America First Legal (AFL) asked the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to investigate Lyft for possible violation of civil rights concerning the company’s promise to cover abortions and travel costs.
AFL accused Lyft of “multiple violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.”
Lyft and other companies went ballistic when SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade and states triggered laws to ban abortions. God forbid people don’t want to legalize the murder of unborn human beings!
Lyft targeted Oklahoma (my state) and Texas.
Damn those “cruel laws” for making it hard to murder a baby.
From the letter to the EEOC:
As you know, an unlawful employment practice is established when the evidence demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m). Here, the evidence is that the Company is knowingly and intentionally discriminating with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of pregnancy and childbirth in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).On April 29, 2022, the Company announced that “[f]or Lyft employees enrolled in our U.S. medical benefits, which include coverage for elective abortion, we’ll cover the travel costs if these laws require travel outside of Texas and Oklahoma to [abort a pregnancy].” Then, on June 24, 2022, the Company announced a special employee benefit including “reimbursement for travel costs if an employee must travel more than 100 miles for an in-network provider.”2 However, Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, prohibits discrimination with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of childbirth. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(k); 2000e-2(a). The Company’s decision to provide “coverage for an elective abortion and reimbursement for travel costs”—which is properly classified both as compensation and/or as a privilege of employment—to a pregnant woman who chooses to abort her child, while denying any equivalent compensation or benefit to a pregnant woman who chooses life, facially violates the statute. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e2(a)(1); 2000e(k).
Then again, killing a baby is cheaper than paying for a pregnancy.
AFL targeted Dick’s Sporting Goods after announcing it would pay for abortions and travel costs up to $4,000. Dick’s will cover these costs for the employee, spouse, and dependents. Yikes.
Amazon, Kroger, JPMorgan, Chase, and Disney are other companies that took these steps.
Disgusting. So gross.
Murder disguised as healthcare, but these companies won’t cough up any money to pay for actual healthcare.
My blood is boiling.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY