Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2013 15:41:12 GMT -6
The owner is not paying for "abortofascient" drugs. Since you think this issue is unique and highly contentious, let me construct for you a parallel example: Suppose your firm is purchased outright by a Jehovah's Witness and that you are now a contracted employee. Your employer, out of personal spiritual convictions, does not want the insurance agent he has selected for your benefits to cover blood transfusions. Given that uncovered intervention can now affect you directly and profoundly, how do you feel about the restriction? Abortifacient then - mocking my spelling error is beneath you. The JW blood transfusion issue is not particularly applicable since blood transfusions are fairly extreme treatments given to save the life of the patient. Abortifacient drugs and devices are given to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. There is a pretty clear cut distinction in the nature of these health care services. According to the article, there are at least 18 FDA approved alternative birth controls that are included under the Hobby Lobby health policy. In certain critical situations, I assume that there are exactly zero alternatives to a life saving blood transfusion. The freedom of religion aspect of your hypothetical has been extensively litigated. According to the Supremes, an adult JW can deny a blood transfusion to herself and thus die. The state can not compel the adult JW to accept the transfusion. The adult JW however, can not deny a life saving transfusion to their minor child . The state's compelling interest in preserving the life of the minor child trumps the adult JW's First Amendment freedom of religion. The administration will certainly argue in the Hobby Lobby case that the state's interest in providing certain contentious types of birth control outweighs the the First Amendment rights of Hobby Lobby's owners. I think the administration loses, because they can not make a compelling state interest case for providing those particular types of birth control when there are many alternatives available - keep in mind that it is a compelling state interest in the actual life or death of a child that trumps the First Amendment in the JW transfusion cases. You asked how I would feel about the hypothetical restriction. I would not like it and I would therefore quit and find work elsewhere. I know that is easier for me to say than some, since my skill set is scarce. But still, I have not read that any Hobby Lobby employees are fussed about the scope of coverage they had before the ACA. Any argument that this is about the actual Hobby Lobby employees as opposed to a symbolic fight from parties who refuse to give an inch is naive. Jim That's odd. I thought you were mocking my spelling - but I had it right... www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortifacientI'm not sure why you put "abortofascient" in quotes like that. My apologies.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 5, 2013 16:04:19 GMT -6
The owner is not paying for "abortofascient" drugs. Since you think this issue is unique and highly contentious, let me construct for you a parallel example: Suppose your firm is purchased outright by a Jehovah's Witness and that you are now a contracted employee. Your employer, out of personal spiritual convictions, does not want the insurance agent he has selected for your benefits to cover blood transfusions. Given that uncovered intervention can now affect you directly and profoundly, how do you feel about the restriction? Abortifacient then - mocking my spelling error is beneath you. Whoa--down boy!! Yes, it is. I didn't realize it was misspelled, if indeed it was. I framed it in quotes to wall it off as a word that is more Catholic than it is medical. The medical literature with which I am familiar--acknowledging that I am not an OB-GYN--does not recognize prevention of implantation as an abortion. The JW blood transfusion issue is not particularly applicable since blood transfusions are fairly extreme treatments given to save the life of the patient. Abortifacient drugs and devices are given to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. There is a pretty clear cut distinction in the nature of these health care services. According to the article, there are at least 18 FDA approved alternative birth controls that are included under the Hobby Lobby health policy. In certain critical situations, I assume that there are exactly zero alternatives to a life saving blood transfusion. This was the response that I anticipated. I am not saying that it is wholly without merit, but I do invite you to consider whether you are arguing that your health concern is simply more important than that of a woman who takes an oral contraceptive of which Hobby Lobby disapproves. First, I doubt that you will be able to find a single woman in the country whose reasoning runs along the lines of, "I would prefer to take a contraceptive that works by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg. OCP's involve risks and side effects that vary from woman to woman. It took my daughter 3 years to find a method of contraception that didn't cause her some degree of daily discomfort. I submit to you that limiting these choices for women is important to them as having the option of transfusion is to