Nice Girls Don't Say 'Vagina' -- What The Rep. Lisa Brown Controversy Is Really About

[Purveyor]

Nice girls don't say the word "vagina."

They don't say the word "vasectomy," either.

That's what two female lawmakers being banned from speaking last week -- a move Inside Michigan Politics Publisher Bill Ballenger called unprecedented -- is really about.

As much of the country knows, thanks to coverage from National Public Radio, CBS News and CNN, Rep. Lisa Brown (D-West Bloomfield) protested some highly restrictive abortion bills by announcing in a floor speech: "I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina, but no means no."

--CLIP
Ari Adler, press secretary for House Speaker Jase Bolger (R-Marshall), unloaded on Brown and Byrum, accusing the two mothers of throwing "temper tantrums." He said the comments violated the "decorum" of the House and blasted Brown's in particular for being "inappropriate and uncivilized."

Translation: You're both very bad girls. Go sit in a corner and think about what you've done.

--CLIP
Really? In the year 2012, more than 40 years after the sexual revolution, the word "vagina" is still considered to be as dirty as a curse word? That seems to say more about Mike Callton, whose claim to fame used to be his birther bill requiring candidates to present a birth certificate to get on the ballot, than the woman who used the term.

MORE...

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/06/vagina_lisa_brown_vaginagate.html

[bemildred]

1. It a taboo, is what it is, a forbidden subject.

And the reason it's forbidden is because the cultural norms these clowns want to defend won't stand up to the light of day, to honest discussion and democratic debate. If you talk about the double standard, then it rapidly becomes clear that it is a double standard, so they don't want to talk about it, they get "offended" instead and try to shut people up.

[TBMASE]

2. If the subject had been viagra and the roles reversed

and someone suggested she were interested "his" penis, she'd be whining to anyone who would listen about a hostile work environment.

[4th law of robotics]

3. A male co-worker saying to female co-workers

"I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my penis, but no means no."?

Hmm, no that would not have gone over well.

And it wouldn't have been framed as "OMG you can't say 'penis'?!?! What is this, kindergarten?"

[Cerridwen]

17. This isn't a hypothetical situation.

The subject was abortion.

What they were responding to is repubs telling women "pregnancy is your punishment for having sex" and "if that means you'll die, then die."

I find that extremely vulgar and hate-filled.

Hostile? Hell, their shit is downright murderous.

[4th law of robotics]

24. Let's look at this the other way

If they'd specifically stated "we need to legislate your vagina (to the woman in this situation) without your consent" would that have been inappropriate?

If so is it because they used the scary word "vagina" or because they A) made it about her personally and B) including veiled rape-references?

[Cerridwen]

31. Why are you defending what the legislators

are doing?

[4th law of robotics]

35. And that's ultimately how these arguments always end up

Douche in question: we should ban abortion.

Response: did you hear what DIQ said? He said said we should ban abortion and the holocaust is a lie!

Me: err, no he never said that holocaust bit. You're exaggerating.

Response: why do you support banning abortion?

Me: and that's ultimately how these arguments end up . . .

--------------------------------------------

The legislature in question was wrong. However framing her censure as "the word vagina is now verboten" is also wrong (due to the inaccuracy of that claim). She didn't get in trouble for saying the word vagina. She got in trouble for making it about her vagina and implying she was being raped by her coworkers.

[Cerridwen]

42. Too bad you don't hold her co-workers to the same standard.

"She got in trouble for making it about her vagina and implying she was being raped by her coworkers."

The bullying nature of the MRA movement initially marginalized them, but they’ve come around to learning to put a more charming face on the movement, and that has made them more effective, as Kathryn painstakingly demonstrates. Reading this, I was put in mind of the way that domestic abusers learn to be charming, so that their victims are disbelieved by friends and families, and therefore isolated. The abuser will put on one face for the public and one for his wife, and similarly, MRAs put on a smiley face for legislators and on talk radio shows, but when they go after people who call them out on their bullshit, the true ugliness comes out.

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/the_embittered_asshole_lobby_exposed

[4th law of robotics]

65. What are you talking about?

No seriously. What is this?

[Cerridwen]

76. You don't seem to understand what abusive

behavior looks like. There's a description.

repubs don't need you defending their abusive behavior. Seriously.

accusing the two mothers of throwing "temper tantrums." He said the comments violated the "decorum" of the House and blasted Brown's in particular for being "inappropriate and uncivilized."

You're using their same argument.

[4th law of robotics]

78. Saying a rape accusation is inappropriate

is "abusive"?

I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

/also, not defending anything here. Pointing out the factual inaccuracy of the OP (that's allowed right? Or are facts abusive?).

//you claim she was censured for saying the word vagina. I point out that this is not the entire story and there is much more to it than that. You then label me abusive for saying this. About sum it up?

[Cerridwen]

80. Nice twist.

Did you read the link on gaslighting?

[4th law of robotics]

81. You're just all over the place

Yes or no: the *ONLY* word she said was "vagina" and that is the sole reason she got in trouble. Just that. Just for saying the word vagina with nothing else whatsoever.

BTW: your article didn't talk about this case at all. So I'm not sure where you're going with that.

[Cerridwen]

85. Trying to keep up with your moving goalposts.

She got "in trouble" (censured) for questioning and condemning the repug legislators and their barbaric legislation. You're using their same arguments against her.

And now I'm done with you.

[4th law of robotics]

90. Moving goalposts? I Don't think you know what that phrase means

the whole time I've been extremely consistent: she got in trouble for A) implying rape and B) making it about her. Not simply for saying the word "vagina" (eww icky! Ban it!).

If you can point out anywhere that I have deviated from this I will concede your "moving goalposts" argument.

/and even if what you say is true, that they banned her for disagreeing with them, that still proves that she wasn't censured merely for saying the word vagina. Not that that is what happened. But by your own argument there you have disagreed with the prevailing view that she was punished for using naughty language.

[Tsiyu]

100. As you began your play here

You basically said "what if a male co-worker said 'stay off my penis.'" That would not go over well.

Did you not?

What you failed to mention is the part where the female co-workers are trying to ram through legislation that says the female co-workers get to say what the male co-worker DOES with his own penis. The female co-workers are trying to say he can't use Viagra because it's a sin, and they want him to stop masturbating, and to sit when he pees.

As you play your little word game, you make the "naming of the body part in question" more offensive than the "telling the man what he must do with that body part - a body part none of the women has herself."

So play your little word scrimmages here. We ladies are all impressed.

In the meantime, as long as MALE legislators want to require transVAGINAL probes and more restrictions on medical procedures WOMEN - not men - must undergo, those grown fucking men better learn how to hear the goddamned word for what they are legislating.

If a grown man can't handle debate with the word "vagina" in it, how can he read legislation concerning rape, sexual assault of children, accidental death, medical insurance, etc., etc.? It's a grownup word, and goddamned GOPers better feckin' grow up.

This old lady is pissed, and she also knows that was not a rape reference, it was a self-defensive "get the fuck away from these body parts that you know nothing about and you will never have!"







But thanks for playing.

[4th law of robotics]

111. . . .

You basically said "what if a male co-worker said 'stay off my penis.'" That would not go over well.

Yes. It was an analogy. Actually what I said was "I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my penis, but no means no."?

What you failed to mention is the part where the female co-workers are trying to ram through legislation that says the female co-workers get to say what the male co-worker DOES with his own penis. The female co-workers are trying to say he can't use Viagra because it's a sin, and they want him to stop masturbating, and to sit when he pees.

In the analogy I used I referenced hypothetical legislature on viagra.

As you play your little word game, you make the "naming of the body part in question" more offensive than the "telling the man what he must do with that body part - a body part none of the women has herself."

Not at all. And given how clearly I have explained this I can only assume you are misunderstanding intentionally.

I never said "naming the body part" is offensive. Please find where I do or kindly stop lying.

In the meantime, as long as MALE legislators want to require transVAGINAL probes and more restrictions on medical procedures WOMEN - not men - must undergo, those grown fucking men better learn how to hear the goddamned word for what they are legislating.

Again, you are intentionally misunderstanding my posts.

I said essentially that the notion that she was banned for saying the word vagina is false. As it was. You then go off on a tangent about how awful this legislature is. A case which no one here is arguing against. Think about that for a moment.

If instead she had gotten up and yelled "fuck you you nazi fucks I hope you all die" the legislature would still be wrong, but I think most people would say that was inappropriate and not exactly civil right? And they could say that with explicitly supporting banning abortion. That's something some people have a hard time grasping: you can generally agree with someone while at the same time criticizing their methods.

If a grown man can't handle debate with the word "vagina" in it, how can he read legislation concerning rape, sexual assault of children, accidental death, medical insurance, etc., etc.? It's a grownup word, and goddamned GOPers better feckin' grow up.

Again, intentionally misunderstanding. The whole point, which you consciously ignore, is that this isn't about the word vagina being verboten.

This old lady is pissed, and she also knows that was not a rape reference, it was a self-defensive "get the fuck away from these body parts that you know nothing about and you will never have!"

Again someone trying to argue that "no means no" has absolutely nothing to do with rape. Remarkable.

