Chief Justice Roberts would start to get a little embarrassed by all the 5-4 decisions moving through his court.

But getting back to the Hobby Lobby case, let's ask some questions about what the decision does and does not.

First there is this by Justice Alito...

"The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients," Justice Samuel Alito writes in the majority opinion. "If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply, they will pay a very heavy price -- as much as $1.3 million per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one of the companies.

The problem with "religious objections" to abortion is that what is or isn't a contraceptive method that is an abortifacient seems to be defined by the objector rather than science. Reproductive health care is getting defined politically rather than by actual health care definitions. That is going beyond the legal protections of religious freedom. And the Roberts court is going to allow for that restriction on reproductive health choices.

The War on Women keeps expanding.

But another aspect of this is also curious....(again from Alito)...

"The most straightforward way of doing this would be for the Government to assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance policies due to their employers' religious objections," he writes in the opinion.

So, here SCOTUS seems to be telling Republicans that although you may think the government should stay out of health care and should be limited and should be small.....government must also be the fall back position for employers health care coverages?

It is almost as if the Court is telling us, in a roundabout way, that health care is a government responsibility.

Alito also seems to be saying that although women have a "right" to contraception - it is the government that must guarantee that right.

Using religious freedom as the basis for this decision is problematic to me. The deciders on this case sensed the problems because they were careful to narrowly define how this decision was arrived at.

They went out of their way to point out that this ONLY applies to contraception (again, an insult to women) and that blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses) and vaccinations are not included.

But there will be more tests of this ruling. Religious objections to healthcare coverages can be as extreme as the religious ideas that spawn it. And working for a company that employs a lot of people means that health care coverage will always be at risk of an employer's interpretation of what their religious view might be.

I would hope that women voters would fully consider these SCOTUS rulings when they exercise their right to vote. The President appoints the members of the Court and it is the Senate that confirms the appointees. This decision demonstrates the importance of how that process can affect everyone. And in this particular case, it affects a particular gender.
comments (0) permalink
« First « Previous


« October 2014 »
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31

Latest posts


(one year)




RSS Feeds

RSS 0.91
RSS 2.0

Powered by
Powered by SBlog
Copyright © Minnesota Network for Progressive Action. All rights reserved. Legal. Privacy Policy. Sitemap.