you. Further, I submit that the GOP is losing elections almost entirely because they don't get this. "What's the big deal lady? It's just a little pill." For what it's worth, there are alternatives to transfusion even in critical care, but the alternatives (e.g. cell saver, volume expanders, etc) offer less potential benefit and higher potential risk. This is exactly the same calculus that goes into the highly asymmetric endeavor of preventing pregnancy--a goal that men and women share equally, but for which the actual burden falls 100% upon the woman. Still not convinced? Consider an owner who belongs to the Church of Christ, Scientist who decides that they don't want their insurance policy to cover antibiotics, or a faith healer who only wants their insurance to cover diet, physical therapy and prayer. The freedom of religion aspect of your hypothetical has been extensively litigated. According to the Supremes, an adult JW can deny a blood transfusion to herself and thus die. The state can not compel the adult JW to accept the transfusion. The adult JW however, can not deny a life saving transfusion to their minor child . The state's compelling interest in preserving the life of the minor child trumps the adult JW's First Amendment freedom of religion. The administration will certainly argue in the Hobby Lobby case that the state's interest in providing certain contentious types of birth control outweighs the the First Amendment rights of Hobby Lobby's owners. I think the administration loses, because they can not make a compelling state interest case for providing those particular types of birth control when there are many alternatives available - keep in mind that it is a compelling state interest in the actual life or death of a child that trumps the First Amendment in the JW transfusion cases. My point exactly. A minor child cannot consent to the parent's spiritual choice to limit treatment. Neither can Jane Doe, Hobby Lobby cashier, consent to Steve Green's attempts to do the same. You asked how I would feel about the hypothetical restriction. I would not like it and I would therefore quit and find work elsewhere. I know that is easier for me to say than some, since my skill set is scarce. But still, I have not read that any Hobby Lobby employees are fussed about the scope of coverage they had before the ACA. Any argument that this is about the actual Hobby Lobby employees as opposed to a symbolic fight from parties who refuse to give an inch is naive. The Boston Tea Party was also mostly symbolic, rather than an economically significant assault on British commerce. Symbolic battles often arise before the real ones do. And, FWIW, it is Hobby Lobby suing the government, not the other way around.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2013 17:56:08 GMT -6
Abortifacient then - mocking my spelling error is beneath you. Whoa--down boy!! Yes, it is. I didn't realize it was misspelled, if indeed it was. I framed it in quotes to wall it off as a word that is more Catholic than it is medical. The medical literature with which I am familiar--acknowledging that I am not an OB-GYN--does not recognize prevention of implantation as an abortion. The JW blood transfusion issue is not particularly applicable since blood transfusions are fairly extreme treatments given to save the life of the patient. Abortifacient drugs and devices are given to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. There is a pretty clear cut distinction in the nature of these health care services. According to the article, there are at least 18 FDA approved alternative birth controls that are included under the Hobby Lobby health policy. In certain critical situations, I assume that there are exactly zero alternatives to a life saving blood transfusion. This was the response that I anticipated. I am not saying that it is wholly without merit, but I do invite you to consider whether you are arguing that your health concern is simply more important than that of a woman who takes an oral contraceptive of which Hobby Lobby disapproves. First, I doubt that you will be able to find a single woman in the country whose reasoning runs along the lines of, "I would prefer to take a contraceptive that works by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg. OCP's involve risks and side effects that vary from woman to woman. It took my daughter 3 years to find a method of contraception that didn't cause her some degree of daily discomfort. I submit to you that limiting these choices for women is important to them as having the option of transfusion is to you. Further, I submit that the GOP is losing elections almost entirely because they don't get this. "What's the big deal lady? It's just a little pill." For what it's worth, there are alternatives to transfusion even in critical care, but the alternatives (e.g. cell saver, volume expanders, etc) offer less potential benefit and higher potential risk. This is exactly the same calculus that goes into the highly asymmetric endeavor of preventing pregnancy--a goal that men and women share equally, but for which the actual burden falls 100% upon the woman. Still not convinced? Consider an owner who belongs to the Church of Christ, Scientist who decides that they don't want their insurance policy to cover antibiotics, or a faith healer who only wants their insurance to cover