http://abcnewsstore.go.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/DSIProductDisplay?catalog
Id=11002&storeId=20051&productId=2027588&langId=-1&categoryId=100013

ABC's John Stossel did a "20/20" show last week called "You Can't Even
Talk
About It," in which he argued for six contrarian policy proposals. This
one
caught our attention:

America Needs to Do Less for Its Senior Citizens:

Along similar lines, consider this one:

Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuits:
To protect pregnant women at work, Congress passed the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act. It makes it illegal to fire, not hire, or to
pay a woman less because she is pregnant. If the new law was
supposed to end discrimination, it has not--the number of pregnancy
discrimination complaints is on the rise. Stossel argues that the
law does more harm than good.

"Ubiquitous" <weberm at (no spam) polaris.net> wrote in message
Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuits:
To protect pregnant women at work, Congress passed the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act. It makes it illegal to fire, not hire, or to
pay a woman less because she is pregnant. If the new law was
supposed to end discrimination, it has not--the number of pregnancy
discrimination complaints is on the rise. Stossel argues that the
law does more harm than good.

This one's wrong. Employers absolutely do fire women because they get
pregnant. I'm willing to pay a little extra in my tax bill, or pay a
little more for stuff I buy, so that pregnant women can make a living.

Talk about someone who needs their job! It's just a totally crappy thing
to do. Any jerk who goes around picking on pregnant women deserves to get
sued.

"Mason Barge" <masonbarge at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
"Ubiquitous" <weberm at (no spam) polaris.net> wrote in message
Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuits:
To protect pregnant women at work, Congress passed the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act. It makes it illegal to fire, not hire, or to
pay a woman less because she is pregnant. If the new law was
supposed to end discrimination, it has not--the number of pregnancy
discrimination complaints is on the rise. Stossel argues that the
law does more harm than good.

This one's wrong. Employers absolutely do fire women because they get
pregnant. I'm willing to pay a little extra in my tax bill, or pay a
little more for stuff I buy, so that pregnant women can make a living.

As long as you are ok with paying people the same amount for less (or no)
work.
In the end, though, that is just another name for 'welfare'.

Talk about someone who needs their job! It's just a totally crappy thing
to do. Any jerk who goes around picking on pregnant women deserves to
get sued.

I think that it is pretty crappy to see so many women take the maximum
amount of paid maternity leave from their company

(after the company's medical coverage foots the bill for the birth),

then turn around and quit so that they can stay home to raise the child.
Sure, it is great for the child > and the mother, but it is not great for
the company or for the other employees that have to cover the workload.

http://abcnewsstore.go.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/DSIProductDisplay?catalog
Id=11002&storeId=20051&productId=2027588&langId=-1&categoryId=100013

ABC's John Stossel did a "20/20" show last week called "You Can't Even Talk
About It," in which he argued for six contrarian policy proposals. This one
caught our attention:

America Needs to Do Less for Its Senior Citizens:
Stossel reports when Medicare was created, senior citizens did
not live as long, and medicine offered fewer wonderful but
expensive treatments. Now Medicare is headed towards bankruptcy.
Government has promised seniors $34 trillion dollars more than
it has funded. It amounts to generational theft, says Andrew
Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute.