A group of legislators in New Hampshire have proposed numerous bills that would turn women into liabilities, making them too costly to employ. Today, we will focus on two bills in particular.

Proposed by seven Democrats and three Republicans, Senate Bill 69 would use the force of law to require “employers to provide access to a sufficient space for nursing mothers and reasonable break time.”

This bill would force businesses to spend money on acquiring more rooms in their property for women, which would cost them money. It would also cost the business money due to paying an employee who is not working and producing value. 

This bill has passed the Senate and is now in the House Commerce Committee.

Proposed by eleven Republicans and seven Democrats, Senate Bill 68 would use the force of law to require employers “to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees.”

Again, this bill would make it more costly to hire women of child-bearing age. Should this bill pass, business owners would be less likely to hire women. They will simply not be worth the trouble.

This bill has passed the Senate and is now in the House Commerce Committee.

If there were a law forcing businesses to provide beautiful masseuses and ample break time for daily massages for all male employees, I would oppose the law for the exact same reasons. Forcing employers to provide ‘accommodations’ for a specific (or any) group of employees is wrong because it would violate personal freedom, economic freedom, and it would harm the employees it’s designed to help. If these bills pass, legislators will have harmed my wife by making her less employable. 

I also cannot resist pointing out the incredible hypocrisy of radical socialist feminists who simultaneously claim that women and men are the exact same and MUST be treated the exact same, while also supporting laws that force employers to grant special accommodations to women. 

The following written testimony was sent to the House Commerce Committee from a distinguished critical care/flight paramedic, EMS educator, and former paramedic instructor at St. John’s University: 

While I’m one of New Hampshire’s newer residents, the reason it’s where I wound up is simply that it had more freedom than at least 45 other states. It’s incredibly disheartening that since I arrived in 2020, many things have gone downhill, and SB68 is just one more such measure.

Now, I am not a legislator, but I am quite familiar with the English language, and I have real qualms with its modern-day Orwellian abuse. According to Dictionary.com, the definition of the word “discrimination” is “an act or instance of discriminating or making a distinction” (emphasis mine). This cannot be stressed enough. I am personally sick and tired of watching bill after bill after bill pass around the US and at the federal level that claim to be solving some sort of discrimination when these bills are almost always – inherently – wildly discriminatory.

For starters, any bill that caters specifically to women while not catering equally to men is, by definition, discriminatory, and more specifically it is sexist. This isn’t me – this is the definition of the relevant words in the English language, and, again, while I may not know all the laws in New Hampshire, I feel rather confident that my knowledge of English rivals anyone. I say this not to brag, but because I feel certain this entire email will be met with derision and baseless accusations of “sexist”, “misogynist”, or whatever the conflagratory word-du-jour might be, but it isn’t – this is me calling out these bill on factual grounds, which are the truth whether anyone likes it or not. Accommodations of any kind provided exclusively for one group over another are the definition of “discriminatory”, period, no argument to be had.

Secondly, to the inevitable argument of “well, men don’t breast-feed!”, I would point out that’s immaterial and a moot point. We all have our responsibilities, and being an adult is about handling them. If you can’t figure out a way around this problem that all human mothers have lived with since the dawn of the species, and millennia before things like baby formula and safe babysitters and daycares and so on….maybe you’re not quite ready for this whole “parenthood” thing in the first place. Sometimes, the real world isn’t easy. Sometimes it isn’t fair. Men are wildly discriminated against in family court, with some studies finding custody goes to mothers 90% of the time, but, hey, somehow things like that all fly under the radar in this state and others, and nobody seems to really care. That, too, is an example of discrimination, and it’s extremely well-documented. Women are raped at much higher rates than men. Women are allowed to get abortions because “it’s my body”, but if a 25-year old woman wants a tubal ligation or a hysterectomy she’s turned away….because it’s suddenly not her body? How does that work? We have actual sexist problems that do exist. Maybe we should try remedying sex-based discriminatory decision-making and legislation instead of adding more to the books.

