People are voting AGAINST equal rights for women.... say it isn't so! Though it is disheartening to see the poll numbers I am still thankful I live in the USA because these poll results would be reversed in many other countries.
I guess because we're allowed to vote, decide what to do with our own bodies and come out of the kitchen with out asking first they figure we already have enough rights.
I would like to bet that any of the "no" voters do not have daughters.
Bea, I don't have a problem with most of the 10 part bill, but equal pay part raises questions. I'll use you as an example.
You once said you were hired as a manager/supervisor for a project (I think it was in PA) and you were paid more than your male counterparts because you were just better at it. That was a subjective opinion by your bosses. They thought you were better and deserved more money.
You were better, at a job that was hard to quantify. Your bosses knew you were better but might have a hard time proving it to a judge and jury when the males demanded equal pay.
Now I understand your point, most of the time it is men being paid more. But there has to be protection for the people who are just better. The worry is that some State bureaucrats or judge will not allow higher pay for better work, but pay being based on just a job title.
"The war against women"?
Really Bea? Your word for today is: Bombastic
While I support the right of each and every individual to live their life in the way that makes them happy, and I do not support or condone discrimination or inequality amongst human beings, I cannot support more laws and regulations that only encourage those who do seek control over others to bend them to their benefit.
Godfather Andy and the Demicans created the Women's Equality ballot line to give him more exposure on the ballot, same as the republocrats did with Common Core. this non-existent party is nothing more than a ploy to let you think Andy cares about anything besides his personal agenda. Essentially he and the Republocrats are hoping to keep legitimate 3rd parties from gaining automatic ballot access for the next 4 years. Got to keep the old gravy train running right. He promoted this Act this to get the endorsement of the Working Families Party so as to show a stronger margin of victory than he would have had if they endorsed someone else. Fusion voting is an absolute cancer that needs to be removed, but sadly has less chance of happening than Cuomo getting defeated this November.
Let's see what Ms.Teachout had to say about this: "The governor wanted, fought for, and had a Republican State Senate”—referring to the common criticism of the governor’s refusal to campaign for Democrats in 2012, while throwing his weight behind certain Republicans who had voted for marriage equality. She continued, “He blames the Republicans that he supported for his failure to pass the Women’s Equality Act. Then he uses the money he raises from Republicans and special interests to buy a cynical advertisement”—the Women’s Equality Party—“on the ballot touting his alleged support for women’s equality in a way designed to damage the WFP—a group he hates because they forced him to pretend to be a Democrat. You can’t make this stuff up.”
For the record I am a son, brother, husband, father, grandfather uncle and friend of many brilliant, capable women. I voted no, because it is baloney. It's nothing more than an attempt by the Governor to buy a few more votes and damage the Working Families Party who might actually put enough pressure on the legislature to get some of these laws passed. Cuomo and the other 2 men in the room don't want that. He knows it is destined for failure because he will see to it and then blame the other side. It's disgusting.
Less government regulation, less government, less disingenuous preaching from politicians, more ballot access for those who do not pander to the Republocrat - Demican control freaks and above all else, less taxation is what will help make lives of all NY'ers, Men and Women more free and better able to follow their dreams.
I disagree with this
"Protect a Woman’s Freedom of Choice: This bill would codify existing Supreme Court law to protect a woman’s right to obtain an abortion prior to viability, or when necessary to protect her life or health. The law will ensure that New York’s laws are consistent with the law of the land. Currently, New York State’s law that protects a women’s freedom of choice is outdated and does not conform to protections outlined in Roe v. Wade and current state practice."
The only abortion I support is for rape victims who have had evidence collected via a rape kit and there has been a determination that a rape has taken place by a judge.
I disagree with this
"Achieve Pay Equity: The bill would finally shatter the glass ceiling by eliminating the ability of employers to point to “any other factor other than sex” to justify pay disparities and instead require that their pay decisions be based on legitimate reasons. In addition, the legislation would protect an employee’s right to share wage information with other employees without being retaliated against, and increase damages to successful plaintiffs in pay equity discrimination cases. Currently, in New York, women earn 84% of what men earn, and over a lifetime will earn $500,000 less than men. Jobs that are traditionally held by women pay significantly less than jobs predominately employing men. And, in New York, a woman working full time is paid, on average, $42,113 per year, while a man is paid $50,388 per year. In 2013, this is both inexcusable and absurd."
