Why did McCain vote against the fair pay act for women?

Its hard to believe it is 2008 and this is happening in America. McCain also has said that women need more education and more training and they should rely more on tax deductions. I find this shocking and unbelieveable, but it’s in print. But in general though, I am continually amazed at the social programs americans are not entitled to in the USA. How on earth do normal people afford to have children? There’s barely any maternity leave, and health care costs minimally hundreds of dollars per month.

I’m not exactly a hardcore feminist, but it’s ludicrous that a woman could possibly be paid less than a man in the same position, just because she’s a woman. That’s just disgusting.

It also makes me glad that I don’t live in the US. Living in a country with sexist politicians can’t be too wonderful.

To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.

ummm…because his mom is 90 and he married an extremely wealthy woman so he doesn’t need to worry about other females…;.

maybe it will be like his vote AGAINST a Martin Luther King holiday in 1983; and now calls that a mistake. (Apr 2008)

he’s a little long in the tooth…it might take him 25 years to realize that he has made a mistake…

Actually I would need to know more about the Act and what was included in the “package” before I can give an opinion. . The aguements make for some interesting reading here http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1338 Go to the speach section. . . Seems one of the arguments is it does not allow a statute of limitations. . . . After reading it I see that this legislation would make it impossible for businesses to defend themselves against actions that occurred years in the past. not 5 or 6 years but 30 or 40. . . The amendment is not about equal rights but the statute of limitations.

This guy is unbelievable. If you look at his history you can see his lack of respect for women. He cheats on his first wife with multiple women, before finally leaving her for the millionaress.

Obama needs to be all over this.

Equal rights is already A law. . . . You should read the story behind the amendment. . . All it is for is to remove a statute of limitations. . . one thing the act will do is create more government jobs making our government still larger. . . plus it will mean when you get a raise is must be made public and everyone must get a raise so no one will get that incentive raise for doing a good job. Don’t get me wrong the amendments got some great stuff but the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007 is mainly and formost about the statute of limitations and meant to turn over a decision already made by the US Supreme court. . .

No, ty, but Ex Post Facto Laws are unconstitutional.

  Ex Post Facto Laws

Are statutes that make an act punishable as a crime when such an act was not an offense when committed. Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution provides that no state shall pass any ex post facto law; Article I, section 9, clause 3 imposes the same prohibition upon the federal government. The Supreme Court early determined that these clauses prohibit laws with retroactive effect only in the field of criminal law and do not apply to statutes dealing with civil matters. Nonetheless, retroactive laws in the civil area may under certain circumstances violate the Contract or Due Process Clauses of the Constitution. The ban on ex post facto laws operates solely as a restraint on legislative power and has no application to changes in the law made by judicial decision.

Besides preventing the enactment of laws making acts criminal that were not criminal when committed, the Ex Post Facto Clauses also render invalid the retroactive application of laws that, while not creating new offenses, aggravate the seriousness of a crime. Moreover, a statute that prescribes a greater punishment for a crime already committed violates the clauses. A law that alters the rules of evidence so as to make it substantially easier to convict a defendant is likewise prohibited by the Constitution.

— Edgar Bodenheimer