Sharp as a Marble - We're the only ones eating for two enough

<< Thank you for calling Human Resources. For problems regarding Robb, press one | Home | Misadventures in Jelly Belly combinations >>

We're the only ones eating for two enough

Apparently, the unborn aren't worth protecting

When supervisors at New York's Bridges and Tunnels authority found out that one of their peace officers was pregnant, the Daily News says they declared her "unfit for duty, stripped her of her gun and sent her to work in a tollbooth."

...

"Word got around that officers would lose their gun if pregnant. One woman didn't say a word until she was six months pregnant when her own doctor suggested she stop," Greg Lombardi, a union official, tells the paper. "It's like it's still 1950 or something."

posted @ 8/11/2008 3:25:33 PM

Comments

MadRocketScientist says:

on 8/11/2008 5:17:06 PM

so are you upset at the bosses for taking the women off armed duty, or at the women for being upset that they are being disarmed while pregnant? I'm confused.

Robb Allen says:

on 8/11/2008 5:27:04 PM

Neither. I can understand removing them from any duty that might put their unborn at risk or that being pregnant can get in the way of.
But stripping her of her sidearm is a little over the top. What is it that they're protecting by doing that?

MadRocketScientist says:

on 8/11/2008 5:28:00 PM

OK, that is what I thought, but I wanted to be certain.

Bruce says:

on 8/12/2008 12:43:02 AM

Yeah, because nothing's better for unborn kids than sticking their moms in tollbooths where they can breath truck exhaust all day.

straightarrow says:

on 8/12/2008 10:32:17 AM

Hey, the already born in NYC have lives not worth protecting either.
I think that is over the top also. Why should it be different for a cop?

ParatrooperJJ says:

on 8/12/2008 2:24:58 PM

It is not a good idea to shoot while pregnant. I can understand giving her desk duty. Imagine taking a full speed dive on to her belly to tackle a suspect. The liability is enormous not only for her to sue but for her kid to sue when they reach 18.

Jake says:

on 8/12/2008 7:41:44 PM

I can see possible reasons for pulling a pregnant officer off the streets, both for liability and medical reasons. As sexist as it may sound, pregnancy is a vulnerability and responsibility that affects only women.

The real questions here should be: If Officer Average Male has to be pulled off the street for a similarly temporary medical reasons (i.e. he trips and breaks his leg badly enough that he can't work the street for about 9 months), then:

a) Would he also be declared unfit for duty?

b) Would a transfer to a tollbooth be a usual possibility?

c) Would he also be stripped of his gun?

d) Is an officer transferred to a tollbooth for whatever reason normally stripped of his or her gun?

If the answer to any of these questions is "no," then there is something wrong. If the answer to all of these questions is "yes," then these women need to quit complaining and accept the consequences of choosing to become pregnant.

Jake says:

on 8/12/2008 7:49:31 PM

Actually, one further question needs to be asked: Was this transfer permanent or temporary? After delivery and maternity leave, can she get her gun back and go back to the streets?

If it's permanent, something's wrong.

If it's temporary, see my conclusion above.

Comments have been closed on this topic.

Comments

Archives

Categories

Comments

Archives

Categories

Second Amendment

Sharpest Marbles

Blogroll

Funny, as in Ha-ha

Good Reads

Extended Blogroll

Industry Links