I'm actually kind of enjoying the sheer absurdity of this. It's caused a number of people to completely lose their minds and believe all sorts of silly things because it supports your preconceived notions ("vagina" is a killing-word to republicans, no means no is about hamburgers not rape, and so on).

[antigone382]

118. What exactly is the problem with a veiled rape reference in this case?

Rape is about the sexual domination of another human's body. The legislators in Michigan may not be explicitly legislating rape, and they may not like to see what they are doing presented as being in the same vein as rape, but how else do we make it clear what a heinous violation this is?

They are telling me that if I discover at 20 weeks that the child I carry will not survive upon birth, that I must continue to carry it, for perhaps another twenty weeks--a situation they will never find themselves in. I would argue, with a full understanding of the seriousness of rape, that being forced against one's will to do such a thing is in many ways as traumatizing, as much a violation of my body and soul, as a rape would be.

On a macrosocial scale, what do these ridiculous, medically ignorant, and extraordinarily intrusive measures reflect other than the large-scale domination of women's bodies and sexualities, a form of domination being proposed and passed almost entirely by male legislators? If a duly elected female representative cannot express the dramatic extent of this violation in clear, and yes, dramatic language, directly to those legislators, then what can she do to make them and their constituents see the dramatic nature of what they are doing?

And furthermore, are they applying the same standard to the proponents of these bills? If an anti-abortion activists were to passionately demand that abortion-supporting legislators stop murdering children, would these same legislators that banned the two women demand that their similarly histrionic supporters also be ejected from the floor? I honestly don't know the answer to that question. If I could be shown an example, wher similar dramatic and accusatory language by anti-choicers resulted in similar sanctions, then perhaps I would find your point valid.

[Tsiyu]

120. Very, very good point

When I heard the words she said, I did not think of "rape" per se, but of one of those frickin transvaginal probes we all talked about a few months ago in the War on Women.

But you make a valid point. The legislature is basically forcing you to do something against your will with your reproductive organs in the case of the pregnancy you used as illustration. It would be similar to rape in the sense of loss of control over one's own physical being.

But our friend wants to make "talking about rape" more offensive than contemplating how another's idea of legislation amounts to "rape."

This is what these kinds of people do for a living. They distract from the core arguments about rights and freedoms by going down the Primrose Path of Rightwing Political Correctness, claiming to need smelling salts over the word vagina and "veiled references to rape...oh heavens!"

"She was a naughty girl for sorta kinda mentioning rape. Bad, bad girl! Maybe those wymmins DESERVE to have their naughty parts punished! Look how they act in public."

Give me a goddamned break.

[4th law of robotics]

124. This is a particularly interesting response

on the one hand you have people arguing how silly it was that this woman was punished merely for saying the word vagina.

On the other hand you have *those exact same people* acknowledging that it wasn't about saying the word vagina, that it was about the rape innuendo but that it's ok because this is rape.

See how these two ideas are at odds with each other? She never alluded to rape but she also did but that's ok.

You can't, or shouldn't, be able to argue two completely contradictory conclusions at the same time.

And as for a comparable thing on the other side: if some politician were to get up and declare anyone supporting abortion to be baby-killing nazis I would likewise think that language is inappropriate for a government debate.

[antigone382]

141. I did not argue two contradictory conclusions at the same time.

I never addressed her having been punished for using the word vagina. I addressed your assertion that she was punished for using a rape analogy, by questioning if the rape analogy was wrong, given the legislation at hand. And pro-choice adherents have been called murderers, if not nazis, many times. I am glad that you state a commitment to being evenhanded in setting norms for debate discourse, but in this situation you are not one of the individuals wielding power. My question is whether the legislators who found the language and actions of these women inappropriate would find such language by anti-choice adherents inappropriate.

[4th law of robotics]

150. Good question

My question is whether the legislators who found the language and actions of these women inappropriate would find such language by anti-choice adherents inappropriate.

I'm guessing these legislators would not.

But others on the other side of the aisle would.

So a democrat makes a veiled rape accusation on a bill limiting abortions: the right gets furious, the left is supportive.

A republican makes a veiled nazi accusation on a bill expanding abortion rights: the left gets furious and the right is supportive.

That proves most people are partisan and hypocritical. (my prediction at least)

I can only speak for myself though and say that *I* do not support such hyperbole in either case.

[antigone382]

169. Would the left be willing or able to eject that speaker from the floor, however?

And would that speaker be prohibited from addressing the floor for several days, is the question? And would their behavior be characterized as a "temper tantrum"?

