Before writing its April 13 editorial, the Herald could have researched a number of available studies made in recent decades about women being paid less than men. In almost all of the studies, the disparities in pay disappear when you factor in the types of jobs women have (on aggregate), child-bearing and child-rearing factors and so on. The Paycheck Fairness Act would basically foment a lot of litigation by, you guessed it, trial lawyers. Trying to correct something that is mostly just a factor of life by adding an unnecessary law is a waste of time.
The Herald also mentions one of the great lies of “inequality”: the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Basically, what happened with Lilly Ledbetter was she waited until after the statute of limitations had expired to make her claim about unequal pay. Now, there is a sound reason for statutes of limitation ... imagine how many people have moved on from a business, files have been lost and so on, after 10 years. Waiting too long to make a complaint would be taken advantage of by many people (Think: trial lawyers), if there were not such limitations. In Ledbetter’s case, the common Democrats’ lie is she was robbed of her legal rights because of a statute of limitations. In actuality, she had admitted in a sworn deposition she knew the facts about her pay (right or wrong) long before the statute of limitations expired. She basically perjured herself, yet Democrats maintain the fiction about the statute of limitations. The facts as stated in the Herald were simply incorrect, and the Lilly Ledbetter Act is a giveaway to the trial-lawyers lobby.
Is the Herald going to start another version of the “War on Women” trope as the mid-term elections approach?