Is There a "War On Women" in the U.S.A.?

[Sensitive New Age Guys]

Is there a "War On Women" in the U.S.A.?

Is it really a war on women when subsidies from a going-broke government are considered for reduction or elimination? (My health insurance doesn't cover viagra, so are they attacking my wife through me?)

Is it really a war on women when, because of national economic policies, after the initial loss of traditionally male jobs, that the market would eventualy lose of female jobs?

Don't you just want to laugh at political spin? http://gawker.com/5901621/the-gop-flips-the-war-on-women-script-and-stephen-colbert-is-loving-it

I think the War on Women is about as real as the World of Warcraft.

[Forsher]

Is there a "War On Women" in the U.S.A.?

Is it really a war on women when subsidies from a going-broke government are considered for reduction or elimination? (My health insurance doesn't cover viagra, so are they attacking my wife through me?)

Is it really a war on women when, because of national economic policies, after the initial loss of traditionally male jobs, that the market would eventualy lose of female jobs?

Don't you just want to laugh at political spin? http://gawker.com/5901621/the-gop-flips-the-war-on-women-script-and-stephen-colbert-is-loving-it

I think the War on Women is about as real as the World of Warcraft.

No. There is, however, a war for women on NSG.

[Sensitive New Age Guys]

Is there a "War On Women" in the U.S.A.?

Is it really a war on women when subsidies from a going-broke government are considered for reduction or elimination? (My health insurance doesn't cover viagra, so are they attacking my wife through me?)

Is it really a war on women when, because of national economic policies, after the initial loss of traditionally male jobs, that the market would eventualy lose of female jobs?

Don't you just want to laugh at political spin? http://gawker.com/5901621/the-gop-flips-the-war-on-women-script-and-stephen-colbert-is-loving-it

I think the War on Women is about as real as the World of Warcraft.

No. There is, however, a war for women on NSG.

You make it sound like you're objectifying them, like a prize.

[Free Soviets]

Is there a "War On Women" in the U.S.A.?

republican policy initiatives say yes

[Sensitive New Age Guys]

Is there a "War On Women" in the U.S.A.?

republican policy initiatives say yes

Which policies?

[Ashmoria]

yes there is a war on women and its pretty scary.

[Yootwopia]

In some of the US, yes. And it's pretty horrible.

[Ifreann]

If this isn't it, I'd hate to see what it would look like.

[Free Soviets]

republican policy initiatives say yes

Which policies?

wisconsin just passed a law making it so that women who have proven that their employers discriminated against them cannot sue for damages, for one. then there is this:



you basically have to be blind and deaf and live in a cave to have missed the all-out assault on women's rights going on across the country.

[Sensitive New Age Guys]

Which policies?

wisconsin just passed a law making it so that women who have proven that their employers discriminated against them cannot sue for damages, for one. then there is this:



you basically have to be blind and deaf and live in a cave to have missed the all-out assault on women's rights going on across the country.

The Wisconsin law doesn't seem to be specifically targeted against women, so, that argument is a fail.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/mar/12/cory-mason/wisconsin-gop-bill-would-repeal-law-ensuring-pay-e/

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

Says Wisconsin Assembly Republicans voted to repeal a law that ensures "that women cannot get paid less than a man for doing the same job."
Cory Mason on Thursday, February 23rd, 2012 in a news release

Wisconsin GOP bill would repeal law ensuring pay equity for women, Dem lawmaker says

Share this story:
A bill awaiting action by Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker would take away the right of discriminated workers to sue employers in state court for compensatory and punitive damages.

The GOP-sponsored bill would reverse a right to sue granted in a 2009 law approved when Democrats controlled state government. It covers many types of discrimination, including age and race.

But in criticizing his Republican colleagues for approving the new bill, state Rep. Cory Mason, D-Racine, issued a news release on Feb. 23, 2012 that focused on women.

He said the bill would repeal a law that ensures "that women cannot get paid less than a man for doing the same job."

There’s no debate that the bill would repeal the right to sue contained in the 2009 law.

But would it also affect working women the way Mason says?

To explore how employment discrimination cases work, we spoke with two employment law experts, Milwaukee lawyers Jeff Hynes, who represents workers, and Scott Beightol, who defends employers.

There are two routes to filing an employment discrimination complaint: the state Equal Rights Division and the federal Equal Opportunity Employment Commission.

If workers prove discrimination using the state system, an administrative law judge can "make them whole" by ordering the employer to pay back pay with interest, legal fees and job reinstatement, if there was a termination. If the discrimination is proved in the federal system, often a "make whole" settlement is reached through mediation.

