Asher Bertrand

OK. Then know that the way the legislatures in question are today, there was no way in hell the men's health bills would go anywhere. Republicans are in charge of at least one house of both of those legislatures, and they would have stopped it. At the same time, the Republican leaders in these legislatures are pushing through many bills that restrict women's access to health care. Hence, the protest bills from the Democrats, which were introduced with the knowledge that they would not pass.

It's political theater. Sometimes that's all the minority party can do.

So basically, you're getting upset about bills and amendments that nobody ever thought would pass. Meanwhile, you're not saying much about the bills restricting women's health that have.

Which makes you look like you're missing the point by a mile.

__________________

Asher Bertrand

Meanwhile, this is probably still the best primer on bicameral legislatures out there.

livia

I'm not outraged. More struck with that sinking feeling one gets when they consider the potential unintended consequences of a superficially "clever" move. I do not trust these folks to not cut their nose off to spite their faces, nor to listen to public sentiment.

Circle Widdershins

If no one speaks up or protests then all the laws being *actually passed* against women's health rights will never be challenged and may even be made worse.

If it takes political theatre to make a point then I'm all for it.

__________________
_____________________________________

Cristiano We need to make 'endless celestial sex' into a thing.

Asher Bertrand

Maybe the piece you're missing is that the Democrats have as much interest in requiring men to get letters from their wives as they have in making women get invasive ultrasounds, which is to say, none at all. If it actually came down to it, they would have voted against it. But it never would, not while everything is so crazy partisan around here. So, again. It's theater. Everyone here understands that.

livia

I'm not upset; a feeling of unease would be a better description.


And of course if someone disagrees with you on a particular strategy then they also must disagree with the goal, and are not just a liar but in fact must have opinions you find distasteful on anything and everything you hold an opinion about. I also hate your favourite food and love the food you hate the most. Also I kick small children and deliberately infect animals with tropical diseases, just for funsies. You can determine this merely from the fact that I think a strategy you approve of is ill advised.

Asher Bertrand

U mad?

livia

Well obviously one either tries to pass law for satirical effect or one simply does nothing at all. There's absolutely no way to speak up or protest without satirically trying to pass a law.

livia

Obviously. I disagree with you on some small minor point, so I must be mad in all senses of the word.

The only thing that confuses me is where all this polarization in US politics is coming from. Clearly not from people like you. You're definately part of the solution and truely encourage open discourse and expression rather than tribalistic polarization. Clearly you are very tolerant of even the smallest hint of dissent or deviation from your own opinions on strategy. So it's a complete mystery to me how the US political scene got in such a polarized and irrational mess to begin with.

If only everyone was just like you, the whole partisan thing would go away.

Cristiano

I do think that the attention that such legislation receives does help the cause. If nothing else, it points out the utter hypocrisy in very stark ways that get a lot of media attention and rile people up. Are there more effective ways? I'm sure there are some, but if seeing this helps to reach out to moderate undecided voters and sways them to vote these extremists out of office, then it is a definite win. There is a very dangerous situation in this country, and it is going to take a lot of approaches, including some unconventional ones, to help avert and undo damage.

__________________
"For my part, I know nothing with any certainty, but the sight of the stars makes me dream" - Vincent Van Gogh

* my blog *

Joshua Nightshade

If only everyone was like you, we wouldn't even have to argue because debates would be handled peaceably and respectfully.

__________________

Jahar Aabye

I'm generally not a fan of putting satirical legislation out there. The assumption that "no legislative body would be stupid enough to pass this" is almost as bad as "don't worry, it isn't loaded."

On a more serious note, while I understand that the intentions behind this are good, and I understand that they're trying to call attention to the hideous bills that have been passed or are being debated in several states regarding womens' reproductive health, I have to object as a matter of principle to any effort to add unnecessary and frivolous regulations on legitimate medical practice. This might be a "stunt" but it also means that policy analysts at several medical specialty societies still have to call up the legislators involved and ask "Hey, ah, you aren't serious about passing this bill, right? It's just a stunt, right? Good." So it does wind up wasting some of the time of organizations that are also going to be working to fight these idiotic restrictions on abortion and contraception.