Veiled characterizations of abortion rights as tantamount to murder--even rather explicit ones--get passed around all the time with little sanction. There was even a law proposed in Georgia that would directly have classified any miscarriages in which the mother could not prove her behavior did not play a role as "prenatal murder." That was the language used in the bill by Mr. Franklin, and one can assume in any legislative defense he may have mounted on the bill. Representative Franklin was not banned from speaking on the floor for his extreme and incendiary use of language.

Here's another story of a legislator (female as it happens) making statements equating abortion and murder, just this January. http://www.radioiowa.com/2012/01/18/legislator-cites-recent-child-murder-case-in-speaking-out-against-abortion/

Here is a link to her speech, as given in the Iowa legislature. http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2012/01/betty-deboef-house-floor-speech-sanctity-of-life/

Her statements might have attracted negative attention by the pro-choice movement, but I have not encountered any calls to have her banned from speaking on the floor to which she was elected. Granted Iowa, Georgia, and Michigan are different states with different circumstances, but the portrait painted, of women with opinions different from that of the dominant group, being silenced for speaking out about issues that directly affect them if their speech is deemed, for whatever reason "inappropriate" is a problematic one.

Ultimately, I do not think the comments of these two women warranted silencing them.You can agree or disagree with the way that these two women chose to argue their case, but were their statements materially different than other over-the-top statements made in government debates around the country? If not, then why were they specifically ejected when others were not? Women are already a minority in political office; is it really fair to silence the few voices that we have based on selectively applied standards?

[4th law of robotics]

171. Really it depends on the state

on the politicians, etc. Note the many heated debates on this subject that don't end this way.

I think these guys overreacted. But I wouldn't say that this is impossible coming from the other direction either.

[Tsiyu]

119. You aren't helping yourself at all

Seriously.

"But, but, I made the same analogy!" No you didn't. Not at all.

"But, but, that's not what I'm trying to confuse the issue about, my obfuscation is clearly a DIFFERENT sort of obfuscation."

The fact that you would rather parse the words of the injured parties than be outraged at the behavior of the aggressive parties (namely, men telling women what medical procedures, etc. MEN deem acceptable and then banning women from speaking when they complain about said rulings) says all anyone needs to know about your position.

All the words you pile together don't make your argument any more valid than if they were a steaming pile of shit. In fact, here I think the feces would win.

[4th law of robotics]

125. This is getting repetitive

I say something perfectly sensible and fact-based, you respond by going off on a tangent and making up statements that I never uttered.

Rinse, wash, repeat.

[Tsiyu]

131. We are always legends

in our own minds.

[4th law of robotics]

132. In this case it's true

I have only stated facts. I have never mischaracterized the opposition (like say by attributing statements to them they never made, ahem). And I have never attempted to redirect the conversation using strawmen ("you don't own my body!&quot .

This is something I can fairly say. And if you were being honest you could admit it as well.

[Tsiyu]

136. you are trying to justify the censure of a female legislator

you are making excuses and finding reasons why she was forbidden to speak.

you are not here to enlighten or to be honest.

[4th law of robotics]

138. No, I was pointing out the characterization that she was punished

for saying vagina was false.

As it was.

As even you are now being forced to acknowledge (albeit quite dramatically and with a lot of "who fucking cares!!!111!" thrown in).

I don't think she should be punished. I also don't think she was right to say what she did.

But she wasn't punished for saying vagina. And being punished for accusing your coworkers of rape is far less ridiculous and emotional than punishing her for merely listing anatomical body parts.

Do you understand this?

I think you need to think about why this is such an emotional topic for you. Why you felt the need to jump in the middle of the conversation to refute, and ultimately acknowledge, my point. Does the meme that she was punished for saying vagina AND NOTHING ELSE(!!!!!!) really mean that much to you?

[Tsiyu]

140. Most of us here at DU get nuance

We don't need to have it explained to us. I think we all know that no matter what the female legislator said, she would have been censured.

Whether it was saying vagina or making a veiled reference to rape does not matter. The outcome is the same and that was what the OP was about.

You want to distract and score some points with yourself? Great. Way to support women. It's all fucking about YOU.

I state here that I do not know what was intended by her words and I do not give a fuck either way.

They were appropriate under the circumstances.

[4th law of robotics]

145. " I think we all know that no matter what the female legislator said, she would have been censured"

Wow. That's a pretty bold and unsubstantiated statement. So every woman who has ever spoken against the limitation of abortion services has been censored?

No kidding?

Whether it was saying vagina or making a veiled reference to rape does not matter. The outcome is the same and that was what the OP was about.

No, reread it.

You want to distract and score some points with yourself? Great. Way to support women. It's all fucking about YOU.

