Airlines scrupulously avoided speaking out on abortion after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was leaked – despite taking positions on issues like voting reform, affirmative action, and gun control.
However now that the Court’s decision has been published, Alaska Airlines has become the first U.S. carrier to put out a statement. While a bit mealy mouthed, it highlights the airline’s willingness to cover travel costs to get an abortion.
[W]e will continue, just as we always have, to provide employees with extensive benefits to support your health and well-being, no matter where you live. This includes reimbursing travel for certain medical procedures and treatments if they are not available where you live.
It’s odd for the airline to put out this supposedly employee-focused communication in their public newsroom (so it’s meant for media consumption). And odd for the airline’s focus to be on their employees.
- Abortion rights are not under threat in the states where Alaska Airlines operates hubs. Alaska’s constitution has been explicitly read to protect abortion, and it will remain legal in Washington State and California.
- Airline employees can travel more easily than most if necessary.
By putting this out as a public statement they’re signaling publicly in response to the news. But they don’t actually take a clear position on the decision, because their customers as well as employees are divided on the issue.
Restrictions on abortion are complicated because the harder it becomes to obtain an abortion the more costly and time-consuming. A restriction at 15 weeks (at issue in Dobbs) will push some abortions out later, the opposite of what pro-choice advocates would want.
Personally I find abortion to be a difficult issue. Because of my own uncertainty I’m reluctant to codify one answer in law. Legally-speaking the opinion in Roe vs. Wade never seemed strong. Stronger, it seems, would be a robust 9th amendment jurisprudence (which only Justice Gorsuch seems remotely interested in).
Indeed, Justice Alito writes as justification for overturning Roe.
the Constitution makes no mention of abortion.
But the Constitution’s 9th amendment literally reads “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
While unsatisfying to activists, the formulation that seems to match where most people are remains ‘safe, legal and rare.’ Every company is different but given the passion on both sides, and that the passionate sides diverge from where most people are, this seems like an issue most companies will try their best to avoid (they have employees and customers on both sides and the country is generally divided, far from the extremes of activists on both sides) and will stumble on when forced to address.
Businesses really need to abstain from such political issues or they risk alienating half of their customers. Just fly the damn planes and leave politics alone.
Such an ignorant comment as said by a white man of privilege. I applaud anyone who takes sides more than one “sitting on the fence” like you.
Alaska would have done even better circulating this employee-focused policy internally, waiting for it to get leaked, even “leaked accidentally”. I infer that they do not want to opine on general policy here.
Why not provide free travel for anyone who needs medical services in a different place if they want to be helpful.
There are no travel costs for airline employees to travel (save a hotel). Seems like virtue signaling to me.
@Jaybird —> I’m sorry, was that statement directed at you? Did AS say they were going to help YOU seek medical treatment? Oh. I guess I missed that part. It’s HR telling their employees about their medical coverage in light of changes on a Federal level. Companies inform their employees about changes to their benefits all the time. Q: How is this any different? (A: it’s not.)
AlaskaAir. The airline of BabyMurder.
You. Correctly note the legal reasoning was not particularly strong. Even some prominent “liberal” law professors said so decades ago. Biden will presumably now promote legislation making abortion the law of the land with perhaps some restrictions. It will be an ugly debate.
“Stronger, it seems, would be a robust 9th amendment jurisprudence (which only Justice Gorsuch seems remotely interested in).”
Remotely indeed, given how he’s enthusiastically laying the groundwork to overturn Obergefell, Loving, etc. OTOH, I’m sure Society of Sisters will remain intact, since consistency is no obstacle for an illegitimate court!
UA just sent a memo to employees per newswires. they’re making the same statement as AS. FWIW Apple, Citibank, Deutsche Bank all made similar statements today.
Everyone’s situation Everyone’s reasons are different. This is something between them and God. Definitely not salty politicians who are upset because they feel their gun rights are being invaded.
Not sure how many employees will give up their privacy by asking their employers for this benefit.
Agree that a more general ‘travel for medical services’ would be a better way to put it.
However it sounds like there will be fights over interstate travel (for a woman leaving a banned state for a pro-choice state) and airlines could well be dragged into those fights.
(PS- Women are not mentioned at all in the constitution- so therefore are any laws pertaining to women unacceptable? Should they over-rule women’s voting because women didn’t vote in Constitution times?)
Alaska wins this week’s “Most Woke Business” award. Congrats guys. smh
I was so hoping this SCOTUS decision would not spill over into my beloved travel space, but this appears to have been a forlorn hope.
Once again the Supreme Court destroys it’s credibility. It’s been downhill since the 2000 stolen election. That political hill they built is a slippery slope…..
Why do we care about a male travel blogger’s position on abortion?
“Such an ignorant comment as said by a white man of privilege.”
@Sahe, how quickly you pulled the race card! Everything is RACIST!!
Very disappointed this contentious issue was brought up on a travel site. It simply doesn’t belong here and brings no added value.
@JetAway the simple solution is to not read the article or visit the site.
@Jaybird 100% agree. @Jason B: Ever heard of an internal (key word) memo to your employees. A public statement by any corporate officer should stay away from politics and that what this is by AS! Really stupid! Make money for your shareholders and vote or run for office if you want to shoot your mouth off…Geez!
You may wish to change the name to View from the Right Wing and not call it a travel and points blog any more as you insist on interjecting your political opinons and creating a divisive forum. Go for it if you want to go on Hannity, but please keep this site focused on the relevant travel-related issues and which is your readers come here (trust me, it’s not to hear your political views or anyone else’s).
@jman – in a post where I object to laws regulating abortion, and suggest a constitutional right under the 9th amendment, you call me right wing? what am i missing?
first,
Gary is absolutely justified to cover AS’ statement since it was released on a public platform.
Second, CNBC’s Leslie Joseph asked where AA and WN’s statement is – or notes the absence of comment – because of its TX HDQ. She could also have noted DL and NK since those two airlines also have HDQs in states where there is a risk if not likelihood of restrictions on abortion.
Third, the majority of airline employees live in conservative, southern states which is more about a favorable business climate and growing economies than about politics.
Fourth, airlines have to figure out how to what they believe they need to do for their employees but don’t need to broadcast it to the world, esp. today.
Fifth, anyone that doubts how fractured the US is and how badly some are talking about violence against this ruling are kidding themselves, esp. if they talk about Jan 6 or any other threat to government.
Most importantly, none of what happened today in Washington DC is going to make the current ecoomics of the US change. Anyone that wants to get fired about the abortion issue might ask themselves if their lives in entirety is better off now than it was yesterday.
First thing everyone reading should remember: This is @Gary’s blog and he can write whatever the Hell wants. We have a choice whether to read them. He’s pretty honest in his headlines, you know. You don’t have to click through.
On this specific article. I am heartily sick of corporations who want to pander to a particular segment of their customer base assuming it won’t make a difference to those of different opinions. Specifically as airlines are concerned, having taken our (Govt) money during COVID, fired all the staff the money was supposed to pay for, maybe, just shmaybe, you might concern yourselves with running all your flights than blathering about woke political issues.
Businesses routinely get involved in politics in the US. When companies throw money to support the God/Guns/Greed Over People party, some complain about such company involvement while others support the companies involvement. When companies support things not fancied by the GOP zealots, then the stance on company involvement flips. Hypocrites on both sides.
I’ll support the right of the free American people to have liberty on how to handle their own body over the will of the American Taliban to force rape victims to give birth to rapists children. And I’ll support companies that support their employees’ personal bodily liberty with what goes on inside a person’s own body.
Rapists and other males are going to find themselves increasingly with an increased surtax in the form of mandatory child support payments for 18 years. And the rest of society will find a lot more unwanted children who become a burden on society she taxpayers writ large because unwanted children are unlikely to be raised properly in a way that minimizes the financial burden on taxpayers.
Will this policy also cover pregnant white men who wish to have abortions?
It will cover those who have their own uteruses with an embryo of concern.
Only women can have babies.
Less fed govt interference, leave it up to the states to decide. I like it.
This build back better is working out fantastically!
This Supreme Court ruling and the reasoning in it is a vehicle for way more government interference in people’s lives.
It’s really absurd when airlines or any business make statements that have nothing to do with their employees or business. Since when do companies pay for abortions? That’s distasteful. Let people pay for their own abortions.