But if I thought that it might be successful, then I still might support it. The thing is, if any sort of rational or even hyperbolic explanation was going to sway the sort of bigoted misogynistic know-nothings who yearn for another Dark Ages, it would have happened. With the Virginia bill, it wasn't the amendment about rectal exams that got the transvaginal ultrasound stricken from the bill, it was a lot of behind the scenes efforts to get various lawmakers to understand the procedures involved. Even many of the opponents of the bill didn't at first know that it would require a transvaginal ultrasound, much less its supporters.

I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if some of these morons believe, as Rush Limbaugh apparently did, that oral contraception is like Viagra and only taken when you plan to have sex. Or people who mistakenly think that an 8-cell blastocyst is actually recognizably human...or for that matter think that most of the early stages of embryological development don't resemble most other mammals as well. Or people who think that oral contraception and emergency contraception work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall (which is a hypothetical possibility but certainly not the main mechanism by which these drugs work), and thus equate to abortion.

Those people aren't going to be swayed by satire. They probably wont be swayed by logic or fact, either, for that matter, but I'm not sure that this satire is going to make them more receptive to logic or facts. Worst-case scenario, I could see how people like Rush Limbaugh and others would try to distort this bill and make it play into their paranoid fantasies about "feminazis" or whatever bullcrap they use to make their listeners/viewers scared of any woman with a larger vocabulary than theirs.

__________________
He pulled a Captain Ahab and Jaharpwn'ed her. - Trout

Asher Bertrand

It was a political fact. I suppose the Democrats should just take it silently, if you prefer? Because that would accomplish what? What they're doing is shining a light on a steaming heap of bullshit piling up on the floors of our state legislatures, and god love 'em for that.

They get paid to do that crap.

No, they aren't. But voters are. And the outrage of voters is what got Viriginia to back down from their asinine bill.

Void

How about we go back to basics... really old school... chopt it all off, or preferably crush

Correction, it missed inclusion for consideration into the proposed bill by two votes.... You aren't familiar with the system, so I'll break it down for you:
not only are proposals themselves voted on to become law, but prior to that, changes to the proposals are also voted on.... often to either get one screwy thing passed based on the the less screwy whole, or in this case, to get something added that will prevent the whole thing from being passed.... there was literally zero danger of it ever passing into law with that inclusion in the current process

Actually, this is also unlikely... because right now, men are not allies on the issue for a large part, and for a large part there are many more men involved in the government process at that level. IF somehow, hell froze over and such a bill did pass into law, Men would be instant allies informed of the ridiculous nature of such laws, and it would take something just above zero effort to get it repealed, and with it the similar crap that has already passed for women. Sadly, I'm begining to think that this is what it would take.

honestly? not that many... because apparently they just don't give a shit until it actually hits home. Like I said, I don't think the proposed change went nearly far enough to make the point.

__________________
- These eyes can do more than see

Wrong Weatherwax

There also seems to be a real miss here going on in that the game of politics is a long one, namely, that votes on such issues are a matter of record and can be dragged out later to make a very rich and factually backed point. While that sword can obviously cut both ways, a clever campaign manager only need to pose...

"Candidate Cocksure Voted For Limiting Your Mother's Birth Control But Felt That His Access To Viagra Was More Important."

Its a smart gamble in my opinion, one that builds a historical record of hypocrisy.

__________________
An education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease. It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on. -Terry Pratchett

eighthdwarf Checchinato

Actually ... why should any man need Viagra, as long as he has fingers and thumbs, and his tongue? Oh, and some dirty fantasy?

__________________

Darkley

I have no idea what country Livia is from, but the UK has a similar system in that there are 'white papers' which is then debated about in the house of commons, voted on and then passed on to be voted on in the house of lords

__________________

Prickle Poses
Available inworld
and on the marketplace

eighthdwarf Checchinato

THIS, and thousand times THIS.


May I steal that and use it as a sig?

