T O P
InterNetting

Of course. It's much cheaper than paying maternity leave.


jawz1O1

That's the first thought I had.


ConsistentFucker89

Or possibly it’s mainly driven by companies wanting to do some good


MailOrderSwag

While this is something to be praised; **rights shouldn't change depending on where you live in the country and people shouldn't have to rely on employers bailing them out from attacks on their human rights.**


-HappyToHelp

Poor people lose out while the rich can keep their rights… that’s “State’s Rights” for you…


aeolus811tw

Is it a right if it isn’t codified, and can be taken away because Supreme Court changed seat? Feels like this has been a hot potato everyone chose not to touch, instead delegated to SC which has no business making law. It is a judicial branch not legislative branch of the government. It might be time for amendments to be drafted to fix all these issues


neuronexmachina

Thing is, there's a *lot* of [unenumerated rights](https://system.uslegal.com/u-s-constitution/the-ninth-amendment/), and the 9th Amendment explicitly says the Constitution isn't intended to be treated as a comprehensive list of rights. Unenumerated rights includes biggies like the right to privacy, the right to vote, and the right to travel within the US.


aeolus811tw

As ruled in Washington v. Glucksberg 1997, unenumerated right is determined by the origin and tradition it can refer to within history This make it so any unenumerated right is as fragile as it can be, if the highest court change its perspective on what tradition entails, it can ultimately remove these implied right. Which is what happened now. Instead, it should’ve been the duty of legislative branch to ensure these aren’t simply implied, but actually written. 9th amendment should simply be used as “interim” as it recognized law may not be perfect. It was never a get out of jail free card for congress to do nothing about these imperfection.


Chemical_Natural_167

Man, I've been wanting to articulate this even before the decision. This was a great summary of my thoughts. Well done.


hardy_83

It shouldn't be praised because many of these companies, if not all of them, helped fund campaigns of the GOP who put on religious judges in the SCC to begin with. I'm sure they are still funding many of them.


toofine

I've checked and Amazon hasn't really donated too much with the exception in 2020 and 85% of it went to democrats. But your point still stands. Companies benefit when their employees become reliant upon them for things and this country just adds to the pile of things that keep workers stuck with them. You work, they give you money. That should be the end of the relationship.


1ofZuulsMinions

“Hasn’t really donated too much with the exception of 2020” 2020: donated $10.2 billion 2021: donated $511 million 2022: donated $233 million (from Jan to May) I would not say $744 million in a year and a half is a small amount of money at all.


toofine

Where are you even getting these numbers they are wild.


1ofZuulsMinions

Google. “Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos made the single-largest charitable contribution in 2020, according to The Chronicle of Philanthropy's annual list of top donations — a $10 billion gift aimed at fighting climate change.” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/charity-donations-richest-lowest-9-years/ “9. Jeff Bezos Amazon founder $510.7 million Biggest gift: $200 million to Smithsonian Institution, National Air and Space Museum” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-08/philanthropy-50-list-of-america-s-top-50-donors-of-2021 “He's donated $233 million in Amazon shares since the start of the year.” https://www.therichest.com/rich-powerful/jeff-bezos-donates-120-million-to-mystery-nonprofit/


delavager

Uhhh did you read those articles they don’t support your statements.


1ofZuulsMinions

You have to actually click on the article, not just expect to see it in the headline. One of those quotes is from the literal second sentence. Does it help you if I just post links that have it the headline? https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/17/21141229/jeff-bezos-climate-change-ten-billion Or is obvious troll just being obvious?


delavager

….where does it say he or Amazon made POLITICAL DONATIONS which was the context you were responding to. It doesn’t those are all charitable donations - so again they don’t support your statements as your statements implied he donated to political people/parties.


1ofZuulsMinions

In case you didn’t notice, I put what I was responding to in quotations. I wasn’t quoting you at all. But if you actually care, you’re free to Google it as well.


toofine

Bezos =/= Amazon. My numbers cited Amazon so not sure what you are even taking issue with.


