It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by The Old American
I'm not a conservative, but I'll bite:
Originally posted by The Old American
1) All women have the right to reproduce at any time, unless they are found to be a danger to themselves or children. Please show us where conservatives try to cut a woman's right to reproduce.
Originally posted by The Old American
2) I'm pretty sure the Equal Pay Act of 1963 is still in effect.
Originally posted by The Old American
Originally posted by MrXYZ
3) Workplace rights and choice of work
to do with the enforcement or non-enforcement of the law.
3) Not sure what you're talking about there unless you're talking about OSHA and workplace safety, in which case see #2.
Congressional Republicans are promising to scrub the government for what they say are "job killing" regulations. One of their primary targets is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA.
Congressional foes of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration have proposed to slash tens of millions of dollars from the agency’s standards, enforcement and information programs for the rest of this year.
The cuts would return OSHA to its 2004 funding level and could force shutdowns for several months, officials said.
"The Republicans have proposed a 20% cut, and given [that] half a year's over, that really means a 40% cut," OSHA administrator David Michaels says. "It would really have a devastating effect on all of our activities."
The cuts would likely mean layoffs of hundreds of inspectors and thousands fewer health and safety inspections, Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis told a House Committee.
The cuts would delay new standards, eliminate about 18,000 workplace safety inspections, and possibly lead to the layoffs of several recent OSHA hires, including 200 inspectors, Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis has testified before the House Education and the Workforce Committee.
Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by xuenchen
Again...We sit on opposite sides of the fence and have had some loud disagreements in the past, but I respect that you are posting and present on a thread that doesn't offer you "easy punches" to throw. It shows intellectual courage. I starred your posts for that alone.....now if you would just stop with the right wing spin ops
Originally posted by xuenchen
Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by xuenchen
Again...We sit on opposite sides of the fence and have had some loud disagreements in the past, but I respect that you are posting and present on a thread that doesn't offer you "easy punches" to throw. It shows intellectual courage. I starred your posts for that alone.....now if you would just stop with the right wing spin ops
Perhaps there is a win/win possibility here for both Dems and Repubs.
Is this still in "draft" mode or is there some language that is at least comparable to the current laws.
H.R.4379 - To amend title IV of the Social Security Act to permit States to exempt single parents with children under 60 months of age from TANF participation rate requirements.
Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by The Old American
So then, how would you characterize a political agenda directed at making it more difficult and expensive for women pursue justice in cases of workplace discrimination?...a poltical agenda executed through the repeal of various state laws and conservative court rulings/case law redefingin the act at the Federal level limiting those protections?edit on 19-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)