Michigan State Representative Democrat Lisa Brown used the word vagina in the GOP (and male) dominated Michigan State legislature Wednesday, June 13. GOP Majority Floor Leader Jim Stamas barred her from speaking that day and the next, sparking an international event.
It wasn't just a simple blurt of the "V" word à propos of nothing, of course. Representative Brown was proposing an amendment to the Republican Legislature's newest abortion restriction bill that forbids late-term abortions, even for therapeutic purposes. Therapeutic is defined as being essential to the mother's health. Her amendment would have allowed for therapeutic abortions without regard to the length of the pregnancy.
During floor debate Representative Brown said that her religion (she's Jewish) permits therapeutic abortions, and asked why the GOP 'Christians' in the house were ...insisting that she adopt their religious beliefs while she was not asking them to do the same. And then she said, "I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina. But, no means no."
For the rest of Wednesday and all the next day, Stamas would not let her, or Representative Barb Byrum who introduced an amendment to require "...proof of a medical emergency or that a man's life was in danger before a doctor could perform a vasectomy," speak on the House floor. Thursday being the last day of the session before an extended break, the sanction meant that about 180,000 Michigan citizens were unrepresented in the debates about several major actions that occurred on that last day.
After a day and a half of relatively local uproar over a statement "...so offensive, I don't even want to say it in front of women. I would not say that in mixed company," according to a GOP House member (who holds a bachelor's degree in biology), the entire controversy suddenly wasn't about the "V" word at all. Stamas spokesman Ari Adler said the floor leader wasn't upset about the "V" word. He was upset that Brown likened the abortion bill to rape when she said "No means no."
Perhaps, but it's self-evidently nonsense that it was the reason for the censure. After all, that certainly didn't explain the censuring of Representative Bynum. An outraged gasp, followed by an explosive burst of soprano snickering was heard 'round the world.
Reports of the event, and pontificating editorials and columns appeared from Seattle to New York, and even in England, where a copy of Rep. Brown's editorial entitled "My vagina monologue: what Michigan GOP lawmakers didn't want to know," appeared in the Guardian. One local newspaper, The Detroit News, published an editorial which questioned whether Representative Brown would have been sanctioned had she said "uterus" (probably the more correct term, biologically) instead of the "V"-word. The answer is most likely "No."
In the latest twist, at least seven female legislators will join Representatives Brown and Byrum and many Michigan actresses in reading the play "The Vagina Monologues" in protest of the censuring on the Michigan Statehouse steps Monday, June 18. The protest will be joined by the play's author, Eve Ensler. It would seem the "V" word will be used in Lansing a great deal in the next few days.
The entire contretemps was best summed up by Bill Ballinger, former Michigan legislator and Detroit Free Press "Inside Michigan Politics" editor: "Those comments were really over the top," he said. "But the idea of muzzling an elected official is not only counterintuitive but outrageous."
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 14
The Michigan Republicans need to leave kindergarten behind. "OOOOH teacher, she said a durdy word!!!!"
Sadly, they remain oblivious to their own ridiculousness.
Meanwhile, 95% of Catholics use birth control. Just sayin'.......
The last two sentences? "Hey, look at me, I said VAGINA." She's a poor advocate.
First: Her amendment mirrored her religious beliefs, as she explained them. So wasn't adopting her religious beliefs exactly what she was proposing?
Wel-l-l-l-l... no. She was proposing that hers be allowed equal weight. The difference is, the fundie legislation says, "If the choice is the baby's life or yours, we choose the baby's. You must die." Her amendment says, "If the choice is the baby's life or yours, you and your doctor get to choose which life to save." Her amendment requires no one else to live (or more properly, die) by her religious belief. The fundie law requires exactly that. It's NOT the same by any stretch.
Second: The last two sentences? "Hey, look at me, I said VAGINA." She's a poor advocate.
