
I have a background in science and writing. I consider myself liberal, progressive, environmentally aware on many issues, but also believe that conservatism has a place and is valid.
The Walker Gang in: I Control your Uterus & Pro-Discrimination is good for Business
I the great El Pickardo, have been letting these two issues simmer for awhile to see what was going to happen, to see if they would go away.
They have not.
These issues are exposing how extreme the majority of WI conservative republicans have evolved into (or maybe I should have said created as?).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/wisconsin-abortion-sex-education-bills-pass_n_1345873.html
The Anti-Abortion/Sex Education Big Government legislation:
1) The bill bans insurance companies in the Affordable care act exchanges to cover abortion.
2) Tells doctors what they can say to their patients regarding Abortion and infringes on the doctor-patient relationship.
3) Bans hormonal contraception without a Doctors consent and can not prescribe it via a webcam.
4) Schools have to emphasize Abstinence but do not have to discuss contraception. (The Repub’s say schools get more choice? Right? How can you do that with this mandate???)
5) If a doctor does not follow this law makes it a Class I felony and a 10,000 fine.
So much for small government conservative Republicans!
They have screamed, “Keep yours hand off my healthcare President Obama, We WI Republicans reject your public mandate for everyone to buy health insurance (Car insurance is okay though), and then go and pass this legislation?
Scott Walker signs it which inserts government into the Doctor-Patient relationship and finally into a women’s uterus, while making it illegal to perform certain parts of a legal procedure and simultaneously says it gives School Districts more leeway in their sex education classes but then forces them to emphasize abstinence! Huh! How can a school district have more choice but then be mandated at the same time? Tell me conservatives how can you use this logic. Sybil, is that you Sybil?
I keep on getting told that “Big Government” is not a conservative principle.
Big Government is a conservative value when it comes to social and religious princples. They will use government in any way to push their agenda.
Employer Discrimination – A Wisconsin Republican Value:
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2012/04/09/242583.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/06/scott-walker-wisconsin-equal-pay-law_n_1407329.html
1) “The legislation eliminates compensatory and punitive damages for acts of employment discrimination or unfair honesty, according to the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI). The bill repeals 2009’s Act 20, which for the first time imposed punitive and compensatory damages under Wisconsin’s employment discrimination law.”
2) “Under current state law, employees who prevail in discrimination lawsuits can collect between $50,000 and $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. The Republican bill blocks anyone from collecting such damages in employment discrimination suits.”
3) HP, “The 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act was meant to deter employers from discriminating against certain groups by giving workers more avenues via which to press charges. Among other provisions, it allows individuals to plead their cases in the less costly, more accessible state circuit court system, rather than just in federal court.”
4) PF “The law does not ensure pay equity, but rather gives discriminated workers the right to sue in state court for compensatory and punitive damages. So, if the GOP-backed bill is signed into law, that right to sue would be lost.”
5) Fact: This bill makes it more difficult for discriminated people (black, women, and homosexuals) to sue for punitive damages. State courts are easier than federal courts to do this. Scott Walker and WI Conservative Republicans have made it easier to discriminate based on race, sex, gender, and soon political ideology.
Oh! It makes me feel so warm to hear Glenn Grothman’s words of wisdom who lead the repeal of the equal pay act, you know the upstanding west bend state senator that said single parenthood is a cause of child abuse, “You could argue that money is more important for men,” he said. “I think a guy in their first job, maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious. To attribute everything to a so-called bias in the workplace is just not true.”
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-11/news/31326804_1_wage-gap-wage-bill-discrimination
Obviously, father knows best and this is the reason why women on average make .77 cents to the 1.00 dollar a man makes and the obvious reason that lovable slob Grothman uses, why Women should not be able to sue in state court for damages.
Yet, this is bigger than a war against women.
I’ve secretly changed the adjective “Women” Wisconsinite (might be your wife, girlfriend, daughter, aunt, or mother) with “African” Wisconsinite (Black) and found out that it’s not just about making it harder for women to fight discrimination, but that this bill is about making it more difficult by barring Wisconsinites to sue and punish businesses and corporations for denying fair pay to anyone.