You should be paid based on merit and ability. The government should have no bearing on any form of pay including setting a minimum wage. Your wage is agreed upon by you and your employer and you can quit at anytime. The stigma of not discussing pay rate between employees needs to be removed and the problem will solve itself.
I disagree with this
"Remove Barriers to Remedying Discrimination: The legislation would allow successful plaintiffs to recover attorney’s fees in employment or credit discrimination cases based on sex. This will enable victims, most of whom are women, to have the opportunity to vindicate their rights and be made whole in cases where they prevail. Currently, plaintiffs cannot recover attorney fees at trial for employment discrimination cases, making it costly to bring a case. Approximately 77% of sex based employment discrimination cases filed with New York State are filed by women."
Enact a loser pays system across the board and the amount of frivolous law suits will decrease dramatically. There is no reason that what is good for sex discrimination wouldn't be good for all types of cases.
I disagree with this
"Stop Source-of-Income Discrimination: This legislation would prohibit landlords from discriminating against tenants based on lawful source of income, and therefore maximizes a family’s ability to secure safe and decent housing. Since women account for 76% of all housing choice voucher recipients, including Section 8 vouchers, many of the landlords who refuse to rent to recipients of Section 8 or other public housing assistance recipients are discriminating against women."
As a landlord I should be able to choose who lives in my place and who doesn't
Bea, you said there's a war against women. I was unaware of that war. Is that just an opinion, or did congress declare war? I work for a company that has a female CEO, and she's also a minority. She was compensated $10.2 million dollars in 2013 according to Forbes, and she did that even though hundreds, if not thousands of people are losing their jobs here. I'd say there's more of a war on the American, middle class worker than on women. The union I have belonged to for 21+ years compensates women equally with men doing the same job.
It's actually about 10 Bills packaged into 1. I think one of the bills is the one you're thinking of CJ. Cuomo slapped that name on the whole package then refused to sign any individual item of it, insisting that it was an all-or-nothing package.
1) The provision to protect women against discriminatory pay does not invite new regulation. It amends the wording in passages of existing labor law that exclude gender from prohibited benchmarks for pay determination.
2) The language relative to abortion rights codifies those abortion rights currently protected by Roe V. Wade.
3) The balance of the bill relates to workplace protection for pregnant employees, human trafficking laws, domestic violence laws and orders of protection; amending current law in each case.
Why am I reminded of the dolts who killed the ERA because it would promote co-ed bathrooms?
It is always a good idea to read a bill rather than believing the politicians or media.This bill is your typical package of feel good regulations (honestly, do we have to regulate everything?) combined with portions that are really incredibly bad. Pass one pass all. The bill expands third trimester abortions for women and allows non-physicians to perform them. Complex late term abortions could be performed by non-physicians. I thought the original abortion laws were supposed to protect women from back alley abortions - "safe and rare" was the mantra. More black babies in NYC were aborted than born and Cuomo wants to expand the possibilities.
One part of the bill includes the -Trafficking Victims Protection and Justice Act- sponsered by both a D and a R that unamimously passed the Senate. A logical, humanitarian bill designed to reduce a horrible problem in our state. The Assembly would not pass it if the whole Womens Equality Act wasn't passed. So it didn't pass. These people really care so much about women and children.
Read the bills and research what is really going on before deciding based on titles. You might be surprised.
"It is always a good idea to read a bill rather than believing the politicians or media."
Good practice, and an excellent point.
"The bill expands third trimester abortions for women and allows non-physicians to perform them."
Obviously, you haven't read the bill, Barbara. This is false.
"Complex late term abortions could be performed by non-physicians."
False. (And, to be polite, utter malicious baloney.) So, please read the bill. Here's the relevant portion you somehow missed:
*Protecting a Woman's Freedom of Choice
This section of the bill aligns State law with existing federal law.
In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the United States Supreme Court ruled
that the United States Constitution protects a woman's right to termi-
nate her pregnancy when necessary to protect the health and life of the
woman. New York became one of the first states to provide women the
right to choose prior to Roe and therefore did not include elements now
protected under federal law. This proposal would not change or alter
existing State and federal laws that permit a health care provider or
institutions from refraining from providing an abortion for religious or
moral beliefs, would not expand the class of individuals who could
perform abortions, nor would it alter the current long-standing criminal
ban on partial birth abortion. However, it would incorporate the impor-
tant reproductive rights that women in New York have had since Roe.