In either system, discriminated workers can collect larger sums of money from an employer -- compensatory and punitive damages -- only by suing.

A federal lawsuit has long been an option, but suing employers in state court for compensatory and punitive damages only became possible with the 2009 law adopted by the Democrats. That law is new enough, and discrimination cases take long enough to process, that no such state lawsuits have yet been filed. Under the current law, if such lawsuits are brought in state court, workers could collect as much as $300,000 in damages, depending on the employer’s size. (The employer must have at least 15 employees.)

Supporters of the 2009 law said at the time it was needed to enforce laws that require men and women to be paid equally and to deter employers from committing discrimination. Opponents said the law creates an unnecessary burden on businesses when workers already had legal avenues to collect damages for suffering discrimination.

Fast-forward to the GOP bill, promoted as a pro-business measure, that Walker’s spokesman said the governor is reviewing.

Would it, as Mason claims, repeal a law that ensures "that women cannot get paid less than a man for doing the same job"?

Mason argues the law ensures equal pay for women because filing lawsuits is the major way of enforcing civil rights laws. The threat of being sued in state court makes employers less likely to discriminate against workers, which also helps ensure pay equity, he added.

But ensuring the right to sue in state court, as the law does, is not the same as ensuring pay equity.

Mason also said there is an indication the "pay gap" between men and women in Wisconsin has decreased since the 2009 law took effect. He cited a 2009 study and a 2010 study by the American Association of University Women, which advocates for equity for women and girls. Using median annual earnings for full-time workers, the studies found that Wisconsin women earned 75 percent of what men did in 2009, ranking the state 37th; and 78 percent in 2010, ranking the state 25th.

Mason acknowledged, however, that the studies aren’t proof that the law caused the decrease in the pay gap. More importantly, the studies were an overview of pay -- they didn’t examine pay for women and men who do the same job, which is what Mason’s claim addressed.

What about the experts?

Hynes said the 2009 law deters discrimination because it is easier and less expensive to bring a workplace discrimination suit in state court than in federal court. If the GOP bill becomes law, he said, it would be harder for discriminated workers to collect damages and therefore harder to enforce laws prohibiting unequal pay.

Beightol disagreed that the federal system is more onerous and argued that discriminated workers have the same remedies available through federal court that they do in state court. He also made the point that no lawsuits have been filed in state court since the 2009 law took effect.

Our rating

Mason said Wisconsin Assembly Republicans approved a bill to repeal a law that ensures "that women cannot get paid less than a man for doing the same job."

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.

But discriminated workers would still be able to seek back pay and other "make whole" payments through government agencies, and they could still sue for compensatory and punitive damages in federal court.

Mason’s statement contains an element of truth, but ignores critical facts that would leave a different impression -- our definition of Mostly False.

Yes, women sometimes get abortions, but I believe there is a larger cultural factor than just a desire to control/enslave women. In China they have abortion as a form of birth control and the desire for male children is such that many more girls are aborted. Isn't that more of a war on women?

[Stedicules]

yes the usa works to destroy the female threat in america and re-instate the wonderful sausage fests of old.

womens' rights are being threatened. oklahoma has proposed a bill saying a fertilized egg is a human and in tennessee they're working to stop "gateway sexual activity" between men and women entirely. if the bill passes, a mother kissing her child would be a criminal charge.

american law makers need to stop telling women what's good for them and what's not. let them decide.

[Nadkor]

In China they have abortion as a form of birth control and the desire for male children is such that many more girls are aborted. Isn't that more of a war orn women?

Congratulations - you're not quite as bad as China.

[Ashmoria]

wisconsin just passed a law making it so that women who have proven that their employers discriminated against them cannot sue for damages, for one. then there is this:

(Image)

you basically have to be blind and deaf and live in a cave to have missed the all-out assault on women's rights going on across the country.

The Wisconsin law doesn't seem to be specifically targeted against women, so, that argument is a fail.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/mar/12/cory-mason/wisconsin-gop-bill-would-repeal-law-ensuring-pay-e/

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

Says Wisconsin Assembly Republicans voted to repeal a law that ensures "that women cannot get paid less than a man for doing the same job."
Cory Mason on Thursday, February 23rd, 2012 in a news release

Wisconsin GOP bill would repeal law ensuring pay equity for women, Dem lawmaker says

Share this story:
A bill awaiting action by Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker would take away the right of discriminated workers to sue employers in state court for compensatory and punitive damages.

The GOP-sponsored bill would reverse a right to sue granted in a 2009 law approved when Democrats controlled state government. It covers many types of discrimination, including age and race.