diet, physical therapy and prayer. The freedom of religion aspect of your hypothetical has been extensively litigated. According to the Supremes, an adult JW can deny a blood transfusion to herself and thus die. The state can not compel the adult JW to accept the transfusion. The adult JW however, can not deny a life saving transfusion to their minor child . The state's compelling interest in preserving the life of the minor child trumps the adult JW's First Amendment freedom of religion. The administration will certainly argue in the Hobby Lobby case that the state's interest in providing certain contentious types of birth control outweighs the the First Amendment rights of Hobby Lobby's owners. I think the administration loses, because they can not make a compelling state interest case for providing those particular types of birth control when there are many alternatives available - keep in mind that it is a compelling state interest in the actual life or death of a child that trumps the First Amendment in the JW transfusion cases. My point exactly. A minor child cannot consent to the parent's spiritual choice to limit treatment. Neither can Jane Doe, Hobby Lobby cashier, consent to Steve Green's attempts to do the same. You asked how I would feel about the hypothetical restriction. I would not like it and I would therefore quit and find work elsewhere. I know that is easier for me to say than some, since my skill set is scarce. But still, I have not read that any Hobby Lobby employees are fussed about the scope of coverage they had before the ACA. Any argument that this is about the actual Hobby Lobby employees as opposed to a symbolic fight from parties who refuse to give an inch is naive. The Boston Tea Party was also mostly symbolic, rather than an economically significant assault on British commerce. Symbolic battles often arise before the real ones do. And, FWIW, it is Hobby Lobby suing the government, not the other way around. All good points. Like I said at the beginning, this is not a simple or clear cut issue. My main motivation for participating in this thread is to illustrate that this is a very complex issue involving the interest of the government in assuring women access to healthcare vs. the First Amendment rights of the business owners. To that end, I think I've accomplished my mission, although Dot has not chimed in to tell me that it is in fact quite a simple issue, but I'm just too male to get it. A few quibbles; you seem to argue that "qualitative" value judgments are misplaced here. i.e. "I submit to you that limiting these choices for women is important to them as having the option of transfusion is to you..." I think you overstate your case. There is a genuine objective difference between denying coverage for a transfusion and denying coverage for 2 out of 20 approved forms of birth control. A transfusion is typically a life/death emergency treatment. As you point out, there might be no viable alternatives, especially in an emergency situation. The types of birth control Hobby Lobby does not want to cover are apparently 2 out of 20 or so approved products that are all (I presume) effective. Your daughter had to try several products to find one that did not mess with her, but even if she worked for Hobby Lobby I believe that she would have had 18 products to choose from under the plan acceptable to the owners. Also, the actual burden on her, even if she were required to source a non-covered device or drug outside of her insurance plan, is not qualitatively the same as the burden would be if a transfusion were not covered and someone had to die because of that. This qualitative difference matters. There is an underlying reason the Court agreed to hear the Hobby Lobby case as opposed to some of the others where the business owners do not want to pay for any birth control. We can only speculate at this time, but I think that you will see an opinion that focuses on the State's interest being not that compelling under the Hobby Lobby facts because other suitable birth control choices are available to the women under the Hobby Lobby plan. This is a far different fact scenario than a plan that does not cover birth control at all. This is a far different fact scenario than a plan that does not cover transfusions or antibiotics or any other broad class or category of treatment. Lot's of people want to deny that qualitative differences matter when debating policy. They are typically slippery slope activist people. Gun people who think even the most common sense regulation is the end of the 2nd Amendment. Reproductive activists who think banning 3rd trimester abortions will inexorably lead to banning all birth control. Those people are nuts. Qualitative distinctions do matter in policy and in Constitutional analysis, quite a bit when the Court is considering a potential Bill of Rights infringement. Here, the better argument in my view is that a relatively minor inconvenience (limiting insurance coverage for 2 out of 20 forms of birth control) ought to give way to Hobby Lobby's owner's sincerely held religious convictions. Also, you note that Hobby Lobby brought the suit. Big deal, the administration passed the law. It really does not matter who started it. Hobby Lobby won at the Court of Appeals level, the Administration requested Supreme Court Review. Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Dec 5, 2013 19:55:55 GMT -6
