Yeah, I don’t think that’s true either.
I’m a little surprised at this, given this is a clear case of a government entity mandating that private businesses require that their employees use contraceptives.
Ha!
But seriously, I do think that an employer has a responsibility to protect the health and safety of his employees. But from what I know about the porn industry, they were already doing that. The industry was already successfully self regulating. Why was there a need for the government to step in?
Does this new law describe what kind of condoms must be used, and who is in charge of inspecting said condoms?
That’s cynical, dude.
No, cynical was an argument I recently heard an economist make on excise taxes. He’s generally in favor of them but he said the government should consider lowering the excise tax on cigarettes. His argument was that this would encourage more smoking and the revenue lost now due to reduced excise taxes would be made up for in the future by reduced social security and medicare payments.
Not that I know of, but at periods there have been instances of industry self-regulation like the Hays Code, which among other “things which . . . shall not appear in pictures produced by the members of this Association, irrespective of the manner in which they are treated” ruled out portrayals of “Miscegenation (sex relationships between the white and black races).” (Come to think of it, though, that was illegal in many states at the time.) Also, “Ridicule of the clergy.”
From what I’ve been able to find, it seems that there isn’t any law or regulation that prohibits it, but the alcohol industry has decided to not show people consuming alcohol in ads.
Question was whether a situation saves money, not whether it’s moral or righteous.
I’m relatively non-cynical as former hospital employees go. 