The good thing about this ruling is leftist women are less likely to move to red states. The bad part of this ruling is leftist women in red states are less likely to abort their children which is unhelpful to conservatives. Conservatives are dumb to support things which hurt them. Smart conservatives want less liberals being born. Banning aborting is counterproductive.
The Supreme Court made the right move in saying abortion is not specifically a federal issue. They should have said all individuals have a right to do what they want to do their own bodies. Before we discuss abortion we should discuss drug laws, forced vaccinations, and bakers being forced to bake cakes.
The Supreme Court made the wrong move in saying that there is no constitutional right to internal bodily liberty and reproductive control for impregnated females. The idea that any government, state or federal or whatever, can force a raped 11 year old girl to further risk her own body by giving birth to her rapist’s child sets humanity back to the uncivilized era where the local feudal lord or other dominant thug could have his way with raping newly married women or anyone else so as to “spread his seed” as and how such rapist wishes. Let’s just see how long it is until in one of Amy Fischer’s favorite states there is a gun-loving zealot who first goes on a rape rampage “to live eternal” by “spreading his seed” and then finishes off with a mass shooter event that may cost the serial rapist his life.
Many a health insurance plan around the developed world pay for abortions.
I thought Alaska Airlines was smarter than this. There is no upside for a company to communicate support for aborting unborn babies regardless of your opinion on this. One of the pro-abortion arguments for years has been that “women’s health” clinics are primarily open for women to get good health care but in fact, they are primarily around to make money performing abortions.
but but Mr. Justice, the Constitution does not mention AR-15s either … but here we are with what has become daily massacres!
Before many you folk get your knickers in a twist, you might ask yourself a simple question.
Were the provisions for employees (such as covering travel needed for medical reasons) already in the established benefit set of employment for such companies?
If so, corporate statements are merely confirming their existing practice in support of the health and wellbeing of their employees.
This for example the case for Patagonia – that company will cover bail in the circumstance of peaceful and lawful protect. The benefit set already there before the latest high jinx of the Supreme Court.
The howling about supposedly “woke” companies, etc., are just predictable dumb angst from those who cry freedom when it suits them only to shite on the rights of half the population when it doesn’t.
What a bunch of sad hypocrites some are!
@ DaninMCI
Your opinion is not the majority opinion in the USA. Far from it. So you cannot conclude that there is no upside.
If I inflicted my opinions on you, you’d be squealing like a sad little piggy – I’d be stripping you of any public funding for your religion, religious schools, the teaching of creationism, etc., etc., hiding under the guise of a charity. I’d have your gun removed. If you refused to be vaccinated I’d remove your access to health care entirely. If you were ever caught with a gun in an airport, I’d deny you future travel, access to a passport. I’d mandate that you collected your own solar energy, collected rainwater for grey water supply and bought an electric car. I would remove your access to social media. I would hold you accountable for abusing freedom of speech where it involved incitement or hatred.
Only joking, mate. To make the point.
@ Amy Fischer
Assuming you aren’t just making some poorly framed big joke and totally taking the piss…
“It’s really absurd when airlines or any business make statements that have nothing to do with their employees or business. Since when do companies pay for abortions? That’s distasteful. Let people pay for their own abortions.”
Hmmm…don’t companies generally cover medical expenses through paying for employees’ private health insurance? Cover travel when employees to travel for health care reasons?
It’s “distasteful” that the rights of women are being trashed (which you appear to agree with).
“The good thing about this ruling is leftist women are less likely to move to red states. The bad part of this ruling is leftist women in red states are less likely to abort their children which is unhelpful to conservatives. Conservatives are dumb to support things which hurt them. Smart conservatives want less liberals being born. Banning aborting is counterproductive.”
Wow. Do you have idea how lacking your statement is in any decency and humanity? That’s like saying that COVID is great because it kills the right wing covidiots who refused to be vaccinated. Weeds out the anti-science and religiously brainwashed dumb dross of the community. Yeah. Cool argument, sister. (I’m being sarcastic).
But so sad that some in the US regard each other with such disdain and disrespect. Talk about a divided nation!
“They should have said all individuals have a right to do what they want to do their own bodies. Before we discuss abortion we should discuss drug laws, forced vaccinations, and bakers being forced to bake cakes.”