_Connor

> rights shouldn't change depending on where you live in the country I mean, this is literally a core tenet of federalism and is unavoidable. Just as an example outside of abortion, where I live in Canada (Alberta) the legal drinking age is 18. One province over to the west (BC) has a legal drinking age of 19. Two neighboring provinces in the same country with different 'rights.' Unless you want to abolish federalism entirely, which isn't really possible in countries that have federalism baked into their constitutions, then it's unavoidable.


arandomsadredditor

Drinking at a certain age isn't a right like privacy or body autonomy.


tiny_galaxies

What you put into your body is definitely a bodily autonomy issue. However, we compromise on it because it’s widely accepted that minors don’t fully understand the damage drinking alcohol does to their developing brains.


99percentfact

And talk about a persons right to privacy!! Now you gotta let your boss know and take leave??!!


Green_Message_6376

A few more judgements from SCOTUS and the only worker right we'll have left will be getting a day off to abort the Boss's baby.


zeroaffect

We won’t even have that right soon. Like erosion freedom is under attack and being constantly eroded away to give power to a minority. We have crossed the line and now allow politics and religious beliefs to dictate our highest court. Democracy is failing, and technology can not save it.


jaycliche

agreed but sadly the US chose business government over people government many many times already. This "blame them, the government" mentality everywhere is nuts.


toddthewraith

It's not entirely altruistic. Amazon offers its warehouse workers like 4mo of maternity or something. It's cheaper for them to pay for abortion travel expenses than for them to have someone miss work for 4mo, train a new person, etc. They can't rescind the maternity leave benefit either because that will cause more union drives.


Helenius

They are only bailing them out in order to save them from replacing them during pregnancy/potential maternity leave. The US is a fucking third world country


yaprettymuch52

lmfao corps arent bailing out anyone but themselves. significantly cheaper to do that than have to deal with leave. they don't care about people


whyioughtta

If the end result is a better quality of life for the employee, I am all for it.


delavager

And the alternative is….?


stoner_97

Can’t smoke weed even tho most states can


Amida0616

How gun owners in California feel 🤷🏻‍♂️


StrudelStrike

Don’t forget that conservative hero Ronald Regan signed the first California gun control law because he was afraid of Black people carrying them.


Amida0616

Yeah fuck that douche. Gun laws are racist across the country


[deleted]

[удалено]


MailOrderSwag

Body autonomy is what I'd consider a fundamental human right. The right over our own living body.


in-site

Yeah I thought about it a little more and deleted the comment (I thought before you replied, actually)


Impressive_Insect_75

Republicans don’t believe all of you are human.


nicuramar

> rights shouldn’t change depending on where you live in the country Maybe not, no, but how far do you take this? After all, the US is a collection of states, each with their own legislation. You already have the right to do stuff in one, but not the other. This comment isn’t abort the right to abortion in particular. I support that, but I also don’t live in the US.


enochrootthousander

And how humiliating to have to tell your employer.


tirril

Well, this is the difference between strong distant or strong local rights.


cursedjayrock

Another issue with this is the privacy around a medical procedure. The companies will pay for your travel for an abortion, but what proof do you have to provide? If none, women should just abuse the shit out of it for free travel until these companies stop paying the GOP to destroy our rights.


elvesunited

Sure they don't mind paying a fine for the abortion trip. But when States start threatening an "accomplice to murder" charge then how *daring* will the HR department be? If corporations want to "help", they can commit to financing Democrat election campaigns and withdrawing all support of Republican nominees.


almost_not_terrible

It won't be illegal to travel to a different state or country to have an abortion. Nor, I suspect, will it be a criminal activity to order abortion pills by post from another state or country. Honestly, the anti-choice states are simply embarrassing themselves on the world stage and declaring themselves theocracies.


elvesunited

>Nor, I suspect, will it be a criminal activity to order abortion pills You say they are embarrassing themselves (I agree), but they just double-down. You call them "stupid", they will purposefully act stupider. Trump spawned MTG, Laura Bopert, Matt Gaetz, etc., they just get more and more rotten.