Trout, How would the anyone(government, union, or employee) monitor religious convictions as opposed to convenience or an excuse in o reduce health costs? Let's say that GM, or a e UPS, decided that they could reduce health costs by playing the religious convictions card with regard to birth control, how could we guarantee that the company is truly basing their decisions on religious grounds rather than financial reasons? Hi Steve, How the heck are they going to monitor anything related to this type of bureaucracy? Apparently, if I go on the exchange and say I'm poor, I'll get the tax rebates. This could be the happy hunting ground for fraudsters. Arguably, auditors will be put into place to verify all kinds of things related to these laws. Income levels, number of employees, number of kids etc. Those auditors can certainly ask for proof of religious conviction, which in the Hobby Lobby case is going to be pretty easy since they have been an outwardly Christian employer for over 40 years. Proof should be easy for church-affiliated organizations too. I would not exempt any publicly owned corporations (GM) since the ownership is too diverse to legitimately claim a religious conviction at the organizational level. Lastly, the delta in insurance cost between Policy A that covers 18 types of birth control (Hobby Lobby) and Policy B that covers 20 types of birth control (ACA aproved) is going to be insignificant. there is no financial incentive to cheat. I am not arguing for the dismantling of Obamacare (at least I'm not in this post)... I am arguing for the Administration to recognize the First Amendment/religious-based concerns of a rather small but sincere subset of all employers. Jim Here's my problem with using the religious conviction card - where does it end, or where does it begin in some cases? Could Hobby Lobby feel empowered to discriminate against people who Hobby Lobby feel live immoral lives, such as the LGBT community? I'd never trust the sincerity of any company when it comes to money. It's wonderful that Hobby Lobby treats their employees well, but allowing Hobby Lobby to operate under a different set of rules in the business community opens a big can of worms in my non-legal opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 5, 2013 20:12:45 GMT -6
I wasn't, although by now I think you've seen why I used quotes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2013 20:47:38 GMT -6
Here's my problem with using the religious conviction card - where does it end, or where does it begin in some cases? Could Hobby Lobby feel empowered to discriminate against people who Hobby Lobby feel live immoral lives, such as the LGBT community? I'd never trust the sincerity of any company when it comes to money. It's wonderful that Hobby Lobby treats their employees well, but allowing Hobby Lobby to operate under a different set of rules in the business community opens a big can of worms in my non-legal opinion. Ok, it might open a big can of worms. Implementing this kind of law is one big-ass can of worms though. Far too many exceptions have already been granted to the ACA mandates and many of those exceptions stand on much flimsier ground than Hobby Lobby stands on; exceptions based upon things things like naked political favoritism. I really don't like slippery slope arguments because they so often lead to inflexible positions. Also, you have only suggested that Hobby Lobby's desired coverage will actually save them some insurance premium money. Under these facts that seems really far fetched. The analysis in the Supreme Court's opinion is going to be twofold: A. Is this a 1st Amendment case at all? In other words: Is the act of requiring a business to provide health insurance coverage for a device or drug which the business owners sincerely consider to be immoral an infringement of the owner's right to freely exercise their religion? If the answer is no, Hobby Lobby loses. B. If the answer to A is yes, the question becomes; Is the government's interest in guaranteeing the health of female citizens sufficiently compelling to justify the 1st amendment infringement? In this case I would say no, because the State's interest is substantially met by Hobby Lobby's policy which already covers almost all forms of birth control.
FWIW - My guess is that A is the winning argument, if the the Supremes rule in favor of the administration. This is a tough one to predict.
Closing thought: I think FB overlooked the best analogy. I've been waiting for it, but I gotta run. The best analogy is not a hypothetical business owned by Jehovah Witnesses. The best analogies (I think) are the cases from the 60s where restaurant owners refused to serve blacks or seat them without discrimination based upon their "religion." In those cases the civil rights of the black population trumped the alleged 1st Amendment rights of the restaurant owners. I say "alleged" because in those cases the "eating with blacks violates my religion" argument seems thin and fabricated. A mere pretext for racism. I would not even consider Hobby Lobby's arguments if I thought that they were anything but entirely sincere. Does anyone here think that Hobby Lobby's position is a mere pretext for gender discrimination? The fact that their policy covers most forms of birth control suggests to me that it is not.