So you want to live in a red state, be able to take drugs when you want, avoid the community responsibility of vaccination when you want and bake cakes when you feel like it. Oh, and you don’t want anyone who you regard as “leftist” living in your community?!
And you don’t want to win a political position by argument and reason, you want to do it through eugenics (referred breeding of non leftist women).
Stark, raving, right wing bonkers…
The 9th Amendment does not create rights that do not otherwise exist. It simply says that the Bill of Rights doesn’t grant any new powers to the federal government merely on the basis of the Bill of Rights not explicitly saying that the federal government can’t do those things. Madison himself literally said that that was what it meant. It was just pointing out that the contents of the Bill of Rights were merely either limitations on powers otherwise granted to the federal government under the Constitution or else just inserted for the sake of caution. A couple of earlier drafts of the amendment make this even more abundantly clear:
“That those clauses which declare that Congress shall not exercise certain powers be not interpreted in any manner whatsoever to extend the powers of Congress. But that they may be construed either as making exceptions to the specified powers where this shall be the case, or otherwise as inserted merely for greater caution.”
“The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.”
The ruling today was that the Constitution does not contain anything that would proscribe state laws against abortion (which it obviously doesn’t.) The only possible 9th (or 10th) Amendment implication would be if the Congress tried to weigh in on the issue from a national level, as those amendments only limit federal powers, not state ones. But this case was not addressing any federal law, but rather merely reversing a legally-erroneous ban on state ones, so those amendments were not relevant here.
Legal scholars have generally agreed since the day it happened that Roe was based on faulty reasoning, including those who would support a national right to abortion. It was just an invention of a Constitutional right out of whole cloth and overturning it was the only possible legally correct decision regardless of whether one believes such a right should exist or not.
@Kalboz
If you wish anyone to think you intelligent, please dispense with ever making that absurd argument again. The Constitution clearly says, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This is not limited to a particular type of arms any more than the First Amendment is limited to a particular method of communication. Saying that AR-15s weren’t around when the 2nd Amendment was passed, so it does not apply to them is an equivalent argument as saying that electronic printing presses and the Internet were not around at the time of the passing of the 1st Amendment, so it doesn’t apply to them. Or stating that Mormonism wasn’t around at the time of the passage of the 1st Amendment, so the Free Exercise clause doesn’t apply to it. It’s a plainly absurd and obviously disingenuous argument that no one actually believes. Please stop using it if you wish anyone to take your opinion seriously.
Comparing that to the abortion decision is a silly false equivalence. There is very plainly a Constitutional right for the people to keep and bear arms (or, more specifically, a Constitutional limitation on the government barring it from preventing the people from doing so.) There is no such provision regarding abortion, nor any broader concept that would include it.
When I board a plane I do not tell them how to fly nor do I tell them how to handle my baggage or how to provide excellent customer service. Alaska Air is my airline of choice … please Alasaka Air, (my airline of choice), and anyone else not in the medical field … stay in your own lane. And, FWIW, I promise to not ask my doctors about how to fly planes.
Stick to writing about travel Gary.
If the Bill of Rights were to be taken as limiting the power of only the US federal government — as some say was the explicit design and intent at the time of those Amendments’ ratification by the states and becoming the law of the US — then states should be just as able to ban gun ownership as zealots in states are able to ban abortion under the US Constitution. But these “originalists” are only selectively and hypocritically so, just like their con-man-in-chief Lord Trump.
The Thomas-Alito Supreme Court has muddied thinking and is not about consistency in the application of the rule of law and legal theories. The Thomas-Alito court is all about making whatever convoluted argument gets them their previously desired outcome regardless of the circumstances.
Señor Leff has never stuck to keeping this blog free of political discussions. Why should he start now? His site, his choice; just as much as it should be “her uterus, her choice”.
@vbscript2 – the Bill of Rights as a whole does not ‘create rights’ it limits the ability of the federal government to proscribe rights.
As for what a robust 9th amendment jurisprudence would look like see https://www.amazon.com/Rights-Retained-People-History-Amendment/dp/0913969370/ref=sr_1_1?
Alaska Airlines has been a remarkable and even heroic corporate citizen throughout its history, but never making a big deal about it. In 1948 in the early days of commercial aviation, for example, Alaska Airlines offered its planes and volunteer crews to fly 50,000 Yemeni Jews to safety in what was then the new State of Israel over the period of over a year.