Triangular_Desire

Just like it isn't illegal to travel to another state and gamble.


toofine

I just can't get the thought out of my head that they want to make any state that runs any risk of turning purple or blue to become a hellhole to ensure people who do not automatically pull R would never humor living or working there. It is no coincidence to me that Texas and Florida are in a frantic race to out-moron one another. The way our country is set up directly encourages the sabotage of states socioeconomic well being to ensure that an X number of senators and congressman will always be up for play no matter how dogshit the conditions are in those states.


3meta5u

And if they can ratchet the process until 2/3 of the states are controlled by Republicans, even if there's only 100 people left in each of those states, then they can declare constitutional convention and rewrite every law with impunity. Checkmate liberals! /s


Karkava

All this Republican agenda pushing is going to do serious damage to their company line. How are they expected to do business when they have neo Nazis doing damage behind them?


funkboxing

How is that going to work with Texas' Senate Bill 8?


g2g079

I'm a little concerned about that myself. My work says they have confidential care coordinators that will help them, but does that confidentiality really hold up when a supposed crime is committed?


foobarfly

Well, it's not a crime, right? They're getting around it by making it a civil thing, rather than criminal? But, yeah, sucks.


Snarfsicle

They need to go harder and threaten to leave any states that ban abortion. The only thing these Republicans in power listen to is money.


in-site

I have a growing personal conspiracy theory that this was never about the right to safe abortions at all. Quoting /u/bpetersonlaw: Justice Thomas' concurring opinion stated: "For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," he wrote. "Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous.'" Therefore, at least Justice Thomas is open to reversing those decisions. Griswold: Court ruled that the Constitution did in fact protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold\_v.\_Connecticut Lawrence: Court ruled that sanctions of criminal punishment for those who commit sodomy are unconstitutional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence\_v.\_Texas Obergefell: Court ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell\_v.\_Hodges Also (me again) the NRA has acknowledged this was their basis for opposing mandatory national gun registration. So tons of other consequences


ReformedPC

Big corporations never do anything for you, they do it for their own sake. It's cheaper to pay you for the travel costs than pay your parental leave.


FlavDingo

The same companies who also donate millions to the people directly responsible for this. Americans are seriously in an abusive relationship with corporations.


Feniksrises

Oh yeah these States are just going to lean back and let women have out of state abortions. Remember how Virginia felt about escaped slaves up North? Prepare for completely foreseeable consequences.


Fairuse

No one is banning abortion right after conception. Most have some arbitrary date like 8 weeks for Missouri or 6 weeks for Texas, which abortions afterwards is banned. If it becomes a huge issue, I'm sure companies would rather just pay employees to get months pregnancy check or pregnancy test kits (like how they currently hand out COVID test kits). Yeah it sucks, but it's not the end of the world. Just like how COVID sucks, but we're still here.


Jaxius3

That is very incorrect. https://www.businessinsider.com/states-trigger-laws-outlaw-abortion-supreme-court-roe-v-wade-2021-9 https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-06-24/supreme-court-abortion-decision-political-fallout


Fairuse

What's not true. There is no state banning abortion right after conception. Fact. The most restrictive is those with abortion cut offs at 6 weeks (which is effectively just 2 weeks since most pregnancy take 4 weeks to become detectable).


Jaxius3

Are you illiterate? "As of June 24, 2022, six states outright ban abortion, with exceptionsfor cases where the patient's physical health is threatened." "Without Roe, 23 states have laws on the books that could outright ban orseverely limit access to abortion, and 16 states and DC have passed lawsthat would explicitly protect the right to abortion." And here's an example of a state where it's outright illegal: [https://www.kcur.org/news/2022-06-24/missouri-abortion-laws-roe-v-wade-birth-control-iud-ectopic-pregnancy](https://www.kcur.org/news/2022-06-24/missouri-abortion-laws-roe-v-wade-birth-control-iud-ectopic-pregnancy)


Oblivions_gate

Good luck with Amazon, they suck ass in some regards in the health department.


coffeespeaking

Amazon donates millions to anti-abortion candidates. Make all corporations take an unambiguous side. Is it a right, or is transportation the right?