Lastly, an important note is that such bills automatically make women a more expensive employee, who can be expected to come to work less often, spend less time on the clock actually working, and who can be anticipated to be the recipients of all sorts of extra costs and accommodations. While capitalism in the US is nearly dead, a shred does remain, and this makes women of child-bearing age a significantly less valuable employee on paper than a male of equal experience and qualification. In a beautifully ironic, very meta twist, this discriminatory bill favoring women – proposed to stop non-existent discrimination against women – will probably result in actual discrimination against women because employers would stand to lose a considerable amount of money and potential earnings between actually providing the facilities outlined in these bills, then allowing employees the extra break time to use them. 

Again, I can already hear cries of “sexist!” echoing through my keyboard, but it isn’t – this is fundamental economics, which doesn’t give a damn about the perceived microaggressions of our so-called “progressive” era, rather only about mathematical and logical realities. Economics as a science does not discriminate, but it does flatly explain that, given all else equal between Employee X and Employee Y, if X works 95% of the time and & works 85% of the time, X is empirically and unequivocally the better hire every single time. These bills make men Employee X, and women Employee Y. There again is not an argument to be made here. The result of this anti-discrimination bill is almost certainly going to be actual discrimination.

Pointing out the inherent sexist and discriminatory factualities of your bill doesn’t make me a bigot, though I sadly feel certain that will be the conclusion some of you draw because facts don’t mean anything to some people anymore – it simply begs you all to reconsider just how poorly-considered this proposed appeasement is to the raging “progressive” powers of the day. Women have been breastfeeding just fine among their other individual responsibilities in life for, I don’t know, some 200,000 years, yet now it’s the biggest problem facing the state of New Hampshire? Is it just me that is looking around at the fact that countless New Hampshire businesses have been burned to the ground in the last year by brutally authoritarian mandates, and thinking this these proposed bills are a preposterous waste of the legislature’s time and effort, an attempt at distraction from some massive issues truly plaguing the state, and a very misguided overtly misandrist olive branch to modern neo-feminism? And whatever happened to the “women power” side of feminism, that points out what we all know – that professionally, women can absolutely do the exact same things as men, because we’re all just human….but suddenly women can’t pump on their breaks, or manage this on their own some other way, and require oodles of bonus accommodations their peers don’t get to fulfill their most fundamental parenting responsibilities? I spent a year working with a guy who was permanently scheduled for 40 hours a week each at two different jobs because, like a disproportionately large percentage of men, he was being held responsible for 100% of child support from his past failed relationship; he managed. Lots of men and women manage similar and even more difficult juggling acts between their personal, familial, and professional lives responsibilities. It’s called “being an adult”.

So, really, the cherry atop all this? That it’s suggesting women are incapable of functioning as both mothers and professionals unless everyone bends over backward for them and caters to them well above and beyond what their male colleagues get. If THAT isn’t sexist….nothing is.

I would beseech you all to view the facts presented herein objectively as I did, and vote against these bills. I have no qualms with motherhood, and if an employer of their own volition decides to go that extra mile for their child-bearing female staff, kudos to them – that sounds like a wonderful employer who truly cares for their staff and wants to make their lives as easy as possible. That would probably be a wonderful place to work. But to mandate such a thing by threat of punitive action is immoral, unethical, tyrannical, I daresay overtly unconstitutional, constitutes theft (since those additional expenses and lost earnings are costs directly to be eaten by employers at the behest of the bill), and can only serve to beget resentment from employers over their newest government-imposed burdens, which, as pointed out above, will likely be taken out on potential or existing female employees. It may also bear resentment from male colleagues, who rightfully feel they’re being discriminated against.

I would plead with you all to throw this bill into the nearest blazing fireplace, and see to it all you can it that such drivel isn’t proposed again. Please spend the time instead addressing the glaring and pressing problems wreaking havoc on New Hampshire instead of the fictional ones.

I hope you’re all staying safe and are well. Thank you for your time. Please do the right thing by your constituents, the constitution, factual data, and everyone in the workforce.