But in criticizing his Republican colleagues for approving the new bill, state Rep. Cory Mason, D-Racine, issued a news release on Feb. 23, 2012 that focused on women.

He said the bill would repeal a law that ensures "that women cannot get paid less than a man for doing the same job."

There’s no debate that the bill would repeal the right to sue contained in the 2009 law.

But would it also affect working women the way Mason says?

To explore how employment discrimination cases work, we spoke with two employment law experts, Milwaukee lawyers Jeff Hynes, who represents workers, and Scott Beightol, who defends employers.

There are two routes to filing an employment discrimination complaint: the state Equal Rights Division and the federal Equal Opportunity Employment Commission.

If workers prove discrimination using the state system, an administrative law judge can "make them whole" by ordering the employer to pay back pay with interest, legal fees and job reinstatement, if there was a termination. If the discrimination is proved in the federal system, often a "make whole" settlement is reached through mediation.

In either system, discriminated workers can collect larger sums of money from an employer -- compensatory and punitive damages -- only by suing.

A federal lawsuit has long been an option, but suing employers in state court for compensatory and punitive damages only became possible with the 2009 law adopted by the Democrats. That law is new enough, and discrimination cases take long enough to process, that no such state lawsuits have yet been filed. Under the current law, if such lawsuits are brought in state court, workers could collect as much as $300,000 in damages, depending on the employer’s size. (The employer must have at least 15 employees.)

Supporters of the 2009 law said at the time it was needed to enforce laws that require men and women to be paid equally and to deter employers from committing discrimination. Opponents said the law creates an unnecessary burden on businesses when workers already had legal avenues to collect damages for suffering discrimination.

Fast-forward to the GOP bill, promoted as a pro-business measure, that Walker’s spokesman said the governor is reviewing.

Would it, as Mason claims, repeal a law that ensures "that women cannot get paid less than a man for doing the same job"?

Mason argues the law ensures equal pay for women because filing lawsuits is the major way of enforcing civil rights laws. The threat of being sued in state court makes employers less likely to discriminate against workers, which also helps ensure pay equity, he added.

But ensuring the right to sue in state court, as the law does, is not the same as ensuring pay equity.

Mason also said there is an indication the "pay gap" between men and women in Wisconsin has decreased since the 2009 law took effect. He cited a 2009 study and a 2010 study by the American Association of University Women, which advocates for equity for women and girls. Using median annual earnings for full-time workers, the studies found that Wisconsin women earned 75 percent of what men did in 2009, ranking the state 37th; and 78 percent in 2010, ranking the state 25th.

Mason acknowledged, however, that the studies aren’t proof that the law caused the decrease in the pay gap. More importantly, the studies were an overview of pay -- they didn’t examine pay for women and men who do the same job, which is what Mason’s claim addressed.

What about the experts?

Hynes said the 2009 law deters discrimination because it is easier and less expensive to bring a workplace discrimination suit in state court than in federal court. If the GOP bill becomes law, he said, it would be harder for discriminated workers to collect damages and therefore harder to enforce laws prohibiting unequal pay.

Beightol disagreed that the federal system is more onerous and argued that discriminated workers have the same remedies available through federal court that they do in state court. He also made the point that no lawsuits have been filed in state court since the 2009 law took effect.

Our rating

Mason said Wisconsin Assembly Republicans approved a bill to repeal a law that ensures "that women cannot get paid less than a man for doing the same job."

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.

But discriminated workers would still be able to seek back pay and other "make whole" payments through government agencies, and they could still sue for compensatory and punitive damages in federal court.

Mason’s statement contains an element of truth, but ignores critical facts that would leave a different impression -- our definition of Mostly False.

Yes, women sometimes get abortions, but I believe there is a larger cultural factor than just a desire to control/enslave women. In China they have abortion as a form of birth control and the desire for male children is such that many more girls are aborted. Isn't that more of a war on women?

of course the wisconsin repeal is about women. parsing it out as maybe not as bad as it seems doesnt change that its about women and equal pay.

who cares what they do in china.

[Yootwopia]

The Wisconsin law doesn't seem to be specifically targeted against women, so, that argument is a fail.

It's specifically targetted at those that aren't privelaged. One of those groups is women. Taking away their right to litigation to effect change for equal pay before they go to the Federal courts is absolutely a way of discouraging people from campaigning on issues of equal pay.

[Trixiestan]

Yes, there's a war on women in the states. You'd have to live in a cave to not be aware of it. :/

[Laerod]

Is there a "War On Women" in the U.S.A.?

Is it really a war on women when subsidies from a going-broke government are considered for reduction or elimination? (My health insurance doesn't cover viagra, so are they attacking my wife through me?)

Is it really a war on women when, because of national economic policies, after the initial loss of traditionally male jobs, that the market would eventualy lose of female jobs?

Don't you just want to laugh at political spin? http://gawker.com/5901621/the-gop-flips-the-war-on-women-script-and-stephen-colbert-is-loving-it

I think the War on Women is about as real as the World of Warcraft.

Okay, let's see... Why is it they are trying to "reduce subsidies" as you put it? Let's ask Santorum:

I vote and have supported birth control because it is not the taking of a human life. But I’m not a believer in birth control and — artificial birth control — again, I think it goes down the line of being able to do whatever you want to do without having the responsibility that comes with that.... I think it breaks that … this is from a personal point of view. From a governmental point of view, I support Title 10 (I guess it is) and have voted for contraception — although I don’t think it works. I think it’s harmful to women. I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young. And I think it has it has — and we’ve seen — very, very harmful long-term consequences to a society. So, birth control — to me — enables that and I don’t think it’s a healthy thing for our country.

This is an attack on women and their right not to live their lives as Santorum and his ideological bretheren want. And that's all it ever was.

[Laerod]

Yes, women sometimes get abortions, but I believe there is a larger cultural factor than just a desire to control/enslave women. In China they have abortion as a form of birth control and the desire for male children is such that many more girls are aborted. Isn't that more of a war on women?

Tu quoque fallacy and irrelevant. Argument summarily rejected.

[Free Soviets]

wisconsin just passed a law making it so that women who have proven that their employers discriminated against them cannot sue for damages, for one. then there is this:

(Image)

you basically have to be blind and deaf and live in a cave to have missed the all-out assault on women's rights going on across the country.

The Wisconsin law doesn't seem to be specifically targeted against women, so, that argument is a fail.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/mar/12/cory-mason/wisconsin-gop-bill-would-repeal-law-ensuring-pay-e/

your link to politfact is laughable twice. first, because politifact is a joke too caught up in worries of 'bias' and tone to be of any use to anyone. but more importantly, because it didn't disagree with my claim at all.

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

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.

as for it not being specifically about women, that's right. it also covers other discriminated against groups. but then, so do all laws protecting equal rights.

would you like it better if i said the GOP is engaged in a war against women, immigrants, minorities, gays and lesbians, the elderly, children, and really anybody who isn't a cultural conservative? because i totally will.

Yes, women sometimes get abortions, but I believe there is a larger cultural factor than just a desire to control/enslave women. In China they have abortion as a form of birth control and the desire for male children is such that many more girls are aborted. Isn't that more of a war on women?

since your response is utterly non-responsive, i take it you concede the point.

[Not Kony Run Uganda]

They can vote, drink, do things men can, whats the prob? They need meds? Give em their meds.

[Indira]

yes there is a war on women and its pretty scary.

Really? Proof please

[Nadkor]

yes there is a war on women and its pretty scary.

Really? Proof please

Open your eyes and ears and look and listen around you.

[Free Soviets]

Really? Proof please

Open your eyes and ears and look and listen around you.

but that's haaaaaaard. and i might see and hear things that don't fit into my comfortable assumptions!

[Laerod]

yes there is a war on women and its pretty scary.

Really? Proof please

Read the damn thread. It's not even a full page long yet.

[Tahar Joblis]

would you like it better if i said the GOP is engaged in a war against women, immigrants, minorities, gays and lesbians, the elderly, children, and really anybody who isn't a cultural conservative? because i totally will.

That would be more accurate, but isn't as effective at driving women out to the polls.

[Ashmoria]

yes there is a war on women and its pretty scary.

Really? Proof please

welp consider how many states have mandated unnecessary and invasive medical procedures for women seeking abortion. how many states have mandated that doctors have to lie to their patients by reading a script put out by the government. how many republicans came out against basic preventatitve care for women. how many republican officials and candidates said nothing when others told women to "close their eyes" or who came out against abortion in the case of a dead fetus because farm animals are OK when delivering dead offspring. how many republicans have come out against the women's health services of planned parenthood even to the point of losing federal money due to illegally defunding PP leaving thousands of women without access to inexpensive health care. how many republicans disagreed with scot walker repealing the right to sue for pay discrimination? did any republican even disagree with the idea that women should have to get their employer's consent for contraceptive coverge?

and thats not even looking at the non-female specific policies that hit women disproportionatly like medicaid, food stamps, housing subisidies that serve women and their minor children more than any other group.