Touche' . Note to self: Do not send posts when too tired.
I did not take the information straight from the bill, which I should have. I have not had a chance yet (thus the delay in response to you) to find the exact bill. Are you actually quoting from the bill? Could you possibly post the link for the actual bill?
I took the information from various websites of people studying the bill. Malicious baloney? No- many people who care deeply about women and children are extremely concerned about what the ramifications of this bill will be.
One wonders, if it is not changing anything in current law why are they refusing to pass the bill without the abortion section? They seem to consider it very,very important, enough so they would not pass the trafficking section of the bill without it. How sad.
I will try to get to read the whole bill this week. It is good advice. :-) Unfortunately what a bill says may not be how the courts interpret it.
"Malicious baloney? No- many people who care deeply about women and children are extremely concerned about what the ramifications of this bill will be."
You were telling us what the bill *said*, not its ramifications. And you reported it completely and exactly wrong. So one wonders how you can so strongly recommend referencing the original source material for the bill, while so blatantly misrepresenting the content of the bill by 180 degrees,
e.g.: You state: "Complex late term abortions could be performed by non-physicians."
From the bill: "[The proposal. . . ] would not expand the class of individuals who could
perform abortions. . . "
I think it's very hard to get things so completely and diametrically wrong, as in your post, by simple mistake. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but from your distortion here, I get a strong whiff of propaganda and disinformation. If you wish to advocate, by all means advocate -- but I think you should be more true to your cause, and more truthful in your advocacy.
People are voting AGAINST
People are voting AGAINST equal rights for women.... say it isn't so! Though it is disheartening to see the poll numbers I am still thankful I live in the USA because these poll results would be reversed in many other countries.
http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/06042013Womens-Equality-Act-Legislation
http://www.governor.ny.gov/pr
http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/06042013Womens-Equality-Act-Legislation
To the no voters...please tell us what part of this bill you find objectionable.
The war against women is alive and well on this site. Nothing changes.
I guess because we're allowed
I guess because we're allowed to vote, decide what to do with our own bodies and come out of the kitchen with out asking first they figure we already have enough rights.
I would like to bet that any of the "no" voters do not have daughters.
Bea, I don't have a problem
Bea, I don't have a problem with most of the 10 part bill, but equal pay part raises questions. I'll use you as an example.
You once said you were hired as a manager/supervisor for a project (I think it was in PA) and you were paid more than your male counterparts because you were just better at it. That was a subjective opinion by your bosses. They thought you were better and deserved more money.
You were better, at a job that was hard to quantify. Your bosses knew you were better but might have a hard time proving it to a judge and jury when the males demanded equal pay.
Now I understand your point, most of the time it is men being paid more. But there has to be protection for the people who are just better. The worry is that some State bureaucrats or judge will not allow higher pay for better work, but pay being based on just a job title.
"The war against
"The war against women"?
Really Bea? Your word for today is: Bombastic
While I support the right of each and every individual to live their life in the way that makes them happy, and I do not support or condone discrimination or inequality amongst human beings, I cannot support more laws and regulations that only encourage those who do seek control over others to bend them to their benefit.
Godfather Andy and the Demicans created the Women's Equality ballot line to give him more exposure on the ballot, same as the republocrats did with Common Core. this non-existent party is nothing more than a ploy to let you think Andy cares about anything besides his personal agenda. Essentially he and the Republocrats are hoping to keep legitimate 3rd parties from gaining automatic ballot access for the next 4 years. Got to keep the old gravy train running right. He promoted this Act this to get the endorsement of the Working Families Party so as to show a stronger margin of victory than he would have had if they endorsed someone else. Fusion voting is an absolute cancer that needs to be removed, but sadly has less chance of happening than Cuomo getting defeated this November.
Let's see what Ms.Teachout had to say about this: "The governor wanted, fought for, and had a Republican State Senate”—referring to the common criticism of the governor’s refusal to campaign for Democrats in 2012, while throwing his weight behind certain Republicans who had voted for marriage equality. She continued, “He blames the Republicans that he supported for his failure to pass the Women’s Equality Act. Then he uses the money he raises from Republicans and special interests to buy a cynical advertisement”—the Women’s Equality Party—“on the ballot touting his alleged support for women’s equality in a way designed to damage the WFP—a group he hates because they forced him to pretend to be a Democrat. You can’t make this stuff up.”