1_p_freely

Corporations are like politicians. They tell everyone what they want to hear (flip-flopping by the minute) to keep the money flowing in.


bloatedkat

There are too many varying political positions for businesses to stick to just one side. Perhaps the anti-abortion candidate provided them with tax favorable considerations in the places they operate. One has to weigh the cost/benefit analysis when deciding where their money goes.


The_Pip

And how many of them will continue to donate to the GOP? All of them. It is time to take this seriously and go scorched earth against all conservatives and anyone who donates to the Republican Party.


sonstone

Full on boycott of everything Red. This rule by minority needs to stop. Justices posted for life by presidents that can’t win majority support. Senate disproportionately represented by a minority of nut jobs. Minority party actively trying to subvert our vote. The people need to rise up.


Solerien

Thank you Jeff Bezos


DigNitty

Paying for an employee’s abortion costs is far cheaper than having them go on maternity.


almost_not_terrible

Also better for society not to have unwanted people in the world, born to resentful parents. I suggest that those convicted of harassment outside abortion clinics should be given the burden of the unwanted children that will now be put up for adoption. (Of course, not actually. Better to have them go to loving parents, not those shits.)


realavafoxx

What they need to do is pull out of these fucking states. It will hurt short term but these governors, senators and law makers need to feel the fucking pain for their actions. Other wise it’ll just be business as usual - just with less freedoms. If they want to campaign on jobs and putting food on the table like they always do then why the fuck do they keep focusing on rolling back LGBTQ+, Minority and Women’s issues? so fuck them. Hurt these states where it’s hurts most: economically. Pull the fuck out.


yaprettymuch52

they dont care this is a no lose situation for them right now. positive pr and they don't take the hit of more dollars spent on maternity/paternity leave


busted351

How about these clowns cover health insurance... living in this corporate dystopia is getting extra tiring.


Fairuse

Uh, I'm pretty sure if you work at Apple or Amazon you have company health insurance (unless you're contract worker or part-time). I bet this new abortion travel perk only applies to full-time employees.


busted351

When I said cover... i meant pay for it!!!! younger gens are so far removed... they don't even know that was a thing lol you are likely right that this perk applies to the better paid elements, we would not want ze poors getting any wind fall here and/or assist the targets of this attack, would we?


WeeklyManufacturer68

Have you ever had a professional job? They almost always have health insurance.


busted351

What does the word "cover" mean to you?


Purplociraptor

To me it would mean no premiums and no deductibles, but that's not what it actually means.


WeeklyManufacturer68

So you’ve never held a professional job. Got it. Checks out.


Ham5terBoneZ

Of course they would, cheaper to pay for that than it is to lose productivity from said employee. This isn’t for the good of the employee, this is for the good of the company. Don’t mistake their greed for kindness.


jokerfriend6

The company I work for there is already a group a people demanding they do the same thing.. Personally, I'm offended since I have child dependent living with me, and my company will not let me put her on my medical insurance without a court order...


nyconx

How old is the child?


jokerfriend6

The child is 16 and has been living with us for over a year, and we have been providing 100% of their financial needs.. IRS does not have a problem of us claiming them, but my company does... We got them medicaid eventually, but it doesn't cover much other than basic stuff... Most insurance companies do not cover dependent children other than children or step-children, so I'm struggling hoping they don't get sick...


nyconx

That makes sense if it is not your child. In that case you might want to check out your state resources. I know in our state that child would be fully covered by state insurance. I would not expect an employer to cover for non family members.


jokerfriend6

The state covers them with Medicaid, so there is a little safety net. But I guess companies don't care about the unborn either, so my as well abort them.... Problem is that the child is not covered if we travel out of state or in some cases the county...


