On Monday, I posted on my personal social media accounts a link to a story in the New York Times on a ruling by the city's (non-elected) Commission on Human Rights that bars cannot refuse to serve alcohol to pregnant women. I was surprised by some of the responses--especially from people I know are die-hard pro-abortion and yet expressed opposition to this order over concerns about the effects on the baby.
What anyone who is made uncomfortable by the thought of a pregnant woman going to a bar and downing a few is forgetting is that under the law, that is not a baby with a developing brain in there--that is just a "mass of cells"--or as the Affordable Care Act refers to pregnancy, a "pre-existing condition". "Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and the accompanying developmental issues that come along with it are none of your business, Mr Bartender--now mix me another margarita."
As the ruling from the (non-elected) Commission on Human Rights states: “While covered entities may attempt to justify certain categorical exclusions based on maternal or fetal safety, using safety as a pretext for discrimination or as a way to reinforce traditional gender norms or stereotypes is unlawful,” So that is what this is really about! It's a "man's opinion" that expecting women shouldn't be drinking alcohol. You, Mr Bartender, are trying to keep women "in their place" by not setting up another round of shots!
The (non-elected) Commission on Human Rights is quick to add that their ruling does not apply to anyone that has already had "too much" to drink and should be cut off by the bar (wouldn't want our pregnant women trying to drive themselves home--they might hit someone and leave them brain-damaged).
As far as New York City is concerned, bartenders and bar owners uncomfortable with serving booze to pregnant women should find another line of work--just like pharmacists who refuse to dispense the "morning after pill". To replace them, might I suggest hiring the store clerks that sell cigarettes to the 16% of pregnant women in Winnebago County that continue to smoke? They don't seem to have any concerns about the health of "masses of cells".