I never thought that weakening anti-discrimination laws was a Republican value or is it a new conservative principle?
Take Away: Big government pushed by Conservative Republicans is okay for social and religious intrusion into education and the uterus, while big government that protects people from pay discrimination based on race, sex, or sexual orientation by business & Corporations is bad.
Hey! I think I just saw a double standard.
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.
- To discharge or otherwise discriminate against any individual because of any of the following (228)
- Vote for Romney, if you don't I will be forced to take your benefits so I can keep the majority of the profits! (60)
- "Yes. Right. I think we believe that insofar as there are inappropriate things, people who vote inappropriately are more likely to vote Democrat." Glenn Grothman (122)
- Writers Block - Open Forum (82)
- Being self-sufficient is not a partisan ideology (103)
- Congrats Walkerites! Victory, Forward, I think? (81)
- To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. Conan the Barbarian (51)
- Dunkirk Walker Style: Divide & Conquer (58)
- The Walker Gang in: I Control your Uterus & Pro-Discrimination is good for Business (81)
- Death Threats so soon! (87)
- More Alien Relay 2.0 posts





81 Comments
WFB resident - Apr 24, 2012 8:54 PM
discuss one at a time ? Like always a PDLS throws up a lot of garbage and adds
his/her opinion as truth but hopes for short answer oppositions !! So since you are
not able to debate one fully I will proceed with the short answer ! NO !! You are off
your rocker . abortion is good in your book . You even cite it as a war on women !
Yet you do npot notice the war on babies that your PDLS Dumocrats have ! Yet the
so called war on women does not kill them . But your war on Babies kills them !!
Which is OK to stop somebody from killing ? Or to give people a pass on killing ? I
personally am against all wars !! Especially those that kill sweet innocent babies ,
who by the way about 1/2 grow up to be women !! Who the Republicans want
undead ! But Dumocrats want to be able to kill them !!
reformed trucker - Apr 24, 2012 9:50 PM
I know those things snap back after child birth, but I didn't think there was THAT
much room...
That's just sick.
reformed trucker - Apr 24, 2012 9:55 PM
I thought this bill just peeled back an extra layer of litigation; it was "anti-trial
lawyer" rather than anti-worker. Did it somehow repeal the anti-discrimination act of
1963?
reformed trucker - Apr 24, 2012 10:17 PM
This is such incomplete data. How long were their working careers? Education
levels? Time off work (maternity leave)? Pay scale?
A woman could have a shorter career, and make twice what I make an hour, and
that average would stand.
That is what you might call a "junk stat"; it makes it look like any time a woman
is hired for a job, she is automatically underpaid by 23% compared to a man.
Just not true.
Trust me, I'm all for equal pay. At one time I had a female as a senior driver.
She was paid more than the men, AND she had her choice of what job she
wanted to go on (before the guys got to pick).
I had another female employee who negotiated a better starting pay than a few
of the other fellas were currently being paid.
It's not about having a "kick stand", or being the right color... it's about the work
ethic. As it should be...
jman99 - Apr 25, 2012 8:42 AM
"So Hayett, why do you scrubb all your blogs of comments now once they are no longer current? "
This comment was made on the 22nd. On that day when I wanted to review a couple of you old blogs, none of the comments come up.
Today the comments are back up.
What's with that?
Mucho - Apr 25, 2012 9:12 AM
How many ways does an employee need to sue? Creating new laws to prolong litigation, make law books thicker and employ more lawyers is what Democrats are good at. It is also clear evidence of how much money the trial lawyers kicked into Doyle's campaign to create this unnecessary, redundant legislation.
As for AB371 : Anyone that is against "Voluntary and Informed consent" does not have the best interests of women in mind. Preventing the expediting of abortions via webcam for women under duress just might enable some women to make up their own mind. Who's best interest is served by not giving the mother-to-be an option to determine the fate of her baby?
yert49 - Apr 25, 2012 11:18 AM
WFB resident - Apr 25, 2012 2:20 PM
operations(abortions) ?? Why should the doctor have a nonsurgical say in the
abortion of ones child ? Well unless those PDLS abortionists are fathering them !