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/07/30/new-yorks-governor-playing…
For the record I am a son, brother, husband, father, grandfather uncle and friend of many brilliant, capable women. I voted no, because it is baloney. It's nothing more than an attempt by the Governor to buy a few more votes and damage the Working Families Party who might actually put enough pressure on the legislature to get some of these laws passed. Cuomo and the other 2 men in the room don't want that. He knows it is destined for failure because he will see to it and then blame the other side. It's disgusting.
Less government regulation, less government, less disingenuous preaching from politicians, more ballot access for those who do not pander to the Republocrat - Demican control freaks and above all else, less taxation is what will help make lives of all NY'ers, Men and Women more free and better able to follow their dreams.
I voted no. I disagree with
I voted no.
I disagree with this
"Protect a Woman’s Freedom of Choice: This bill would codify existing Supreme Court law to protect a woman’s right to obtain an abortion prior to viability, or when necessary to protect her life or health. The law will ensure that New York’s laws are consistent with the law of the land. Currently, New York State’s law that protects a women’s freedom of choice is outdated and does not conform to protections outlined in Roe v. Wade and current state practice."
The only abortion I support is for rape victims who have had evidence collected via a rape kit and there has been a determination that a rape has taken place by a judge.
I disagree with this
"Achieve Pay Equity: The bill would finally shatter the glass ceiling by eliminating the ability of employers to point to “any other factor other than sex” to justify pay disparities and instead require that their pay decisions be based on legitimate reasons. In addition, the legislation would protect an employee’s right to share wage information with other employees without being retaliated against, and increase damages to successful plaintiffs in pay equity discrimination cases. Currently, in New York, women earn 84% of what men earn, and over a lifetime will earn $500,000 less than men. Jobs that are traditionally held by women pay significantly less than jobs predominately employing men. And, in New York, a woman working full time is paid, on average, $42,113 per year, while a man is paid $50,388 per year. In 2013, this is both inexcusable and absurd."
You should be paid based on merit and ability. The government should have no bearing on any form of pay including setting a minimum wage. Your wage is agreed upon by you and your employer and you can quit at anytime. The stigma of not discussing pay rate between employees needs to be removed and the problem will solve itself.
I disagree with this
"Remove Barriers to Remedying Discrimination: The legislation would allow successful plaintiffs to recover attorney’s fees in employment or credit discrimination cases based on sex. This will enable victims, most of whom are women, to have the opportunity to vindicate their rights and be made whole in cases where they prevail. Currently, plaintiffs cannot recover attorney fees at trial for employment discrimination cases, making it costly to bring a case. Approximately 77% of sex based employment discrimination cases filed with New York State are filed by women."
Enact a loser pays system across the board and the amount of frivolous law suits will decrease dramatically. There is no reason that what is good for sex discrimination wouldn't be good for all types of cases.
I disagree with this
"Stop Source-of-Income Discrimination: This legislation would prohibit landlords from discriminating against tenants based on lawful source of income, and therefore maximizes a family’s ability to secure safe and decent housing. Since women account for 76% of all housing choice voucher recipients, including Section 8 vouchers, many of the landlords who refuse to rent to recipients of Section 8 or other public housing assistance recipients are discriminating against women."
As a landlord I should be able to choose who lives in my place and who doesn't
Bea, you said there's a war
Bea, you said there's a war against women. I was unaware of that war. Is that just an opinion, or did congress declare war? I work for a company that has a female CEO, and she's also a minority. She was compensated $10.2 million dollars in 2013 according to Forbes, and she did that even though hundreds, if not thousands of people are losing their jobs here. I'd say there's more of a war on the American, middle class worker than on women. The union I have belonged to for 21+ years compensates women equally with men doing the same job.
with a name like that how
with a name like that how could anyone possible oppose it? wasn't this the bill that would allow late term abortion in NY?
It's actually about 10 Bills
It's actually about 10 Bills packaged into 1. I think one of the bills is the one you're thinking of CJ. Cuomo slapped that name on the whole package then refused to sign any individual item of it, insisting that it was an all-or-nothing package.