Distract by referring directly to the OP?
The debate is not aided by one side consistently misrepresenting the other. Because of people like you we now have thousands of people who earnestly believe that if you say vagina the republicans will arrest you. That isn't helping anything. Just like repeating the vagina monologues on the capital steps is theatre. It has nothing to do with the issues at hand.

I am arguing for clarity and honesty. Your are arguing for a pleasing fiction. Which do you suppose will ultimately best serve the people?

I state here that I do not know what was intended by her words and I do not give a fuck either way.

They were appropriate under the circumstances.

How can you say they were appropriate while acknowledging that you don't know what she meant?

"I have no idea what that woman said but she is right!".

Weird.

[Tsiyu]

147. Again, fuck off

With all due respect

[4th law of robotics]

153. You respond to me then say fuck off then respond then say fuck off

Weird.

This human is broken.

[Tsiyu]

155. want me to say it again? n/t

[4th law of robotics]

162. No please! I can't handle another!

Deary me the first 3 or 4 almost caused me to faint.

[Egalitarian Thug]

47. It is about her body. It is about every woman's body. And that charge of implying rape

is just completely fabricated.

[TBMASE]

51. "no means no"

that's pretty much what we tell people when it comes to date rape, right?

[Egalitarian Thug]

69. No, that is a clear statement of fact. No does mean no in every case, the implication

you are pushing is in your head.

Would I like mayonnaise on my hamburger? No.

See, it's really a pretty simple idea.

[TBMASE]

72. In the context she said it, it's more closely affiliated with date rape

and what is taught in rape prevention to most young women at the HS and College level

If she were discussing hamburger toppings you'd have a point

[Egalitarian Thug]

83. No, it isn't.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120614/POLITICS02/206140467/1361/Lawmaker-barred-from-speaking-over--vagina--comment
Brown, a West Bloomfield Democrat and mother of three, said a package of abortion regulation bills would violate her Jewish religious beliefs and that abortions be be allowed in cases where it is required to save the life of the mother.

"Finally, Mr. Speaker, I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina, but 'no' means 'no,'" Brown said Wednesday.

The proposed legislation was not about rape. The Congresswoman's statement wasn't about rape. The only people talking about rape in this issue are the few of you that want to lay this false premise as a foundation for a straw man.

[TBMASE]

86. Who was interested in her vagina?

[Egalitarian Thug]

91. Apparently you are. n/t

[TBMASE]

93. yeah, and I don't take no as an answer either

[4th law of robotics]

68. Which part are you denying?

That she said "no means no" or that "no means no" has anything to do with rape?

And she chose to make this about her specifically. Had it been a bill on, I don't know, banning viagra and one of the guys had said ""I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my penis (to his female coworkers), but no means no." this conversation would have played out very differently.

/particularly if it were a republican male and democratic female.

[Egalitarian Thug]

75. See above reply, no does mean no, the implication being pushed is a fabrication. n/t

[4th law of robotics]

79. So "no means no" in this context refers to . . .

what? If not rape.

[Egalitarian Thug]

89. It is a three word sentence. What are you finding so difficult to understand?

No, this legislation is wrong. No, this legislation is contrary to my (her) Jewish beliefs. No, my body is not your property.

I could keep going, but I think you are bound and determined to be obtuse on this, so why bother.

[4th law of robotics]

92. "No, this legislation is wrong."

Never disagreed.

"No, this legislation is contrary to my (her) Jewish beliefs."

Seems fine so far.

" No, my body is not your property."

This would be relevant if I had claimed otherwise.

"I could keep going,"

I think three is sufficient strawmen for now.

"but I think you are bound and determined to be obtuse on this"

ob·tuse/əbˈt(y)o͞os/
Adjective:
Annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
Difficult to understand.

Annoying perhaps. Insensitive, well maybe. But you are the one not understanding this.

It went from her being censured for saying naughty words to your rant about your body not being my property.

Let's look instead at the facts: she made this about her. She implied rape. It was presented instead though as her merely saying the word vagina, which caused all the republicans to cringe because it's such an icky word to them, and then she was banned merely for that.

That's not exactly how it played out.

And then it ends with you trying to argue that "no means no" has nothing to do with rape. Which may be the case for you. But to everyone else, and google, that phrase is in reference to rape. http://www.cfs-fcee.ca/nomeansno/index_e.html

I think the mere fact that you feel the need to argue that "no means no" is just a phrase with no context whatsoever just shows the absurdity of your position.

[Egalitarian Thug]

94. And like the other guy determined to push this false premise in this thread, the only implication of

rape is in your head. And since everybody else gets it, perhaps you should get out of head a little more often.

[4th law of robotics]

110. Just to go on record, you are stating

unequivocally that in this situation, this woman, discussing her vagina to a group of men who she claimed were unduly interested in it, saying "no means no" has absolutely nothing to do with rape.

