[markkanof]

Putting the actual law aside, I'm a bit confused on Gruber's argument here that "it’s untenable for Apple, or any other company, to “support our employees’ rights to make their own decisions regarding their reproductive health” and ask any woman to work for the company in a state with a law like Texas’s."

This sort of presumes that Texas is an empty plot of land where no one lives. This is obviously not the case. There are millions of people that live there and need jobs. So what about women who want to work for a cool consumer technology company and are anti-abortion. Why would it be "untenable" to hire those women?

[yaacov]

Coming at this from a personal-choice-oriented perspective, the answer for those women is not to get an abortion for themselves regardless of whether the law in their state allows it.

Of course, that doesn’t solve the problem for those who strongly prefer to live in a state where nobody’s allowed to have an abortion.

[someguydave]

Of course, I presume those same personal-choice-oriented people also believe that the government should force people to be vaccinated.

[otterley]

Most of us are also OK with laws forcing everyone to wear pants in public. We don't consider it a serious infringement of our personal freedom.

Being forced to carry a pregnancy to term -- even an especially risky one, or one that's the result of rape or incest -- has significant impacts on both the mother and the community that could be net negative instead of positive.

Everything about a vaccination is supposed to have net positive effects, both for the individual recipient and the public health and welfare.

[someguydave]

which humans are a net negative after they are born?

[belltaco]

Abortions don't spread from person to person at the drop of a hat and also don't fill up hospital and kill millions of real people.