For better or worse, healthcare in the United States is a matter of corporate concern because — thanks to the wisdom of our government — employers are almost always the vehicle through which people get health insurance. Choices like this will have to be made, whether they want to or not – and this seems perfectly sensible to me.
Alaska: how about enhancing your company policy to accommodate passengers in terms of flight delays and cancellation? Would you re-book them on other airlines? :
@Sahe
What a hateful, bigoted, racist, misandrist comment!! You should be ashamed!!!
Love Wins!
The “literalists” only follow literal interpretations when it suits them. About this, the Constitution makes no mention whatsoever, about how many justices make up the Supreme Court. Time to add 6 new positions to the Supreme Court!
Is Alaska Airlines also going to foot the bill for employees or dependents who want to travel to more prestigious hospitals for treatment? My father in law had to foot the bill for his own travel to go to Mayo and MD Anderson when he was battling pancreatic cancer. I mean, if this is about supporting employees…seems like a pretty slippery slope.
Plain and simple…..sheer idiocy for them or any business to get involved in this!!
Alaska Airlines flies in/out of Atlanta, GA. GA law has a ban of abortion services starting at 6 weeks, which will be effective with the ruling SCOTUS just announced. They fly many places in addition to CA, Alaska & Washington, where there are extreme bans in place. I support their position, which allows support for their employees to make their own health care decisions.
@vbscript2 As usual, the gun nuts left out the first part of the sentence of the 2nd Amendment:
`A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…’
Joe Schmo with an AR-15 is not a well regulated militia and is not necessary to the security of a free state.
And Gary’s ‘clickbait to useful info’ ratio is increasing weekly….
Typical sexism…I would like a free plane ticket to get blobs of flesh removed from inside me, but, because I don’t have a uterus…
@ vbscript2 says:
“If you wish anyone to think you intelligent, please dispense with ever making that absurd argument again”
Look in the mirror, dude. Your own argument directed at @ Kalboz is facile and thereby intellectually superficial.
“The Constitution clearly says, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Sure, it does, but how about providing the whole clause rather than selectively quoting the bit that you like. The bearing of arms is stated within the context of a well-regulated militia and as necessary to the security of a free state.
Now, there is an argument that you need to have those arms in the first place to be armed in a well-regulated militia (as necessary to the security of a free state), but that isn’t what you are saying, is it? You weren’t smart enough to make that distinction.
Citing your favourite bits out of context to bolster your personal opinion is easily called out as a weak argument.
Put another way, if the amendment had been written as you quoted (simply as a right to bear arms), then sure, define what the phrase meant linguistically when it was written, work out how that applies to the modern world, and, happy days, off you go to the local gun shop to buy your kid his / her 18th birthday gift of a semi-automatic weapon and 1,000s of rounds of ammo capable of shooting up dozens of kids in a school – BUT it wasn’t written so. The right to bear arms is framed within a context that you now need to interpret.
Pretending that such context is absent is absolutely absurd.
“This is not limited to a particular type of arms any more than the First Amendment is limited to a particular method of communication.”
More correctly and undeniably, the type of arms is not specifically defined.
Once again you ignore context. What type of arms would have been used in a well-regulated militia in 1791, apparently, single-shot rifles, swords, muskets and cannons.
Be careful not to fall into the trap of hypocrisy: you could argue linguistically “bearing arms” in historical context (what the words meant in 1791) infers an individual right to bear arms, so you want that phrase to have a gravitas bestowed by its historical meaning because it suits your personal position, but then you want to reject the historical meaning of “arms” because it doesn’t suit your personal position. Ouch!
In any case, the concept of “limited” is your personal projection as we are about to find out.
“Saying that AR-15s weren’t around when the 2nd Amendment was passed, so it does not apply to them is an equivalent argument as saying that electronic printing presses and the Internet were not around at the time of the passing of the 1st Amendment, so it doesn’t apply to them.”
Your comparison is poorly chosen. In the Second you have to decide the definition of the term “arms”. In the First there is no such impediment to interpretation regarding the definition of the medium of speech.