Please explain why thy should have a say ?
WFB resident - Apr 25, 2012 2:22 PM
discuss contraception. (The Repub’s say schools get more choice? Right? How can
you do that with this mandate???)
I then ask how is giving another choice for students not a good thing ? In your own
statement it says:But do not have to !!! It does not say only,must not,It says may !!
How is that not allowing choice ?
WFB resident - Apr 25, 2012 2:25 PM
and a 10,000 fine.
So much for small government conservative Republicans! I then ask what is wrong
with making a wealthy 1% Doctor who does not follow the law, pay for his failure to
follow our laws ?
WFB resident - Apr 25, 2012 2:29 PM
?? Hell I want the government to pay for my middle finger extention !! Would you
PDLS's be OK with that ?
WFB resident - Apr 25, 2012 2:31 PM
years who were aborted because their mother was so promiscuous, but did not want
the responsibility ??
Jacob Pickard - Apr 25, 2012 4:26 PM
"The odds against winning discrimination cases have some employee lawyers reluctant even to try. "We will no longer take individual employment-discrimination cases, because there's such a high likelihood of losing," New York plaintiffs' attorney Joe Whatley Jr. says. Job-discrimination case filings declined by 40% from 1999 to 2007, federal court records show."
It's more difficult to sue for damages in federal court than state courts. The WI law "“Under current state law, employees who prevail in discrimination lawsuits can collect between $50,000 and $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. The Republican bill blocks anyone from collecting such damages in employment discrimination suits.”
Mucho you are defending workplace discrimination.
Jacob Pickard - Apr 25, 2012 4:30 PM
lawyer" rather than anti-worker. Did it somehow repeal the anti-discrimination act of 1963?" RT
Yup it is anti-trial lawyer because they donate to Democrats and it is pro-discrimintation because it does this, "HP, “The 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act was meant to deter employers from discriminating against certain groups by giving workers more avenues via which to press charges. Among other provisions, it allows individuals to plead their cases in the less costly, more accessible state circuit court system, rather than just in federal court.”
Or pay equity by the threat of costly litigation in the State.
Sorry RT and Mucho this is clearly a step backward for equal rights in our state.
Jacob Pickard - Apr 25, 2012 4:32 PM
I agree 100% and you do have a case on statistics as well.
WFB resident - Apr 25, 2012 5:28 PM
Lets start with your discrimination suits . You said :"The odds against winning
discrimination cases have some employee lawyers reluctant even to try. "We will no
longer take individual employment-discrimination cases, because there's such a high
likelihood of losing," What you do not say is that the numbers are lower for the
actual act of discrimination is not happening ! I in my corporation (not in mine)(liable
reasons) . Better yet I know other corporations that pay the one filing a lawsuit for
discrimination just because the media plays up the lone filer ! Why ? because Slow
thinkers eat up the lies and assume the Corporation is bad !!! So the fact that suits
are less just shows that even the slow thinkers are starting to see that they are
played the fool over and over ! So the judges and lawyers are trying to dismay such
frivolous filings !! But the people who drink the koolaid still think it is a problem !! As
for those studies on lower wages for women . They do not take into effect of many
reasons . Lets face it guys in most homes the women choose to be home with the
kids !! Is this true PDLS's ????? I bet you will not answer !
jman99 - Apr 25, 2012 7:45 PM
Check this out:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2012/04/24/womens-prayer-group-praying-that-the-women-at-mrff-all-get-incurable-breast-cancer/
Now this is a Christian Women's Prayer Group spouting this.
jman99 - Apr 25, 2012 7:47 PM
http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/blog/why_pope_benedict_disagrees_wi/
jman99 - Apr 25, 2012 7:49 PM
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Paul_Ryan_Meets_The_Jesuits
WFB resident - Apr 25, 2012 9:28 PM
Liberal ! That does not mean they are able to run a government ! It does not mean
that Righties are Liberal . But it does say that righties are able to help liberal thinkers
and help others ! Yet for some reason you PDLS's think other wise . Why ? Why are
you not able to answer any question ? We know why but I am sure you will come up
with some left wing wacko idea for it. Just like above .