More Evidence Emerges Elizabeth Warren Lied About Being Fired for Pregnancy

[gam197]

from Wall Street Journal

On Thursday Mediaite found a interview from 2011 in which Ms. Warren said she couldn’t get a job after her 1976 law-school graduation because she was again pregnant. She mentioned leaving her teaching job but said nothing about being fired or discriminated against in 1971

So both times she is pregnant she has issues, one she is fired and one she can’t get work.

 

[Cathoholic]

vz71 . . .

. . . it is worth noting that in the 70s it was not uncommon for a teacher to be pregnant.

Very common for pregnant teachers. I was there and saw it.

Add to that her being a speech pathologist (schools proverbially fight over them) and the rest of Warren’s history and it is pretty easy to draw your own conclusions.

As for me?

I rate the claim about Warren being fired as FALSE.
It is right up there with her waxing about her parents needing to elope due to her mom being an Indian,
And her “family” recipe that she pilfered to submit to the Pow Wow Chow, Indian recipe book.

 

[dvdjs]

So both times she is pregnant she has issues, one she is fired and one she can’t get work.

Perhaps we all could come together and adopt a very pro-life position of rooting out discrimination against pregnant women in the world of work? Is that possible?

 

[Cathoholic]

More from the link gam197 submitted (thank you gam197) . . .

. . . . But Warren gave a different account in a 2007 interview, citing her lack of required education credits and decision to stay home and raise children as her reasons for leaving the career, with no mention of pregnancy discrimination. She even said she subsequently took some more education classes, and decided “I don’t think this is going to work out for me.”

She said she became “restless,” and when her old debate team friends suggested law school, she pursued that path. . . .

. . . Some of Warren’s defenders have surmised that she may not have felt comfortable discussing the subject in 2007, but feels comfortable doing so now, a premise that Warren herself reinforced in a statement about the controversy, writing “After becoming a public figure I opened up more about different pieces in my life and this was one of them.”

But in a 2011 interview with Rutgers Law Professor Paul Tractenberg , Warren was comfortable enough to open up about pregnancy discrimination by law firms, and yet recounted her exit from teaching without mentioning it at all. In fact, she corroborated details of her 2007 account, like the reason for her decision to go into law.

“I was married at 19 to a boy . . .

. . . Later in that same interview, Warren told Tractenberg “I graduated from law school 9 months pregnant . . . hard enough to get a job for a woman then, I was about to have a baby and nobody was interested in me. . . .

. . . . In neither interview did Warren describe teaching as a “dream job,” or express the slightest regret at leaving the career. And in her current retellings, she makes no mention of the emergency certificate she was teaching with, the required courses she had not completed, or . . .

. . . The 2011 interview seems to dispel the notion that Warren was uncomfortable discussing pregnancy discrimination, while the brief account she did offer of her departure from teaching is consistent with the story she told in 2007, and not the one she tells now.

Watch the full interview above, via Rutgers Newark.

WATCH: Old Video of Elizabeth Warren's Pregnancy Discrimination Claim Appears to Undermine Current Explanation

Massachusetts Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren is standing by her claim she lost a teaching job due to pregnancy discrimination, but a 2011 interview appears to undercut her explanation for giving a contradictory account in 2007. During her current presidential...

www.mediaite.com

 

[gam197]

According Warren this is still going on. I guess those pregnant weather women or newscasters jobs are in jeopardy also, a very pregnant Jane Pauley.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[dvdjs]

According Warren this is still going on.

If you go to Wiki on the Pregnancy Disability Act (1976) you will note that there have been cases taken all the way to the Supreme Court over the years since that act was passed. You might also look at the stories that women are tweeting about their own experiences with pregnancy discrimination decades after this bill.

Again I wonder: can we all come together and adopt a very pro-life position of rooting out discrimination against pregnant women in the world of work?

 

[gam197]

Did you look at the cases filed?

California Federal Savings and Loan Association v Guerra - She decided to take leave of absence without their permission.

Rent-A-Center West, Inc. v. Jackson - She could not lift the weight required in her job.

