ObamaCare: the gift of Kafkaesque Statist absurdity that just keeps on giving
We needed to pass the law to see what’s in it, and one of the provisions we’re now finding is the compulsory creation of lactation chambers — a surreal provision that has Staples co-founder Tom Stemberg a bit annoyed:
Stemberg […] is questioning an Obamacare provision that discourages job creation by dictating employers funnel their capital into lactation chambers.
“Do you want [farming retailer] Tractor Supply to open stores or would you rather they take their capital and do what Obamacare and its 2,700 pages dictates – which is to open a lactation chamber at every single store that they have?” he asked.
“I’m big on breastfeeding; my wife breastfed,” Stenberg added. “I’m all for that. I don’t think every retail store in America should have to go to lactation chambers, which is what Obamacare foresees.
Let me just add, too, that I myself am an enormous fan of the breasts — which, while that fact doesn’t have specifically to do with any argument I’m going to make, should at least come to count in my favor as evidence of full disclosure.
Here, what we have it seems to me is a natural legal extension of, eg., compulsory handicap ramps, with the precedent set now that for each new identity bloc inconvenienced by any physical workplace obstacle (the psychological inconvenience industry is already in full PC bloom) an employer must account, often financially, for the satisfaction of the inconvenienced employee.
And the extension of that argument is the institutionalization of the idea that a job is a right — just as it was in the Soviet Constitution.
To be clear, this is not about women, or women’s health, or the dignity of the handicapped, etc. — who are but the pawns in an extended chess game wherein the left is working to supplant the civil society with a state-dominated system. Meaning, what this is about is the State using emotionalist, egalitarian arguments to expand their power and control over private industry and the individual — forcing people into relationships with the State and then demanding that, as a result of that relationship, the individual surrender autonomy to the state and its increasingly unconstitutional dictates.
I’ve pointed out that I worry about the legal expansion of the definition of marriage for precisely the reason that the real battle being waged isn’t about same sex marriage. Instead, it’s about ways to destroy the civil society and replace it with a top-down, monolithic religion of the state, in the case of same sex marriage by providing a legal and judicial opening for ways to later pressure the newly expanded definition, with the goal being to destroy any kind of privileged relationship that doesn’t appeal to the state for its validation.
In this case, the government — by way of suggesting it is promoting equal opportunity in the workplace — is demanding the objective correlative for equality of outcome: if a business is forced to build lactation chambers on the off chance one of their employees is pregnant and is demanding more than conventional closed-door privacy, then what legally is to prevent others with special circumstances from asking that an employer finance, as a condition of operating, accommodations suited to their peculiar needs (eg., cannot the morbidly obese now demand wider doorways or hallways? Cannot the potentiality of a midget applying for a job make it mandatory that factories lower the height of conveyors or operating switches? Where does this begin and end, from a legal perspective?)
Now, I’m aware that the easy rhetorical riposte is to scream “slippery slope fallacy,” dismiss such arguments as faulty extensions, and declare victory. But this was the same defense that those who approved of the tobacco settlements used when people like me noted that, given time, the government would begin to come after soda and salt (or toilets or light bulbs or shower heads) — or only half-jokingly noted that, should we ever been saddled with state-run health care, the government would then have the legal authority, as our benefactors in providing “free” coverage, to dictate what we eat, how much, and perhaps even require morning calisthenics under the watchful eye of a benevolent police force provided for our own good.
This is not about health care. ObamaCare — and RomneyCare — is about a fundamental change to the relationship between the government and the individual. We need to beat it back, then hammer a stake through it’s black socialist heart.
And that is not going to happen with either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama in office, just as it won’t happen without the Republicans taking the Senate, retaining the House, and acting on a clear mandate from the voters.
What’s the point of electability if who you elect doesn’t represent your interests. And Mitt Romney, the architect of this anti-individualist abomination, doesn’t represent ours.