nyconx

My state's medicaid covers all medical within the USA. It could be that yours is different but I suggest contacting your state to see what other resources are available for them. As it comes down to medical insurance by the company it would open it up to abuse at the cost of the company. It would be really easy to show a non child as a dependent and utilize health insurance. I personally feel that it should be tied to legal guardianship but often insurance is not. Check with your state though, there is usually a lot of resources out there for children in a similar situation.


jokerfriend6

Yea legal guardianship is difficult to get for a non-parent.. We are working down this path as well.. It seems like courts feel they want parents to participate in the process of legal guardianship even though they can't and won't in our case...


nyconx

It is really hard to get guardianship of a child when the parents aren't willing to give it up. The child needs to go to the court for an emancipation of a minor first. Without that this most likely will not happen. In your case the minor is most likely on their parents insurance/it is their responsibility. I really cannot blame your company for not wanting to cover them.


jokerfriend6

No, the parents immediateky dropped them from their insurance after they kicked them out. The court order says the parents must provide insurance, but the court does not make it criminal when they dont, so the parents dont provide it.


in-site

It's still something to be grateful for, on this, the darkest of days


nicuramar

Whenever a company does pretty much anything, there is always comments on Reddit “reminding” us that it’s not for your sake :p


HaddockBranzini-II

Amazon will just install abortion bots in the fulfilment centers and give women a 15 minute unpaid break to use one. That's fifteen minutes exactly ladies. Chop chop!


bringatothenbiscuits

Applaud that these companies are doing the right thing. Sad that this is yet another example of many white collar workers being unaffected and blue collar workers getting screwed over. It’s also effectively a tax on these companies. Such a stupid pointless and cruel waste of everyone’s time and money. Thanks a lot republicans.


IndigoHero

They aren't doing the right thing at all. They are signaling doing the right thing while simultaneously funding political candidates encouraging the thing they are signaling is bad. I don't know about you, but I really don't want a world where the only thing shielding me from tyranny is my employer. That's just tyranny with extra tyranny on top.


MBAMBA3

This is lame - they should completely move their operations out of states that criminalize abortion.


Darwinsnightmare

Amazon also gave a shit ton of money to anti abortion PACs, so they're no angels.


aeorimithros

Amazon also donates to anti-abortion groups so....


speedycat2014

Capitalism is America's new form of government


busted351

mostly... always has been


braiinfried

Have fun telling your boss you’re getting an abortion and asking them to pay costs. 0 chance that stays confidential from the rest of the office


WeeklyManufacturer68

Go straight to HR in this case


ProfChaos619

Well companies rather pay for your abortions than have to pay you to take parental leave. Don’t even think companies give a shit about you.


Lazy-Contribution-50

How about these companies just completely pull out of red states? Or fire any employee who is a GOP supporter?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Lazy-Contribution-50

So? So is lying under oath to congress about roe being codified in law. Or spurring a violent insurrection. When will the left learn they have to play dirty to win. The GOP doesn’t give a shit if something is a crime or not, and that’s why they currently rule the country


rodoxide

I thought republicans would never legalize abortion because it's something they use in order to draw in single issue voters.. can't believe this happened with biden and kamala in white house. If an older diabetic woman gets pregnant or if a fetus attaches to other organs, the woman and baby are guaranteed death! Men don't know all this, and shouldn't vote on women issues.


nucflashevent

In all fairness, what you wrote is exactly what John Roberts attempted to explain to the others (obviously he didn't use those words, but you can read between the lines exactly the kind of ideas you're writing about.) Alito and Thomas, like most older gentlemen, just couldn't hold their wadd. They were in a position to stick it to the liberals and they'll be goddamned if they were going to let *THIS* one slip through their fingers! /sarcasm. The question now becomes if the voters actually take the remedy Justice Alito gave them...which is to vote out every politician who doesn't see women entitled to make decisions in regard to their uteruses. That's also something important...people need to soft sweet talking it...stop saying "women make healthcare choices" as if they are telling women which brand of sanitary napkin they can use :/ **No this is specifically a special law for citizens with uteruses...it affects no one else. It needs to be repeated over and over and over because that's how people remember things.**


g2g079

My employer sent an email saying that they will cover travel cost as well. sorry, I'm not really comfortable saying who my employer is, but they are a Fortune 500 company with around 10,000 employees.