But, and, tragically, for your argument, the First has been subject to all sorts of post hoc legal interpretations / limitations. One example (picking the fun one to lighten the mood) is the demarcation between “free speech’ and “obscene speech”, which has shifted historically, in part reflecting “community standards” as pornography has gained social acceptance.
“It’s a plainly absurd and obviously disingenuous argument that no one actually believes. Please stop using it if you wish anyone to take your opinion seriously.”
Your own argument is shot to pieces, buddy. Superficial statements with febrile logical tenure are easily demolished.
Put simply, the constitution and the amendments are continually being legally reinterpreted as history advances. Presumed “limitations” (or lack thereof) are constantly under legal challenge in order for society and government to progress, something about abolition of slavery (you had to wait until the 13th for that), rights to vote, etc., etc.
“Comparing that to the abortion decision is a silly false equivalence. There is very plainly a Constitutional right for the people to keep and bear arms (or, more specifically, a Constitutional limitation on the government barring it from preventing the people from doing so.) There is no such provision regarding abortion, nor any broader concept that would include it.”
You were offended by the concept that the constitution does not mention AR-15s. But it is a fact. It (the Second) does not.
You are relying on your personal interpretation of the term “arms” (with selective citation and avoidance of context) and claiming an unlimited definition supported by an unsubstantiated example of presumed equivalence (whereas here are many examples of the constitution being legally “reinterpreted” with respect to limiting definitions, including the acceptance of pornography!).
Now whether the rusted-on conservatives like it or not, history progresses. There were slaves and women denied the right to vote when the constitution was first framed, etc., etc. As you point out, there weren’t even any Mormons. Or, for that matter, the first recognised dinosaur fossil hadn’t been identified for another 50 years (tooth of the Iguanodon), the Origin of the Species hadn’t been written for another 100 years, let alone the chemical structure of DNA discovered for another 170 years.
Whilst even traditionally Catholic counties like Ireland (ironically enabled per 36th constitutional amendment 2018 passing the power to parliament) and Colombia (ironically enabled by the Constitutional Court 2006 upheld 2020), the USA is regressing into its past.
Ironically, interpretation of the US constitution and its amendments can ultimately fall to the Supreme Court bench. And, as @JohnB has referenced, that outcome (for abortion rights), apparently determined along political party lines, could easily be manipulated by assigning a new crew of judges.
Meanwhile, other western democratic nations have moved on – effective gun control, abortion, assisted dying, etc. etc.
Even t*RUMP appears to be keeping his head down, having created a serious problem for the Republicans by stacking the Supreme Court bench with uber right conservatives.
Surely the constitution was intended to unite peoples, not be used as an instrument of their division? What is the purpose here?
Meanwhile, the post are laden with unfortunate hypocrisy (I want freedom, but only when it applies to me!).
Abortion is murder. It’s not about “her body”, there is another body inside her.
Glad this is finally done with.
We need a national ban on baby killing.
@LK
Murder is not legal there is nothing on the constitution that says it’s ok to kill babies.
Guns are protected.
Abortion is black genocide and people who support abortion are worse than the Nazis.
@platy
We have the law and Constitution on our side. You just have blind ignorance and rage.
You don’t get to change the rules because you lost.
Dredd Scott was once settled law. It’s nice that we a progressive enough to end baby killing at least partially.
@platy
“We have the law and Constitution on our side.”
Actually, what you have at this time is a bench of Supreme Court judges stacked with uber-conservatives on your side exploiting the uncertainty in language of a constitution and amendments written 230 years ago at a time in history when there was slavery and no right to vote for women and muskets were armaments not high powered semi automatic weapons being used by Americans for mass murder on an almost daily basis.
“You just have blind ignorance and rage.”
I would suggest that of the two of us, you are the one fixated with emotion and hysteria. Tell me that you gave a second thought for the one million Americans who have died of COVID, or the 100,000s of innocent civilians who died in the (illegal) second invasion of Iraq, or even the victims of mass murder from your national obsession with gun ownership. In other words, convince me that you aren’t a simpering hypocrite?
“You don’t get to change the rules because you lost.”
I don’t get to change any rules. I already live in a country with abortion rights, assisted dying rights, stem cell research, effective gun control ,etc.
For your information we don’t go about shooting each other up, the actual abortion rates are extremely low (and declining at 5% per year) and in the vast majority of cases apply when the foetus is most certainly part of the woman’s body (less than 1.5cm), so your references to baby killing are emotional hysteria.