Innula Zenovka

I don't think it's a question of their not giving a shit.

To my mind, any such "satirical legislation" is going to miss the target because the supporter of similar legislation aimed at women would, if he thought about it, doubtless say something on the lines of, "But the whole point of the legislation you're satirising is that it's intended to discourage abortion, which I consider a grave social ill, so I want to discourage it. Since no one seriously contends that there's anything particularly wrong with men seeking treatment for erectile dysfunction, I don't see the parallel".

If someone sees the point of the satire, then they probably won't need persuading that the legislation it's satirising is wrong, will they?

__________________

Zaida Gearbox

Void

and if the don't the odds are high that will oppose the modification anyways, and then either their legislative buddies will point out what they missed or the electorate will....

The thing is, it's not just satire... it's what's known as a "poison pill" rider... the majority of the people passing it in have the sole purpose of doing so simply because they know the bill won't pass with the rider attached, and even if they fail to get the rider in, they've made their point to the rest of that body.

in effect, if they manage to attach the rider, it's a sure sign that they have enough votes to squash the actually bill... the people voting for a poison pill rider based on satire like that can all be counted on to vote against the actual bill if the rider gets attached. if it fails as it was expected to and did, They've made a point, and some of the people for it may defect and kill the bill.

"Bitter pill" riders are a different story, and never use direct satire... in fact they almost never relate to the actual bill.... and is where a widely popular bill gets riders that are less popular, so that the riders can pass with it more easily, because no one wants to kill the main bill.

Innula Zenovka

So it's probably what I'd call a "wrecking amendment". Though those, I thought, more usually simply delete all the clauses you don't like and substitute ones completely at odds with the bill's original purpose.

IsisAlexander

Yes because we all know that as long as it is just women putting up with bat shit crazy laws the world is safe. It is ONLY when men are the subject of them THEN the world ends.

I wish one of these laws would pass about men. Maybe then the average male would understand what if feels like to have their bodies and medical choices determined by a government body.

The pro-lifers wont change their minds, but the average joe who doesnt feel the need to think about these matter would. Oh the out cry would be glorious! I can just imagine Bill OReilly freaking out about rectal exams.

__________________
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov

Jahar Aabye

Look, I can understand the use of satire, of making these proposals knowing that they won't be passed as a means of making a point. I'm not sure it's the most effective means of doing so, but I understand the reasoning behind it.

The thing is, though, that it only works when you're talking about satire. Once you actually start advocating that such laws would be good to actually be passed, you've lost me. I cannot imagine the twisted logic required to believe that government intrusion into medical decisions becomes more or less morally acceptable based on the individual's gender.

So yeah, I get that the point of authoring and presenting these bills is to illustrate that it's wrong to do this regardless. Actually passing it, no. That doesn't help, that would just make a lot of people view this as being about men vs women, and would probably alienate a lot of men from offering any sort of support. For that matter, you're ignoring the fact that this also affects women indirectly, since their sex lives are disrupted by these bills as well.

It's exceptionally unlikely that these bills or amendments would be passed into law, which is why they were written and proposed. Actually wanting them to be passed into law, on the other hand, is irresponsible and implies that you don't actually care about ensuring that people have access to reproductive health without unnecessary government regulation.

And if that's how you feel, then don't forget to vote in the Republican primaries in your state.

Void

Gutting it is another way to do it yes... then there's running out the clock (of which filibuster is one method), bait and switch (has to be done early) and a handful of other methods, each with strenths at weaknesses depending on circumstance and timing....

poison pill works well when it can be used to force public awaerness.

@Jahar:
While I'd prefer it never come to that ass backward method of actually inflicting ridiculous legislation on people, there are situations in which it's the only way to motivate people.... Thankfully the usual outcome is the mere mention, let alone the threat (which usually only implied), is enough to push it into the public conscious enough that people will stand up and say "are you fucking kidding me?" and ax all the nonsense....

of cousre, it's also used in reverse as a false flag to gain support too... often right in the name of the bills.... for instance "Protect IP" and "Defense of Marriage"... These swords cut both ways.