bloatedkat

You just know they're doing this so employees won't take time off for maternity leave, thus benefiting the business. Companies don't genuinely care about an employee's wellbeing, only the perception that they do so they can get them to continue slaving away for them as much as possible.


BestUdyrBR

Who gives a shit? These companies employ thousands of people and this is absolutely life saving for many of them. If the interest of capital aligns with the right for bodily autonomy, what fucking loser is going to whine about it?


nicuramar

> what fucking loser is going to whine about it? Well, someone on Reddit always is :p


CurrentDismal9115

IDGAF... Pick better politicians. You installed the wrong ones for the sake of taxes. Fuck your olive branch.


Spokker

Makes me wonder. Even CA has an abortion restriction. Abortion is banned past the point of viability unless the mother's health is in jeopardy. If a CA female employee has a fetus beyond the point of viability, will the company fly them to an area of the country that allows elective abortions up to term, such as Washington DC? It would be a rare occurrence for sure but I wonder what their policies will say.


Scyhaz

Who's getting an elective abortion beyond the point of viability?


Spokker

It's rare, but it's allowed in DC. The University of California, San Francisco says this about third trimester abortions. https://www.ansirh.org/research/research/why-do-women-decide-get-third-trimester-abortions (there's a link to the study on this page) >I interviewed 28 cisgender women who obtained an abortion after the 24th week of pregnancy using a modified timeline interview method. I coded the interviews thematically, focusing on characterizing the experience of deciding to obtain a third-trimester abortion. >I find two pathways to needing a third-trimester abortion: new information, wherein the respondent learned new information about the pregnancy—such as of an observed serious fetal health issue or **that she was pregnant**—that made the pregnancy not (or no longer) one she wanted to continue; and barriers to abortion, wherein the respondent was in the third trimester by the time she was able to surmount the obstacles to abortion she faced, including cost, finding a provider, and stigmatization. These two pathways were not wholly distinct and sometimes overlapped. So most people would support third trimester abortion when the child is unviable and has serious fetal abnormalities, or the mother's life is in danger (then you'd try to save the child as best you can). But this small study, which was important enough for UC San Francisco to link to, explains that finding out you are pregnant on the third trimester is justification enough to terminate the pregnancy. Further, perceived obstacles to abortion, such as the mother not feeling like they could get one due to stigmatization, is a justification. That is going to be a harder pill to swallow for a lot of people. I think that if you find out you're pregnant in the third trimester, or you were so wishy washy you waited that long, yes, elective abortion should be illegal at that point, and most people would agree with that. Therefore, if an Apple employee finds out they are pregnant in the third trimester or didn't get one earlier because they were embarrassed, will the company fly them to DC to get an abortion after the point of viability?


KitaClassic

To make a more powerful statement, move all work out of these states.


SliferTheExecProducr

Ok, but did they donate money to anti-abortion politicians?


I-Hate-Wasps

The U.S. Government making Amazon look good is.. disturbing


g2g079

Would that make them liable in Texas because they helped someone get an abortion?


laxalottalove

I wonder if male employees get same travel cost if they get someone pregnant and have to travel with the woman to get abortion.


firefawkexxx

Which is great and all but these companies donate to GOP candidates that get us in these issues to begin with


Avarria587

All these companies are doing this because they're heavily invested in states that will outlaw abortion. It's either pay for abortions or lose a significant chunk of your workforce. Younger workers, as a whole, are more left-leaning and support abortion rights. If they leave, the corporations are only going to have retirees and people that can't tie their shoelaces as choices for job candidates. EDIT: This all assumes that states that outlaw abortions won't prosecute people for having an abortion out-of-state. Honestly, this country is turning into a fucking joke.


