Usta be, employers could ask a married female being interviewed for a job just what she did to keep from getting pregnant, since they didn't want to deal with the cost of providing, medical expenditures during the pregnancy, maternity leave, paying someone to cover her job, all that spendy stuff. Then there were the probing questions asked working mothers about who watches the kids while the Mom's at work, etc. etc. etc. The idea that a female employee should make as much as her male counterpart was, of course, unheard of. The notion of the working mother was almost unheard of (back in the 50s and 60s, before the Feminism Movement hit the national radar), since hubby was supposed to be the breadwinner and stay-at-home moms were the "norm". I'll never forget a children's book about "the family", which stated (with appropriate illustrations of course), "Daddy goes to work to make pennies, Mommy stays home to take care of baby." Sigh....
But I digress. Fact is, I'm simply appalled at this "congress-idiot's" statement. First of all, the twisted scripture taking Jesus' words out of context is bad enough, but I'm guessing he's totally against employers covering health care for female employees who aren't allowed to use birth control when the resulting pregnancy/childbirth/child care expenses kick in.
Good. Grief. And god help us all.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read