Arizanovska v. Wal-Mart Stores - She is shelf stocker and she tells Wal Mart she cannot lift weight.

Let’s not even go here.

Transgender exclusion is also a critique of the PDA. Transgender men who still have the capacity to become pregnant are often excluded from the protections of the act due to the language and scope of the protected class defined by the PDA.

 

[dvdjs]

Did you look at the cases filed?

Yes. Am I to take if from your responses that you do not support protection of women against pregnancy discrimination?

 

[Cathoholic]

dvdjs . . .

can we all come together and adopt a very pro-life position of rooting out discrimination against pregnant women in the world of work?

I don’t know what terms you (not “you” personally) will RE-define.

By “women” do you mean women in a classic biologic sense?

Or do you mean a guy calling himself a “woman”?

And if that is so, can the definition be changed from week to week (gender fluidity).

Can this guy be not allowed to work in a womens locker room? Even if he thinks he is a woman this week? Or is THAT going to be re-defined as “discrimination”?

Can people be whatever they “claim” to be?

And if so, do you (not “you” personally) give a guy off “maternity leave” and pay him if he thinks he is pregnant but is still a biologic man?

And what is “discrimination”?

How about beyond “the world of work” too?

Can we all just agree we should stop discriminating against pre-born females (as well as males)?

Certainly we can all agree to the pro-life position that these innocents should never be premeditatively murdered.

So as to your question to “all” here, it seems like on the surface, yes, I can agree with you (I can’t speak for others).

But the provisio here is, there cannot be any word games, re-definitions, etc. by society.

They cannot change the terms of what I am agreeing to by slight-of-hand.

 

[Cathoholic]

For the readers here.

I just checked the news and saw THIS . . . .

Elizabeth Warren Proposes Mixed-Sex Prisons as Part of LGBT Agenda​

. . . Warren’s plan states:

I will direct the Bureau of Prisons to end the Trump Administration’s dangerous policy of imprisoning transgender people in facilities based on their sex assigned at birth and ensure that all facilities meet the needs of transgender people, including by providing medically necessary care, like transition-related surgeries, while incarcerated. . . .

Elizabeth Warren Proposes Mixed-Sex Prisons as Part of LGBT Agenda

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) advocated for mixed-sex prisons as part of the "LGBTQ+ Rights and Equality" plan she released on Thursday.

www.breitbart.com

What about “gender fluid” people Liz?

Is it OK to “discriminate” in THAT sphere?

Shenanigans like this, is exactly WHY “agreeing” with anything leftists purpose (leftists, like Liz is), is so dicey.

(Because you never quite know what you are “agreeing” with, when somebody
has such a shakey concept of reality
as so many of the leftists in power do.
[This grew out in large part of their “spirituality”
of lying to themselves for years
over killing off their own babies in the womb,
or “evangelizing” on behalf of that.])

 

[jeannetherese]

I would expect to see and actual written policy as evidence.

 

[jeannetherese]

How is that second hand? Women who worked there at the time affirmed the policy.
What is your basis for denying their testimony? Do you have contrary evidence?

They are not confirming a policy; they are affirming the existence of a policy for which no document can be found.

 

[dvdjs]

I would expect to see and actual written policy as evidence.

Why? Why is the testimony of others sat that place and at that time insufficient?

 

[vz71]

They are not confirming a policy; they are affirming the existence of a policy for which no document can be found.

And let’s not forget, we have no other evidence at all.
We have a group of women claiming victim status in a time when that is rewarded.

These women may not be getting anything for the story, but I would want more information.

 

[dvdjs]

They are not confirming a policy; they are affirming the existence of a policy for which no document can be found.

It has already been pointed out, in post#100, that as a matter of law there existence of a document is irrelevant to the enforcability and thus to the existence of a policy.

The demand for a document is an obvious red herring. =

We have a group of women claiming victim status in a time when that is rewarded.

What is the basis for your claim that these women were in any way victims of the the policy?
Do you have any basis whatsoever for doubting their words?