Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) struck out against corporations and claimed they are anti-family on Tuesday in the wake of the Roe v. Wade rollback.
Rubio, long critical of major corporations that engage in liberal politics, wrote on FoxNews.com that many companies’ response to the landmark abortion ruling, paying for employees’ travel for abortions, is indicative of a broader shift in corporate culture against families.
His central argument is that because of a shift toward globalization, combined with “woke” ideology, corporations have increasingly focused less on the social and familial well-being of their employees and rather on purely production and output. He argued that corporations are trying to consume the entire lives and culture of workers.
“Wall Street firms demand upward of 80 hours a week from employees. Big tech firms expect the same, though they try to make it comfortable by providing napping pods, foosball tables, and free food. The message is clear: your home is here,” Rubio wrote. “And if your home is at work, you have no time for what home is actually supposed to be: family, faith, and community.”
DISNEY, JPMORGAN, AND OTHER CORPORATIONS PLEDGE TO COVER ABORTION TRAVEL COSTS
He asserts that the shift began after the Cold War when the country’s “corporate elites began to view themselves as citizens of the world rather than patriotic Americans.”
Rubio homed in on how several companies have vowed to cover their employees’ costs of abortion-related travel after the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade and said that is evidence of corporations being anti-family.
He argued that many of today’s corporate leaders attended “elite universities” and are members of the “same clubs” and thus, being surrounded by people of similar ideologies, feel as though abortion is a human right.
“They cannot believe anyone feels otherwise, even though statistically half their employees are likely horrified their labor is contributing to the death of an unborn child,” Rubio wrote.
Disney and Dick’s Sporting Goods were two companies among the myriad corporations that announced they would reimburse abortion-related travel, both of which Rubio singled out in his op-ed.
Disney at the time said it would cover travel for “family planning,” which includes “pregnancy-related decisions.”
“We recognize the impact of the ruling and that we remain committed to providing comprehensive access to quality and affordable care for all of our employees, cast members, and their families, including family planning and reproductive care, no matter where they live,” Disney said in a statement.
Dick’s Sporting Goods CEO Lauren Hobart also committed to reimbursing abortion-related travel. She made the announcement in a Facebook post and said the company would provide up to a $4,000 reimbursement.
“While we do not know what decision each state will make in response to this ruling, we at DICK’S Sporting Goods are prepared to ensure that all of our teammates have consistent and safe access to the benefits we provide, regardless of the state in which they live,” Hobart wrote.
Dick’s Sporting Goods is facing calls for a civil rights investigation over its commitment.
America First Legal, founded by former Trump administration adviser Stephen Miller, last week asked the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to open a civil rights investigation into Dick’s Sporting Goods’s alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act.
“DICK’S announced a special employment benefit of ‘up to $4,000’ in travel reimbursement for a employee, spouse, or dependent, along with one support person, to obtain an abortion,” the group said in a news release. “Although Title VII prohibits discrimination based on childbirth, DICK’S does not offer an equivalent paid benefit to a mother who has her baby.”
“Subsidizing travel for an abortion, while denying an equivalent benefit to a mother welcoming a new baby, is perverse and unlawful,” said Reed Rubinstein, the group’s senior counselor and director of oversight.
In his op-ed, Rubio insinuated that corporations offering to cover travel costs for abortions are doing so in part because they would prefer that their female workers not have children because giving birth is bad for business.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“Everyone knows that having children dramatically reduces a mother’s work hours, and that is especially true for children under 6. It is impossible — and actually undesirable — for your life to be your work when you have a life at home that needs you. But from a corporation’s perspective, a child is a distraction,” Rubio said.