On the other hand, FB is correct that issues like this are political suicide for the GOP.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Dec 5, 2013 22:22:52 GMT -6
I came back to forum just to make the Jehovah Witnesses argument. You stole my thunder, damn you.
Edit - the only thing I might add, Is there a legal standard for sincerity?
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Dec 5, 2013 22:37:18 GMT -6
Trout,
I'm sure the GOP is grateful SCOTUS is tackling this issue. However SCOTUS decides, the GOP can keep their hands somewhat clean by pointing the finger at the courts.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 6, 2013 9:35:38 GMT -6
Closing thought: I think FB overlooked the best analogy. I've been waiting for it, but I gotta run. The best analogy is not a hypothetical business owned by Jehovah Witnesses. The best analogies (I think) are the cases from the 60s where restaurant owners refused to serve blacks or seat them without discrimination based upon their "religion." In those cases the civil rights of the black population trumped the alleged 1st Amendment rights of the restaurant owners. I say "alleged" because in those cases the "eating with blacks violates my religion" argument seems thin and fabricated. A mere pretext for racism. I would not even consider Hobby Lobby's arguments if I thought that they were anything but entirely sincere. Does anyone here think that Hobby Lobby's position is a mere pretext for gender discrimination? A pretext for gender discrimination? No, but I certainly see it as a brushstroke in a very large mural of sexism. For some reason, a whole lot of men just don't get this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2013 11:29:13 GMT -6
Closing thought: I think FB overlooked the best analogy. I've been waiting for it, but I gotta run. The best analogy is not a hypothetical business owned by Jehovah Witnesses. The best analogies (I think) are the cases from the 60s where restaurant owners refused to serve blacks or seat them without discrimination based upon their "religion." In those cases the civil rights of the black population trumped the alleged 1st Amendment rights of the restaurant owners. I say "alleged" because in those cases the "eating with blacks violates my religion" argument seems thin and fabricated. A mere pretext for racism. I would not even consider Hobby Lobby's arguments if I thought that they were anything but entirely sincere. Does anyone here think that Hobby Lobby's position is a mere pretext for gender discrimination? A pretext for gender discrimination? No, but I certainly see it as a brushstroke in a very large mural of sexism. For some reason, a whole lot of men just don't get this. FB: I clearly see the mural of sexism in hiring practices, promotions, gender role expectations and many other aspects of life. As you probably recall, Linda is a fairly high level executive and although she has thrived in a male-dominated business environment she is aware of the various subtle barriers 1. I'm not denying the reality sexism of course. Also, I know (obviously) that only women can have babies or abortions. But that fact alone should not mean that any and all male opposition to abortion is sexist. I understand that many times, maybe even most times, the men who are basing their opposition to abortion on conservative scriptural interpretation might also support "traditional" gender roles which in turn obviously leads to all kinds of sex discrimination. This is your point of view (I believe) - that the whole package leads to sexism, so opposing a couple of types of birth control on scriptural grounds is inseparable from a generally sexist world view. This is clearly, undeniably and painfully true in the realm of political perception and spin. I'm coming at this from perhaps a too personal minority view. I don't believe that male opposition to abortion by is inherently sexist. If the embryo/fetus is believed to have acquired human rights, opposition to abortion is mandatory under the secular standards of morality underlying the Constitution. That's the rub of course, does the embryo/fetus have human rights? - one of the great philosophical questions of our time upon which widespread agreement is impossible. Jim 1. LB has also possibly been the beneficiary of reverse discrimination since she has advanced to the levels where women are scarce and the competition for choice positions is fierce among scads of highly qualified candidates. It's tough to tell.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 6, 2013 16:06:18 GMT -6
Trout,
I wasn't lumping you in with the "whole lot of men who don't get this". My apologies as it plausibly read that way. Neither am I saying that I have any special insight into the plight of women in the workplace on the basis if my gender identity. I think I have a hell of a lot of insight into the challenges pertinent to my own situation, but they don't translate especially well to what the "average woman in the street", whoever she might be, experiences. I recognize that don't have skin (or in this case, ovaries) in the game, and that I have probably never experienced and will probably never experience gender discrimination in the same way as the estimable LB. I speak, therefore, merely as a run-of-the-mill pinko progressive predisposed to prioritize issues of equal protect and opportunity over other considerations.
