There's lots of different issues here.

Could the day care center fire an employee if they couldn't show up to work because they'd gotten into a car accident? Does the fact that it was the employees first day of work matter? Was the employee asking for paid leave?

Or was the employee fired specifically because this was a domestic violence situation?

Does the day care center have a responsibility to keep a possible threat (the ex-husband) from harming the children in their care? If they do, how far do they need to go to protect those kids while keeping in mind that their employees have rights?

Ms Lloyd concern that the day care worker could be distracted from taking 100% care with the kids is just plain silly. Day care workers can be distracted in many ways, unless they actually engage in providing inadequate care, you've got nothing to stand on.

Most doctors will not implant and IUD in a woman who has not given birth because of the increased possibility of uterine puctures. If you want one, you may indeed have to shop around.

A friend of mine was trying getting her tubes tied; she knew that she'd never want to be a parent. She had suffered child abuse by her caregiver and knew from an early age that parenthood was not something she wanted to engage in. She'd been seeking a doctor to perform the procedure since she was 21, she's 30 now and still hadn't found a doctor that would do the procedure. So after that many years, isn't this the same as the procedure being unavailable? She was told that she would have to wait until she was 35 or had two children first(!!!)

I suspect that young men have the same issue trying to find a doctor for a vasectomy, which is also unfair. Especially since men have a lack of options on reversible birth control.

I know I should bother but, Brightstar said:

"As it's been said hundreds of times, I will say it again. Women have CHOICES, unlike men. Name one man who chooses to accept less salary, then (SUCCESSFULLY) blames the society for this."

You can read men right here on Salon (and other sites) bemoaning lower wages due to outsourcing, changes in global trade, gov't policies and (yes) discrimination.

Both women and men have choices in the marketplace. Those choices are limited by various of factors (race, education, location, gender, physical disability, etc). Several of those factors are ones that the potential employee can control, like education. There are ones that you cannot, like race. When employers deny people employment or advancement based solely on factors such as race and gender, we call that discrimination and employees can sue (or at least until the Supreme Court decides otherwise. Employers are people and they bring all of their internal biases to the negotiating table with them, most are probably unaware that they reward employees based on height or attractiveness or gender. I think these studies help people understand and perhaps overcome those biases. I don't believe those unconcious decisions fit the case of discrimination, unless it can be proved that a company's collective choice have in effect discriminated against a particular group. For example if ACME Corp had 75% of all Road Runner employees' salaries significantly less than Coyotes in comparable positions. Pay discrimination does happen. I've had it happen to me, and I voted with my feet and found a new job for better pay. I was able to do so because I had skills that were in demand in the marketplace, but many people do not have the option to walk.

However, I don't think the pay gap is a result of overt gender discrimination. I do think that women's choices play a big part in that. Those choices are made based on a lot of societal pressure (children need a parent at home and typically that's the mom), same with men who "choose" to work extra hours to get ahead so they can afford to keep their wife at home taking care of the kids (and so they all can have healthcare.)

For any man or woman who is living paycheck to paycheck with small skill set, the ability to negotiate work and salary is severely diminished. Yes, some of that is based on choices: Jim decided to become a Walmart shelf-stocker instead of a doctor because he loves putting things on shelves. Or it could be based on the fact that Jim parents were poor and he went to crappy public school system and never got a decent education so putting things on shelves is the best he can do. He gets paid crap and has no benefits but Walmart has caused all the other grocery stores in the area to close because Walmart can undercut the competition.

"That man in your outsourcing example does not CHOOSE to earn less, it is forced on him."

He could CHOOSE to go into a different field. He could CHOOSE to increase his skill set. Instead you'll find those 50 year old white male programmers/engineers complaining about how all their work is being taken over by 20 year old Indians that don't know anything about "real coding". Those same 50 year old white men who CHOOSE to vote for politicians that pave the way for more outsourcing. How is that not a choice that men are making? You said that MEN don't have CHOICES, they obviously do. You even point out that some men choose to become artists for less pay. Yep, and you can hear a hundreds of them complaining about the "man" keeping them down. I've sat through enough tirades from my musician friends about how music has turned into big business and "real" musicians can't get any contracts because all anybody wants to hear is "crap".

And please, the name calling is just plain rude. I responded to you in a civilized fashion, you should be able to do the same.