Yeah, she was looking for a reaction. I suspect, however, she wasn't looking for the level of stupidity she got in that reaction. Look. the Detroit News editorial was right... if she'd said "uterus," it's unlikely we'd be writing about the reaction... there wouldn't have been one. Asinine as that is, it's almost certainly true. So... you're right. The use of the word "vagina" was an attention-grabber. But the attention she got was absurd.
I will never understand how the Stamases of the right let their sanctimony sucker them into over-reacting and looking the fool over every little thing with which they disagree.
And even sillier was the obviousness of the overnight rank-closing that occurred. All of a sudden, they all decided that it wasn't "vagina" that warranted shutting her out of debate on several important bills, it was that her "No means no," at the end made them feel like they'd been accused of something as bad as rape.
They didn't feel that way until they'd had hours in session and an overnight to talk about it? And then they ALL felt that way? Gimme a break! That's just embarrassing. It's like watching Jerry Lewis at his worst.
Fundalmentalist, Evangelicals and Catholics are similar in faith, inasmuch, as they all claim the religious title of Christian, but are different in specific individual biblical religious teachings. However, all three religions share the same agenda concerning a woman's right and freedom to make personal choices. {i.e.} The Constitutional repeal of all women's rights and privilages in their private lives when such rights and freedoms to choose, concern reproductive choices.
Followers of all three religious faiths, in their self righteous Christian mentality, are attempting to replace all individual choices concerning reproductive medical procedures with religious teachings and faith dogma. It would appear that their agenda and ultimate goal is to take away a woman's Constitutional right to make private decisions as to self pregnancy, the use of preventative medicine and the private individual choice of abortion. Neither of which are the Church's nor Christian follower's right to decide nor to assume control thereof, but are the private guaranteed choices afforded to all women by/under the U.S. Constitution.
It is also appearent that those of these three Christian faiths tend to forget that religion and religious beliefs are personal choices in their private lives, both of which are guaranteed under/by the U.S. Constitution. A freedom of guaranteed religious choices not unlike the same freedoms to choose which are guaranteed by the same Bill of Rights for women.
It would seem that Christians demand their guaranteed right to choose, but are bitterly fighting to deny that same right of women to choose. Yet, they call themselves, Christians. (I do not believe that these self annointed Christians actually understand what it means to be a true Christian)
"They consider the fetus a human being, deserving of protection under law"
If you are referreing to Church Law, you should know that such law is for members of the faith only and does not apply nor can be forced on others.
If you are referring to Constitutional Law, then you should be aware that only the SCOTUS has the right to decide what is lawful and which is not.
I view religion as being a personal alliance with God, an alliance which many people find necessary for their own mental wellbeing as well as courage and support in dealing with everyday problems and issues. I don't beleiev that it matters what denomination of faith a person's religion may be. It does not even matter to me, nor do I believe that it is important, for a person to have a chosen organized religion, although organized religion is what the majority of Americans choose as their faith. In my opinion, if a person lives his/her life in a manner which is morally and ethically acceptable to society, then that person is a good person, whether the person is church member or not, is of no consequence to me.
Further, I don't believe that God would choose one religion over another as to either being the better religion. It would be my belief, that God views all religions, faiths and beliefs as being good, it's only people who can be viewed as being bad, not in their chosen beliefs, but in the way they live their lives.
Your's is a decendent of one of the oldest of all original religions and as long as you are comfortable in it's teachings, beliefs and doctrine, then, in my opinion, you have chosen correctly.
I wasn't talking about law, I was talking about a belief system that impels its adherents to make or amend laws that reflect their mores. Laws that pass the SCOTUS test.
Any law can be applied or forced upon others by the State. They don't have to be good laws. Often, they reflect Church law. Two or three of the Ten Commandments reared their ugly head in the fashioning of the laws of the land. If it passes muster with SCOTUS, it's the LAW. And of course that's the law I'm referring to. Why would you petition the Catholic Church to cease abortions?