I am also sympathetic (as you know) to religious objections to abortion up to a point. Perhaps you have not been around when I have defined that point, but I have been as precise about it as I can be given our current state of scientific knowledge. Specifically, I think that it is reasonable and desirable to strategize about how to reduce abortion in proportion to the plausible stake of the fetus. You have said (correctly, IMO) that people who argue that even the slightest mention of restriction on late term abortion is an assault on women's rights are nuts. Well, so are those who can't tell the difference between a 6 week embryo (or 4 day blastocyst) and a 20 week fetus. There is simply no comparison between the agency of a 32 year old woman and a 32 day old non-conscious, non feeling embryo. More to the point, there is no comparison in standing between a "morning after" ovum, which isn't even a "lump of tissue" and a sentient woman.
I understand on one level why you think 18 of 20 contraceptives (there are more, actually) is choice enough, but what is being weighed is a medical consideration with real potential consequence to a bunch of women vs a religious conviction which depends on a bogus moral assumption that a blastocyst (or less!) has the same moral standing as an adult woman. This is bullshit.
FB
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 6, 2013 16:10:09 GMT -6
Incidentally, I would dispute 99.99% of "reverse discrimination". When a woman gets 5 minutes of consideration for being a woman in a system that demonstrably and perpetually gives men extra consideration for being men, how the hell can this be considered discrimination. Mrs. B got where she was against a surging tide of systematic bias, and I resent any implication otherwise. Oops, wait…that's your job.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2013 16:53:10 GMT -6
Trout, I wasn't lumping you in with the "whole lot of men who don't get this". My apologies as it plausibly read that way. Neither am I saying that I have any special insight into the plight of women in the workplace on the basis if my gender identity. I think I have a hell of a lot of insight into the challenges pertinent to my own situation, but they don't translate especially well to what the "average woman in the street", whoever she might be, experiences. I recognize that don't have skin (or in this case, ovaries) in the game, and that I have probably never experienced and will probably never experience gender discrimination in the same way as the estimable LB. I speak, therefore, merely as a run-of-the-mill pinko progressive predisposed to prioritize issues of equal protect and opportunity over other considerations. I am also sympathetic (as you know) to religious objections to abortion up to a point. Perhaps you have not been around when I have defined that point, but I have been as precise about it as I can be given our current state of scientific knowledge. Specifically, I think that it is reasonable and desirable to strategize about how to reduce abortion in proportion to the plausible stake of the fetus. You have said (correctly, IMO) that people who argue that even the slightest mention of restriction on late term abortion is an assault on women's rights are nuts. Well, so are those who can't tell the difference between a 6 week embryo (or 4 day blastocyst) and a 20 week fetus. There is simply no comparison between the agency of a 32 year old woman and a 32 day old non-conscious, non feeling embryo. More to the point, there is no comparison in standing between a "morning after" ovum, which isn't even a "lump of tissue" and a sentient woman. I understand on one level why you think 18 of 20 contraceptives (there are more, actually) is choice enough, but what is being weighed is a medical consideration with real potential consequence to a bunch of women vs a religious conviction which depends on a bogus moral assumption that a blastocyst (or less!) has the same moral standing as an adult woman. This is bullshit. FB I didn't think you were lumping me in, I was just being careful not to get lumped in in the minds of the vast population of lurkers! Have a great weekend. J
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 6, 2013 16:56:32 GMT -6
I'm sure they are mostly bots. Any lurker with class would have joined us by now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2013 17:04:14 GMT -6
Incidentally, I would dispute 99.99% of "reverse discrimination". When a woman gets 5 minutes of consideration for being a woman in a system that demonstrably and perpetually gives men extra consideration for being men, how the hell can this be considered discrimination. Mrs. B got where she was against a surging tide of systematic bias, and I resent any implication otherwise. Oops, wait…that's your job. True.
|
|