Skip to main content

Female Republican Senate candidate would vote against equal pay for women

As difficult a time as I have understanding male politicians pushing against women attaining equal rights, I have an even more difficult time understanding female politicians doing something similar.

In the upcoming midterm elections, Republican Monica Wehby will be challenging Democrat Jeff Merkley for an Oregon Senate seat.

On Sunday, KGW's Laural Porter asked Ms. Wehby the following question: "What about equal pay for equal -- for women? You said you'd vote against that, and it doesn't seem to go along with what you represent."

In response, Wehby said this:

"I would absolutely favor any legislation that supports equal pay for women, but this was a flawed piece of legislation. It did not take into account experience, hours worked, education. I would be more concerned that it would make it more difficult for businesses to hire women, because of the fear of lawsuits. They would tend to steer away. And I think that that's an unintended consequence of laws like this that increase regulation and legislation."

Of course, Ms. Wehby's claim that more regulation and legislation, with regard to fair pay for women, would result in frivolous lawsuits is nothing new. However, the numbers don't back up.

After President Barack Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009, it has been reported that, "complaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which handles claims of wage discrimination at the federal level, didn't increase substantially."

Leading up to the 2012 elections, Democrats regularly railed against Republicans for fighting a "war against women." In response, Republicans typically said the claims were nonsense and were just a way of trying to score political points before the election. Yet, in the two years since that time, members of the GOP have continually tried to make it more difficult for women to: Get contraception coverage with their healthcare plans, legally have an abortion, vote without much problem (due to name changes), receive equal pay for equal work, etc. So, while the GOP may still steadfastly contend that they're not fighting a war against women, I have to wonder what it is they think they're doing. If one were to really think about matters and twist things around slightly, it appears that the GOP may be fighting for imaginary women - you know, the ones whom don't ever have sex with guys, the ones that never have to worry about pregnancy, the ones void of any health problems, the ones that force their spouses to change their last names to her's, and the ones that laugh off the notion of gender pay-discrimination because it's as false as the belief that every U.S. president to this point has been a male. Oh, wait - I'm being told that is true...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/11/monica-wehby-equal-pay-_n_5669346.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...