Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I can't help but think that such a contract would be thrown out by any court of law, as child bearing and child rearing are as close to "natural rights" as any body politic has ever recognized. Certainly, some occupations, like military service, require hard physical labor that would be impossible or injurious for a pregnant woman to perform, but that's why we have FMLA and similar acts to guarantee that the woman won't be fired for taking maternity leave.
edited 30th Jul '15 10:04:20 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"We've had those kinds of personal life control stipulations in contracts for ages, I'm pretty sure. Things like Catholic school contracts firing you for supporting homosexuality aren't any more invasive than telling you whether or not you can have a kid, are they? The only difference is the degree of popular support from society for a given behavior, not the degree of invasiveness of the clause.
And, of course, employers and contractees get people to sign technically illegal contracts all the time. The lack of legality doesn't really matter that much when you're not in a position to wager your livelihood by contesting it.
edited 30th Jul '15 10:07:38 AM by Karkadinn
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.And a great deal of employment is "at will", meaning you can be let go for any reason, even having children, as long as you can't (or won't) press charges against your employer. However, most employers would never attempt to fire a woman (or man) for having children because the risk of a lawsuit would eclipse any hypothetical gains they might realize for their bottom line.
Most of that kind of firing happens in low-skill jobs that are taken by people who are in no position to resist any demand their employer makes of them. Immigrants are particularly subject to this sort of thing.
Religious organizations like churches are exempt from a lot of labor standards, which strikes me as a direct violation of the First Amendment, but I'm not the one making those decisions.
edited 30th Jul '15 10:09:58 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"You can make a perfectly legal contract but weasel in certain terms, certain words and certain manners that would effectively stipulate the termination of the aforementioned contract
For example, for a position such as a lawyer you can stipulate in a contract that a leave of absence superior to X amount of months would count as rights to terminate the contract without responsibility from the patron, and in another area when defining the leave of absence included extended medical leaves due to aesthetic/optional surgeries as extended leaves.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesCourts recognize intent. FMLA says that it is illegal to fire an employee due to childbearing, no matter how weaselly you word it, and no employment contract can directly contradict federal law.
edited 30th Jul '15 10:19:01 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
![]()
Seperation of Church and State if I remember correctly.
On another note
The one thing that irks me especially is those people who insist that employers have to pay for their female employees birth control.
So female employees can't afford to pay for their own birth control pills, yet they can buy the latest iPhone.
edited 30th Jul '15 10:48:53 AM by Skycobra51
Look upon my privilege ye mighty and despair.
There are so many things wrong with that statement.
First, "Separation of Church and State" does not mean that religious institutions go off and do whatever the hell they want. It means that religious groups do not get to dictate the laws of the nation; they are still subject to its laws, however. The United States was designed not to have a state religion.
Second, men can buy iPhones too, but their bodies are not biologically designed to carry babies in them for nine months. Contraception has been recognized as a basic human right for decades, and easy access to it is proven to improve labor force participation and productivity for women.
What you said is tantamount to insisting that women not have sex if they want jobs.
edited 30th Jul '15 11:04:53 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"True, but as long as we have private, employer-sponsored insurance, employers may not pick and choose which kinds of coverage they pay for, because that is inherently discriminatory.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Admittedly, religious organizations do need some exceptions from labor laws. It's illegal to discriminate hiring based on religion, for example, but it's patently ridiculous to expect a religious organization to hire someone who doesn't follow their religion to be a pastor, rabbi, imam, etc.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Granted. One might ask, however, why such a person would apply for that job, unless it's to be a dick.
Not only that, but there's an issue of whether a medicine with contraceptive effects (primary or side-effects) does so prior to fertilization or after; in the latter case, religious groups are calling them abortifacients and trying to get them banned.
edited 30th Jul '15 11:15:23 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I was about to say, there are a variety of personal health reasons why a woman might feel inclined to take birth control without sexual activity even figuring into it.
But everyone always assumes the worst case scenario for these things.
edited 30th Jul '15 11:18:50 AM by Karkadinn
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.The problem is that once you grant them some exceptions from labor laws (which is legitimate), the question shifts from "should they have to follow all labor laws?" to "which labor laws should they be allowed to not follow?". Stuff like Catholic institutions refusing to provide contraception coverage because it's quite literally against their religion is a gray area, in my mind.
Of course, that only works if you're talking about an employer offering specifically religious services. Catholic hospitals refusing to provide their non-Catholic employees with contraception coverage is bullshit, because there's nothing inherently religious about health care. But if we're talking about actual churches and whatnot? That's a different story.
edited 30th Jul '15 11:20:04 AM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.You know, I think it would do galactic wonders and a Heaven lot of good for the United States if only educational curriculum of the country's history, even the current high school AP US History classes (which I have read the textbook of, at least the variant issued in southern California), taught and preached (heh) the Treaty of Tripoli
as one of the central documents of this country alongside and with equal coverage the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution itself.
Of course, such an act would be immediately opposed by the complete half of the nation that adamantly cements the idea that the United States is a bastion of Christendom - Protestant to be specific.
edited 30th Jul '15 11:21:24 AM by FluffyMcChicken

What's the legal status of making someone sign a contract that says, "I will not have children as long as I work for this company"?