For those who have not had
For those who have not had the opportunity to read the bill: http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A08070&term=2013&S…
1) The provision to protect women against discriminatory pay does not invite new regulation. It amends the wording in passages of existing labor law that exclude gender from prohibited benchmarks for pay determination.
2) The language relative to abortion rights codifies those abortion rights currently protected by Roe V. Wade.
3) The balance of the bill relates to workplace protection for pregnant employees, human trafficking laws, domestic violence laws and orders of protection; amending current law in each case.
Why am I reminded of the dolts who killed the ERA because it would promote co-ed bathrooms?
"Why am I reminded of the
"Why am I reminded of the dolts who killed the ERA because it would promote co-ed bathrooms?"
*snicker*
It is always a good idea to
It is always a good idea to read a bill rather than believing the politicians or media.This bill is your typical package of feel good regulations (honestly, do we have to regulate everything?) combined with portions that are really incredibly bad. Pass one pass all. The bill expands third trimester abortions for women and allows non-physicians to perform them. Complex late term abortions could be performed by non-physicians. I thought the original abortion laws were supposed to protect women from back alley abortions - "safe and rare" was the mantra. More black babies in NYC were aborted than born and Cuomo wants to expand the possibilities.
One part of the bill includes the -Trafficking Victims Protection and Justice Act- sponsered by both a D and a R that unamimously passed the Senate. A logical, humanitarian bill designed to reduce a horrible problem in our state. The Assembly would not pass it if the whole Womens Equality Act wasn't passed. So it didn't pass. These people really care so much about women and children.
Read the bills and research what is really going on before deciding based on titles. You might be surprised.
"It is always a good idea to
"It is always a good idea to read a bill rather than believing the politicians or media."
Good practice, and an excellent point.
"The bill expands third trimester abortions for women and allows non-physicians to perform them."
Obviously, you haven't read the bill, Barbara. This is false.
"Complex late term abortions could be performed by non-physicians."
False. (And, to be polite, utter malicious baloney.) So, please read the bill. Here's the relevant portion you somehow missed:
*Protecting a Woman's Freedom of Choice
This section of the bill aligns State law with existing federal law.
In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the United States Supreme Court ruled
that the United States Constitution protects a woman's right to termi-
nate her pregnancy when necessary to protect the health and life of the
woman. New York became one of the first states to provide women the
right to choose prior to Roe and therefore did not include elements now
protected under federal law. This proposal would not change or alter
existing State and federal laws that permit a health care provider or
institutions from refraining from providing an abortion for religious or
moral beliefs, would not expand the class of individuals who could
perform abortions, nor would it alter the current long-standing criminal
ban on partial birth abortion. However, it would incorporate the impor-
tant reproductive rights that women in New York have had since Roe.
Touche' . Note to self: Do
Touche' . Note to self: Do not send posts when too tired.
I did not take the information straight from the bill, which I should have. I have not had a chance yet (thus the delay in response to you) to find the exact bill. Are you actually quoting from the bill? Could you possibly post the link for the actual bill?
I took the information from various websites of people studying the bill. Malicious baloney? No- many people who care deeply about women and children are extremely concerned about what the ramifications of this bill will be.
One wonders, if it is not changing anything in current law why are they refusing to pass the bill without the abortion section? They seem to consider it very,very important, enough so they would not pass the trafficking section of the bill without it. How sad.
I will try to get to read the whole bill this week. It is good advice. :-) Unfortunately what a bill says may not be how the courts interpret it.
http://www.assembly.state.ny.
http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A08070&term=2013&S…
"Malicious baloney? No- many
"Malicious baloney? No- many people who care deeply about women and children are extremely concerned about what the ramifications of this bill will be."
You were telling us what the bill *said*, not its ramifications. And you reported it completely and exactly wrong. So one wonders how you can so strongly recommend referencing the original source material for the bill, while so blatantly misrepresenting the content of the bill by 180 degrees,
e.g.: You state: "Complex late term abortions could be performed by non-physicians."
From the bill: "[The proposal. . . ] would not expand the class of individuals who could
perform abortions. . . "
I think it's very hard to get things so completely and diametrically wrong, as in your post, by simple mistake. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but from your distortion here, I get a strong whiff of propaganda and disinformation. If you wish to advocate, by all means advocate -- but I think you should be more true to your cause, and more truthful in your advocacy.