You're making that claim?

Because there are thousands of campaigns, and t-shirts, and PSAs, and lectures and so on that all use "no means no" in reference to date rape.

I can't think of any popular usage of it that doesn't pertain to rape.

/I want you to step back and think about the absurdity of what you feel you are forced to argue.

[Tsiyu]

127. You are the only one arguing the absurd in this thread

Once again, I will ask:

When a group of legislators decides to write a bill concerning what medical procedures will be "allowed by the state" - a bill presuming to tell doctors and women what they can and cannot do medically speaking - would or would those legislators not research women's reproductive health?

Or are you saying they make all their decisions from some Mormon Animal Husbandry Text? (even that would have the word vagina in it somewhere.)

If the legislators actually took the time to research and write legislation about women's reproductive medical issues, then, yes, they would be unduly interested in the female legislator's body parts, along with all females' body parts.

Their legislation proves their obsessive interest.

"No means no" is entirely appropriate in this sense.

[4th law of robotics]

128. Since you chose to respond

could you please answer my question: does "no mean no" have absolutely no subtext relating to rape? Does it instead, as another poster pointed out, refer to hamburgers?

/and in your last comment you are again performing a miracle: arguing that this had nothing to do with rape while acknowledging that it was about rape.

[Tsiyu]

135. Who the fuck cares but you?

If she did mean it the way you insist she did, it doesn't make her censure more acceptable.

Your bottom line (it's like jello but I think I've pinned it down now) is that she "referenced rape and that's why they had to make that naughty girl be quiet."

You MUST prove her comment was a rape reference.

You MUST.

So let's say you're correct.

What the fuck difference does it make? Aren't they in essence raping all women, by forcing women to do things with their reproductive organs that are against their will?

If you truly are against the legislation, that would be the reason why.

Her comment - however it was intended - was entirely appropriate.

Your obsession over her "intent" is sorta sick given the gravity of this legislation.

[4th law of robotics]

137. Because it is the entirety of what people are disagreeing with me on

Well, it is the only thing they disagree with me on that I actually said. Many a strawmen have been slain today in the heat of battle.

My initial statement: she wasn't censured for saying vagina. She was censured for implying rape and making it personal.

General rabble: nonsense it was for saying vagina!

10,000 posts later: well yeah so what if she was making it personal and implying rape that is ok! Ha. Totally destroyed your initial argument.

Me:

[Tsiyu]

143. Your intital post was about a male raising the issue of his penis

Now, it's whether she made a veiled reference to rape.

You are very cute, and of course, it is all about you.

ALL about you.....

[4th law of robotics]

148. My first post was pointing out that this wasn't about

the word vagina solely.

I'm sorry if you don't understand analogies.

You are very cute, and of course, it is all about you.

ALL about you.....

No, it's about the objective reality we live in versus the subjective reality you are trying to create.

[Tsiyu]

151. And I'm sorry if you don't understand

nuance. And that you are manipulative, obfuscatory and dishonest.

And that you must distract from this topic so adroitly.

But thanks for kicking the OP so many times.

[4th law of robotics]

154. None of those accusations hold water

also I thought you told me to fuck off.

Shouldn't that carrying with it the notion that you will stop talking to me?

[Tsiyu]

157. Just one more thing. Upthread you said

I also don't think she was right to say what she did.

That's where we have our biggest difference.

And that's why I think you are dishonest. All your other posts were merely to detract from your prejudice against a woman for speaking her mind about actions that affect her body.

And now, you can blubber away making excuses, but the bottom line is you think she is a "naughty girl" and that has been the basis for every post you have made here.

Toodaloo.

Someone else can play with you now....or maybe you can play with yourself here as you have already shown a remarkable capacity to do.

[4th law of robotics]

164. You start with a conclusion

that I hate women. Then manipulate facts to fit it. Like a creationist.

And now, you can blubber away making excuses, but the bottom line is you think she is a "naughty girl" and that has been the basis for every post you have made here.

Bottom line, you think Bush was the greatest president ever and you wish he were king. You have no place here.

/as long as we're making up beliefs for each other and pretending they are fact.

//but I did enjoy our conversation. You gave me an insight in to a kind of person that I don't usually interact with. Most of my friends and colleagues are rational.

[Sans__Culottes]

108. You're just making up excuses.

Hyperbole and dramatic imagery are inseparable from politics. Your side is trying to stifle her use of these time-honored tactical tools but we don't believe the excuses that are being made to justify this censorship.

You've left your fly undone and what's exposed is scabrous.

[4th law of robotics]

112. "You're just making up excuses."

