This is your brain on extreme, mentally unstable liberalism:
"Or at least that’s what SCOTUS just said in Harris v. Quinn.
Plaintiff Pam Harris was just a “mom” fighting to stop “the threat of
unionization in a family home,” who sued the state of Illinois to avoid
having to pay union dues out of funds she gets from Medicaid to care for
her disabled son. Listen closely to the rhetoric of Harris and her
supporters, and you could hear echoes of Nixon railing against “communal
approaches” vs. “the family centered approach.” Harris is a vestige of a
time when caring for everybody — young, old, disabled — was done by
women, unpaid, in the home, and she’s a hero to people who think things
should still be that way."
"Of course, Harris is the ultimate free
rider, not just on the labor movement but on the women’s movement, since
she’s taking Medicaid dollars and being paid, for “women’s work,” as
her son’s attendant. The Fox reporter who interviewed Harris about her
Supreme Court victory Monday closed his segment by declaring that now,
thank god, nobody could say “this home on the Illinois/Wisconsin border
is somehow a union shop.”
"That’s just the kind of phony issue the
right used in the ’70s – fear of a world grown cold, a house that’s no
longer a home, where moms demand money to do work they once did out of
love – if they bother doing any of that work at all."