BernieArt

Watch them hang it in front of anti-union policy.


Ill-Kaleidoscope5965

All companies should pay ALL costs for abortion!


lalalalalalalalalaa5

What about time off to travel and still have a job? Seriously wondering, as that alone could limit how useful these policies are.


dr4wn_away

Like these companies aren’t expecting this to become illegal as well in two seconds


sykeed

How many, I wonder, funded the right a-holes who made this mess possible? Amazon, for sure, is. They are trying to look good while handing the group responsible money.


not_that_planet

Oh great. Now we can be even more dependent on big Corp USA


Rignite

This is just lip service. Watch how no one is able to utilize this when it's actually needed because of the hoops they'll attach to it.


BeastMiner

Adrenochromeeee


bigfatstickman

Businesses should move out of those states. Good people, especially women whose cause is pro-choice, should move out of those states.


huggles7

Serious question….I see a lot of companies doing things like this, how many actually have headquarters or offices in states that have or will ban abortion?


berfder

Amazon has a pretty large presence in Texas. My company has offices in Utah, and that one is only a matter of time.


Far-Selection6003

Maybe STOP GIVING THE GQP CAMPAIGN MONEY?? Seriously all that money and power and they don’t give a fuck, they only pretend to.


CountryComplex3687

Who would ever want to request abortion travel time from work?!!! People don’t even tell there best friends they r having and abortion cuz it’s so hard- and now they expect women to volunteer there private health care issues to a stupid boss that they hate and then have it left in the company’s database??!!!!! And how many abortions will this company be able to pay for travel costs? One abortion per woman but what if he asshole boyfriend cums inside her and she gets pregnant 3 times??? Will her company keep supplying her with flights to the next state to swallow the pills???? Is this even america????!


w3bCraw1er

If they really care, move the businesses out of those states 100%.


Nyingje-Pekar

And how many of these companies are donating to the politicians who work to ban women’s tights?


Sk8rToon

My gut tells me this will end up with people being fired for being promiscuous. Sure they’ll actually be laid off & not fired or given another reason. But those costs have to create some type of paper trail & if the economy keeps getting worse & someone keeps showing up on the list…


contaygious

Are they gonna pay the lawyer fees when you get charged when you return home? It's still a crime when you get back. Just wait for birth control pills to be like getting caught with coke.


rbekins

The states do not have the power to regulate interstate commerce, the federal government does. Which traveling across state lines for a service, having goods shipped across state lines is. It is a clause in the Constitution and was first upheld in Gibbons v Ogden (1824). In more recent times the commerce clause has been used to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States (1964) and Daniel v Paul (1969).


contaygious

But if I buy weed and return back to a state where it's illegal I still fer charged right? Wouldn't birth control pills and abortion pills be the same? I see what you mean for operations tho


rbekins

Yes, if you bought weed in a state where it was legal and then drove to a state where it was not you would likely be charged for it. It would take a court case or several court cases to address. Similar to if states enact these laws banning travel for abortion and try to enforce them. If citizens were getting birth control pills or abortion pills through the mail i really don't know and a state had a ban on the books I really don't know if they would try to enforce it. That state would be admitting to opening people's mail and packages which would create other problems.


li_314

Big surprise, corporations don't want their employees to have a baby/have a life outside of being a corporate drone.


LoveThieves

don't get too caught up on the "Woke" companies in their states, it's really just seeing their image, economy, and stock prices go up, while we'll probably see "for profit" prisons in abortion-ban states grow with the new generation of unplanned and uneducated children in poor Southern economies.


Fitz_2112

Fuck that.. how about no iphones or prime shipping to those states. See how fast that turns things around


Minhplumb

This sounds nice but only helps a handful of girls and women. Maybe they should start a fund to help all women.


RestaurantFull9552

Why I have to hold my nose when I use my MacBook.