Not at all. I'm pointing out the reality that has been lost in the hysteria.

Hysteria: OMG REPUBLICANS BANNED THE WORD VAGINA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Reality: she was censured for making rape accusations that weren't really appropriate.

Hyperbole and dramatic imagery are inseparable from politics.

Apparently, considering the claims that she is being punished for saying a single word. Others might call that "lying" but hyperbole and drama works too.

Your side is trying to stifle her use of these time-honored tactical tools but we don't believe the excuses that are being made to justify this censorship.

I'm not trying to stifle her, this isn't my side, and I don't support censorship. I oppose these restrictions on abortions and think her stance is right. Just not how she presented it.

You really can't grasp that it's possible to support someone's goals but not their methods? Let's ignore this for a moment, can you answer me something honestly? Do you think that is at all possible: to generally agree with someone but not support how they go about achieving that goal? A yes or no will suffice.

You've left your fly undone and what's exposed is scabrous.

Drama and hyperbole?

/point out where I supported this legislature. I can point out multiple times where I have explicitly stated that I opposed it. But perhaps you're reading a different thread than I am?

//I think the biggest problem I have with people like you is that you're lying, you know it, and you sincerely do not care. There is no way anyone could have misinterpreted what I have written this badly. So it must be intentional on your part.

[Tsiyu]

121. If you had a vagina, you would find even "veiled rape talk"

to be "appropriate" in this situation.

This legislation forces women to do things with their reproductive organs that may be against their will.

Rape forces a woman to do things with her reproductive organs that are against her will.

I did not hear a "rape reference" in her words initially, but what if you are correct in your muddy arguments all over this thread?

Is that so shocking she must be silenced? Really?

Are you and the legislators THAT delicate? Actually, all the legislators in support of the law against women have already ostensibly been all up in women's business, up to their elbows studying the uteri and vaginas of women they don't know simply by doing research for their legislation, no?

So in this way, they have shown an undue interest in strange women's vaginas, which is creepy. No means no.

Oh, wait, maybe they didn't do any medical research before they decided what doctors can do for their female patients. Maybe they read about it all in their bobbles.

In either case, your false outrage over "veiled rape references" SO pales in comparison to my very real outrage over legislators deciding they know more than my doctor and me about MY body.

Of course you find this all amusing and mentally masturbatory for yourself, because you don't have any legislators telling you how to handle your penis properly.

Try unclutching your pearls and picking up some empathy.

[4th law of robotics]

126. There it is again

you spend half this thread denying that it was "veiled rape talk" then the other half justifying the use of "veiled rape talk".

Are you able to understand why saying two completely contradictory things maybe makes you seem a little unhinged?

Also, are you capable of reading and understanding the words I wrote clearly explaining that I do not support this legislature? I ask because you have repeatedly implied that I support it when I have clearly stated the opposite. Do you have trouble understanding what I write or are you honestly this confused?

Please acknowledge in a yes or no form if you are capable of understanding that I do not support this legislation.

[Tsiyu]

130. You are the only one confused here

I'm basically saying it doesn't matter whether it was or it wasn't.

You seem hellbent on proving intent on someone else's part. You want to get in that person's head and tell us all what she intended.

I'm saying who gives a flying fuck but you and all the other apologists for this legislation?

And I believe you DO support this legislation, because you have done everything you could do in this thread to distract from it.

[4th law of robotics]

134. So it goes from "it wasn't X"

To "it was X, but it doesn't matter because YZ".

Exactly what I pointed out.

You seem hellbent on proving intent on someone else's part. You want to get in that person's head and tell us all what she intended.

Are you serious? You really think the insertion of "no means no" had any other subtext behind it? (perhaps the hamburger theory one poster is pushing. Apparently that person has seen numerous campaigns that say "no means no . . . when ordering condiments on hamburgers". No seriously, that was said).

I'm saying who gives a flying fuck but you and all the other apologists for this legislation?

So to answer my question on whether or not you were capable of understanding that I said I was opposed to this legislation your answer is an enthusiastic "NO!".

Ok. So now that we know the source of your confusion how are we to fix it? I'm afraid I can't state my position any clearer. So you're going to have to step up on this one.

And I believe you DO support this legislation, because you have done everything you could do in this thread to distract from it.

"You seem hellbent on proving intent on someone else's part." Five seconds ago that was a bad thing. Now you're pushing it. Huh.

[Tsiyu]

139. I'm going by your many posts on this thread

You make a statement:

"A was censured because she did a Bad Thing."

