Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller for April 04, 2012

Ummm…he wants to sleep his way to her bottom?

Only in America …

Thankfully …

why not check the National Data Base for her Uterus Registration Number ? Of course he will have to verfiy the Numbers Tatooed on her Lip — you know the way they Tatoo Brood Mares and Cows.

According to a bill before the Arizona Legislature, an employer will be able to fire an employee for obtaining contraceptives that violate their (the employer’s) religious beliefs. It follows that an employer would be within their rights to not hire someone who violated those beliefs.HOUSE BILL 2625, section 5, amending 20-2329, subsection E.

Corporate privacy invasion brought to you by “civil rights conservatism”?

Congress in action?

My first thought was that this cartoon was either 3 days late or 200 years old.Now I’m just astonished.

progress inaction?

On the principal of nuke it from orbit she should say castration is the only way to be sure…

Sadly, Wiley has graphically and satirically represented the result of activist judges on the not so Supreme Court who are led by a faction of religious zealots.

I’d like to see him do the same with the new “Strip Search For Any Reason” (no matter how minor) law.Keep it up Wiley.

But I don’t see a casting couch…

Now, with the new ruling, he gets to strip search her, too, right?

In Italy such questions are standard.

Congress is totally screwed up, and the executive branch shares in that too. Is anyone REALLY surprised that the so-called Supreme Court has joined in the fun? This country, which promotes itself as a beacon of freedom to the world, has been chipping away steadily at its own foundations for far too long. We aren’t Republicans or Democrats or Independents; We are AMERICA, and that used to mean something. It’s time it did again. End the paranoia, stop with the outsourcing, and get back to the business of being the best and greatest nation in the world.

Two sides to every coin. Does having multiples of offspring demonstrates risky behavior?

Is Sandra Fluke applying for a job?

Wiley has his finger on the pulse of our insanity.

Played properly, a pawn can bring down a king. That’s the beauty of chess. No one is unaccountable.

Here in Texas we look at Perry and say “God what have we done”. Then we look at Arizona and say, “Could be worse”. Then we look at the SCOTUS and say, “And it is going to be.”

And a test for STDs in the last 24 hrs?

Let’s not forget that potential employers are asking people for their facebook passwords as well. “And here are the results of my last pap smear. Here’s my mammogram. My husband’s prostate exam. Oh, my teenage daughter is not sexually active yet, here is a statement proving that….” it’s coming…

So, he is asking her not to produce while her resume clearly states she is qualified? What a strange interview.

Maybe he’s asking for advice. Wouldn’t hurt. If only the activists parents had thought of contraception a long time ago, there wouldn’t be these problems.

Obviously interviewing for a job with a Democrat House Representative.

well employers will soon be able to decide if they want top pay for a womans contraceptives in the health insurance. If they decide it is not necessary she will have to pay out of pocket. Welcome to the future.

These questions won’t be asked to male applicants, just female.

It means he doesn’t want her to have children where it might cause him to lose his precious money for time off. After all nothing should come in the way of money. She will probably be paid less because she might want to have a family,

I interpret it as a comment on Obamacare, myself.

And these laws are generally coming from the folks who are often heard to complain about too much government in our lives. (But I think they’re talking about corporations, not people.)

I remember when harass was two words.

Remember, The opposite of PROGRESS is CONGRESS!

Welcome back to the 50s and 60s. The questions weren’t usually worded quite that way, but many women job applicants were asked what their childbearing plans were. The insurance plan at one place where I worked wouldn’t cover childbirth costs if the woman wasn’t married.

Remember that the Tea Party and Republicans in general are not closed minded Bigots, they are downright progressive liberals compared to the Taliban, who they emulate.

No matter what side of the political spectrum your on…. the entire idea of bringing a womans very personal life into the forfront of the public workplace was due to Obama and Sebelius. If the Government wants to force business to provide personal services then they were given the right to ask personal questions. Simple solution, get the Government out of businesses HR departments and the HR departments get out of your personal life.

The strip should read “The Antonin of Progress in Action”

The Catholic church supplied nuns with contraceptives when they were being raped by a rebel group. The church is happy to support free labor of women teachers and nurses, but do not want to pay to raise their children of rape.(if you aren’t part oft he church, you are on your own.)

I’d like to live in a meritocracy, but until I decide to leave, I’m stuck in what started out as a Representative Democracy, and is fast declining into either a Corporate “Democracy” or a Corporate Theocracy. Neither of which is particularly appealing, though I would hazard that the lesser evil is to vote for the Democrats.