And since you are attached to “rules”, rules change, buddy, even the constitution (it took 75 years before slavery was addressed trough the 13th amendment). And then the rules themselves are subject to legal interpretation.
Just how far back in history do you want to drag your country?
The world is moving on. But not the USA thanks to some retrograde conservatives.
LOL at all these liberal assholes absolutely losing their minds!!! This alone is worth the ruling.
Platy you and your liberal ilk are the ones dragging us back into the dark ages. We now have numerous, free contraception including a morning after pill. There is rarely a legitimate reason to even have an abortion. You can say what you want about the composition of the Supreme Court. Those justices were appointed by the President who was democratically elected. Get over yourself and stop with the tiresome progressive talking points.
“Sahe” says:” Such an ignorant comment as said by a white man of privilege. I applaud anyone who takes sides more than one “sitting on the fence” like you.”
You are the ignorant one here. You don’t know mine or anyone else’s race or gender who is posting here. It is of the upmost foolishness of any company to choose sides or issue statements on an issue such as abortion. With the country split down the middle you will alienate one side or the other no matter which position you take. Why would a CEO wish to do that. I live in Anchorage Alaska and even there we have other choices of who to fly.
@CMorgan
“dragging us back into the dark ages.”
Right, fella, you are the ones going backwards, peeling back rights won over the years. Just how far back into your history to you want to regress? What’s next – limit use of contraception? Remove women’s right to vote? Men being able to consort with their partners / wives without consent? Remove provisions for equal pay? Just how rusted-on old-fashioned conservative are you? Just remember it was the right wing who stood against proven health policy in controlling COVID and you all paid the price for that – over one million dead. It’s hard to imagine a more neanderthal and pachycephalan response (oh except for the regressive stupidity about gun control and abortion, etc).
Whatever – but you are clearly afraid of change. Afraid of progress. Selfishly disinterested in the rights of others. Hiding in your cave clutching your gun in fear.
MAGBA – Make America Great Britain again!
” There is rarely a legitimate reason to even have an abortion”
“Legitimate” depends upon the jurisdiction in which you live – your personal statement makes it neither legitimate or illegitimate. That’s the point.
Here in Australia (a more civilised society that the US in so many ways) the abortion rate is extremely low, so in one sense you are correct, the incidence of women deciding in favour of abortion is rare. But, that in itself does not justify removing their access to abortion. You should self educate on the reasons why women have abortions, a decision not undertaken lightly and typically due to compelling reasons such as rape, poverty, domestic violence.
No doubt you are seeking to impose your archaic world view on half of your country’s population with very little direct experience or consideration of the issues at hand. Dumb jerk-off stuff.
“You can say what you want about the composition of the Supreme Court. Those justices were appointed by the President who was democratically elected.”
And that, my dumb backward buddy, is exactly what I am saying. Those herein make declarations about the sanctity of the constitution forgetting that its content is so easily politically manipulated. There is no absolute and unambiguous legal imperative. Is that too complex a concept for your tiny mind to process?
“Get over yourself and stop with the tiresome progressive talking points.”
Grow up, mate. If you’re not smart enough or competent to engage in a logical and reasoned argument go back to your play pen and take comfort in the dumbed down brainwashing of your right wing media. A classic dumb right wing American easily manipulated and unable to think for themselves. Here in Australia, we laugh at people like you over a beer (thankfully recognising that you are in the minority on this issue).
“It is of the upmost foolishness of any company to choose sides or issue statements on an issue such as abortion’
Once again you exhibit your abject stupidity. The company is restating its HEALTH CARE commitment to its employees. Remember, that absent a universal health care system in the USA (like a more civilised country such as the UK or Australia) it befalls upon the employer to fund private health insurance.
” You don’t know mine or anyone else’s race or gender who is posting here”
Pretty sure that @Sage was referring to Gary Leff in the post quoted. In which case I think we can safely conclude the race and gender, no?! Mate you have become so hysterical that you can’t even comprehend a simple post. Like I said, a typical (very) dumb right wing American. Thanks for the laughs buddy. Now go back to your rancid cave and polish your guns and let the grown ups fight it out with logical debate.