[deleted]

Just what I want, a corporation knowing whether or not someone had an abortion. What could go wrong?


BigHarryMC

I’m sure they will include medical travel as a benefit and cut pay accordingly. “It’s part of your compensation package”


calstanfordboy

Murica. The only country on the planet where you have to tell your EMPLOYER that you're getting an abortion! (to get reimbursed)


Thatshearsay

Ironic how most companies now supporting this are the same companies that forced employees to get covid vaccination or be fired last year.


Artistic-Time-3034

Of course they need those women working not taking family leave.


MynameisJunie

This article genuinely made me cry. At least these companies have the best interest of its women to take care of their personal choices. It doesn’t mean they get to take advantage of the situation, but this is a fundamental women’s right. I respect these companies a little more and appreciate the action. Hopefully these companies will help get this overturned.


HovercraftAdorable

Ladies and gentlemen, logic has left the building. https://fortune.com/2022/06/20/amazon-warehouse-problems-running-out-of-workers-to-hire-too-much-space/


vasilenko93

Well of course. It’s cheaper than a pregnancy and than the employee taking months off for maternity leave. It’s not like they are doing it out of the kindness of their heart.


Triangular_Desire

How much do these companies donate to GOP campaigns/ pacs? If it's more than zero they can continue sucking my hairy ballsack. This is virtue signaling st best.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Thank you for your submission, but due to the high volume of spam coming from Medium.com and similar self-publishing sites, /r/Technology has opted to filter all of those posts pending mod approval. You may [message the moderators](/message/compose?to=/r/technology&subject=Request for post review) to request a review/approval provided you are not the author or are not associated at all with the submission. Thank you for understanding. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technology) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Axelfbomber

People not realizing that abortion isn’t a constitutional right… the court decided it was a states issue.. not that abortions were illegal. Even renowned liberals stated that roe v wade needed to be revamped. Also… people who are championing these companies are stupid.. how altruistic they are to keep you on the assembly line instead of you having to take maternity leave/ paternity leave.


1_p_freely

In the middle of a gas/fuel crisis.


xJohnnyBoy27

If those companies wanna pay those fees whatever. So long as it isn’t from my taxes.


Vista36

Why should Wyoming have to live like the New Yorkers?


CompoundTurboBliss24

And why should New Yorkers have to live like they are in Wyoming? Works both ways pal except right now Wyoming holds more power in the electoral college so it’s actually Wyoming forcing policies on New Yorkers, People from Denver, LA etc.


Previous-Kangaroo-55

If they really feel so strongly - stop doing business in states that ban abortion. Put your REAL money where your mouth is. Shut down stores, move plants/locations, don’t ship to them… that’s real action, not this BS


FuzzVR

so were going from boring dystopia to a horrific one


Amida0616

My abortion doctor is in Maui


Spokker

75% of women seeking abortions are considered low income. These are not the type of people who work at Apple, where they can signal their virtuous policy of paying for the downtrodden women of America to get abortions knowing full well they won't have to pay for very many. Amazon, yes, if you count the warehouse workers I suppose. https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6424/rr >75% of women requesting abortion in the US are in poverty or in the low income bracket. The poorest 12% of women account for almost 50% of abortions and the poorest 30% for 75% of abortions This article goes on to say (which I quoted just because I find it damn interesting): >...the evidence has consistently shown that the vast majority of women request abortions due to a lack of financial resources. A Guttmacher Institute study reported that 73% of women cited this as the motivating factor for abortion. Under these circumstances there is no way abortion can be called a “choice”. Indeed the Guttmacher institute went on to expressly state in the wake of their study that “Qualitative data from in-depth interviews portrayed women who had had an abortion as typically feeling that they had no other choice, given their limited resources and existing responsibilities to others” >It is in many ways an affront to suggest to women, who are compelled to have an abortion out of poverty and an inability to afford childcare; that they have "chosen” their abortion.


frodo1990

It’s cheaper than family leave.