My comment was deliberately devoid of any preference as to who the “activists” are. Could be the ones clamoring for this ridiculous bill; could be the ones allowing themselves to get worked up over it. Both sides of this issue need to back off. The two biggest and richest lobbying groups before Congress are the insurance and religious groups. Whether to pay for contraception or not is peanuts to the insurance group, but hey, it would save them some money, so why not get into bed with religious extremists? Politicians want to see how mad folks will get so they can justify any vote against all the money. This whole thing is smoke and mirrors, but see how many comments there are today? Wonder what they DON’T want us to see…

But hey, thanks to the Patriotism Hall Monitor at Gocomics for keeping order…even if you don’t need to. Feel better now?

Gocomics keeps eating my posts, methinks they need a better CMS.

Anyway, I disagree that “voting non-incumbent” is an effective means of improving your party. When EVERYBODY in the game is bought by corporate interests, all you’re doing is changing the players, but keeping the same corrupt rulebook.

Work to get corporations out of politics. Work to get fundamentalist loons out of politics. Work to get wholly unqualified people from being allowed anywhere near a political party. Until then, I’m reluctantly voting Democrat, at least they’re not the Grand Ole Perverts. If I had to choose, I’d pick Corporate “Democracy” over Corporate Theocracy.

The ignorance of almost all these comments amazes me. Whose job is it any way? It’s all about freedom. He’s free to ask the question, and she’s free to call him an ass and look elsewhere if she doesn’t like it!

As they used to say on Max Headroom: Twenty minutes into the future.

Romney doing a job interview………

Freedom of religion does not include using the government to force others to adopt your religion.

No, that wasn’ t why he was strip searched. He was strip searched (as are all processed personnel) at the jail as per standard procedure. That was why SCOTUS threw it out. It had no merit, and absolutely nothing regarding any relation to the charges brought up on him, or whether he was innocent of any charge. He should have brought that up as a civil lawsuit against the arresting court/law enforcement personnel, if anyone. Please remove your head from your butt prior to opening your mouth. eewww. mental image…..

it has to do with insurance folks.

Actually none of this is true, it is a red herring brought about by the left to confuse and beffudle the electorate. Why deal with real issues wehn you can misdirect.

thanks to the tea potty. Sigh.

Contraception is already paid for out of my tax money, as are abortifacients and sterilization, which are the real problem. What’s the point in forcing me to do it directly and thereby place my soul in jeopardy?

The president knew at the outset that we wouldn’t do that. That was the point. The reason for the mandate is to corner the Catholic Church into fines it can’t pay, and then confiscate its hospitals, schools and charities. We’ve spent centuries building up that network of facilities, and the administration would love to get its hands on them for free.

Okay. This is the 21st Century. We really need to send all of the religious fanatics to some island in the Pacific … where they can’t do any more harm!

I read this to mean he does not want to hire a woman who plans on having children in the next few years. As a hiring manager it is a major headache to hire a woman, get her trained, then she gets pregnant. For a company above 25 employees (I think is the threshold) you have to keep her job waiting for her. The common next chapter in the story is she takes several months of on family leave, then comes back for one week only to quit to be a stay at home mom.

Read it again.

“TMI!”

In the Twenties, Fifties, and Eighties Americans tried to legislate morality as the religious right gained political dominance. In each case they lost power as the decade wore on due to socio-economic realities. Am I the only one seeing that fads and trends really do go in thirty-year cycles?

Why is an employer obligated to pay for an employees health care in the first place? Why not buy the employees a car, a house and some food too? All of that is sort of required for an employee to show up for work: health, a place out of the elements, transportation and nutrition… If we can get the employer to pay for everything… oh, wait. That’s the government’s job, isn’t it?…

After reading the strip and the comments I just have to say that yes, I personally believe this question is inappropriate, but must add that there is no reason for it to be legislated one way or the other.

Hmmm i seem to have a different take on this strip from everyone else I assumed it was about not wanting to hire a woman who was likely to take maternity leave.

Old one… “Pro is to progress as Con is to Congress.”

http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/300397393356744/

For those of you who might be concerned with this issue

I agree! My take on it was to not have her taking maternity leave. As an employer with my key staff member off for the year I can understand this. (I told her she was not allowed to have children when she got married but she didn’t listen to me – and this time is her second!)

You all have it completely backwards. Why shouldn’t an employer have the freedom to choose who they hire based on any criteria they choose? Discrimination laws were a Liberal idea to begin with! I will not be forced to make my choices based on your preferences. I WILL discriminate based on religion, sex, color, or anything else I like or dislike, because I am FREE!

Shorter Brian Ransom: “How DARE you try to force me to extend equal rights to other people! I demand my freedom to make sure that people I don’t like are second-class citizens!” Ever heard the saying, “your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose”?

So ignorant. The issue is not contraception. Anyone who wants to use contraception can do so. The issue is the Bill of Rights’ guarantee of freedom OF religion. The government has no right to force any religion to do anything against the tenets of its faith. If the government does so, then the government has violated the Bill of Rights.