Some argued that she didn't do the bad thing you claimed. They aren't second-guessing someone else's intent based on a few words. (I have many to go on in your case)

Others argued that being forced to do things with one's reproductive organs is tantamount to rape, and so if she did do the Bad Thing, it was justified. That it wasn't, in fact, a Bad Thing.

I am arguing that whether she did the "Bad Thing" or not doesn't matter. I am arguing that the "Bad thing" you see is not a "Bad thing" to me. That if she came out of the blue with such a statement that would be something, but in this case, it was a Good thing, no matter how she intended it.

So now you are saying that as long as we will all admit that she did the "bad thing" - whether or not we see it as a "bad thing" or not, you will be so happy.

It's really all about you and your keen observations.

This isn't about women's reproductive health at all!

Thanks. I feel better now.

[4th law of robotics]

142. "This isn't about women's reproductive health at all! "

This OP wasn't about abortion in general. Or women's health. It was about the response this one woman received for arguing against limiting abortions.

Do you see how you moved the goalposts?

If this was a thread about abortions I would be talking about abortions. Instead it's a thread about what happened to this woman. So I'm talking about what happened to this woman.

You are the one derailing things.

I have pointed out my support for abortions numerous times (after being accused of being against them, not because it was relevant). But still you persist in this delusion because essentially you have realized that every legitimate point I've actually made you are unable to refute. So you're going for points that I in fact never made.

[Tsiyu]

144. Fuck off

[4th law of robotics]

146. There you go

the ultimate basis of your argument.

You don't personally like me or what I am saying.

Not because it's wrong. But because "fuck off".

Good day to you.

[Tsiyu]

149. You're obtuse

You're petty

and you're wrong.

Other than that, I got nothin against you

[4th law of robotics]

152. You don't know what words mean

ob·tuse/əbˈt(y)o͞os/
Adjective:
Annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
Difficult to understand.

I understood it right away. You're the one who slowly came around to agree with me (although not acknowledging it).

pet·ty (pt)
adj. pet·ti·er, pet·ti·est
1. Of small importance; trivial: a petty grievance.
2. Marked by narrowness of mind, ideas, or views.
3. Marked by meanness or lack of generosity, especially in trifling matters.
4. Secondary in importance or rank; subordinate. See Synonyms at trivial.
5. Law Variant of petit.

I guess we're all of small importance. There is really only one interpretation here (of which you ultimately conceded). And lack of generosity, well where have *you* been generous and conceded that I may have a point? Personally I would say introducing personal attacks and profanity is kinda petty.

and you're wrong.

Well no. Not at all. My initial premise has been found 100% correct. You even agreed you just had to change my conclusions to continue arguing against me.

[Tsiyu]

156. Ladies and Gentlemen, I rest my case.

"me me me me me me me me me me!"

[4th law of robotics]

161. You make a number of direct attacks on my personally

which I respond to directly.

Then you accuse me of making this all about me because I respond to your personal attacks.

Something something . . . Profit!

Person 1: You're a scumbag. You hate women. Everything you say is wrong and you are disgusting!
Person 2: no I'm not. You're being unfair to me.
Person 1: AHA! Why are you making this all about you?!?!? "I", "me". Jeez, this isn't about you!

[4th law of robotics]

163. That was your case?

That by directly attacking my you could get me to defend myself thus making the responses focus on me rather than on the OP?

Ok. I guess if that makes you happy.

[Sans__Culottes]

166. I don't believe you.

I could be wrong, I have been before.

I don't think so this time.

You're articulate. Still, your posts are repetitive and your concept is a reach. It remains a talking point in support of muzzling this woman and blocking her ability to represent her constituents.

Basically, you're complaining that her comments were specifically rape related. That completely ignores the richer and much more likely interpretation that the representative was using a metaphor to characterize the immoral and violently intrusive nature of the legislation in question.

Judging by the craft displayed by your own prose you are too well schooled to have missed that metaphor; hence, that presupposes that you intended to ignore the metaphorical aspects of her remark.

Your denial of support for this legislation is moot. At issue is your support for silencing this woman, and that is indefensible.

I have nothing further to say to you at this time. You may go ahead and repeat your script now if you wish but I won't see it till tomorrow morning when I sign back online, and I won't bother responding unless you can come up with a more compelling point.

Look, I'm not going to fence with you. We both know that you can't be convinced because your stance is based on the tactics of debate, in which the purpose is to support the premise despite any belief or disbelief in the postulated premise.

I did debate in my sophomore year, many years ago, and it has no novelty or interest for me. I've come here for discussion and the exchange of ideas and, frankly, you don't present any ideas worthy of further discussion.

[PotatoChip]

172. You've very well summarized this poster's intent.

Thank you for that; and Welcome to DU!

[Sans__Culottes]

175. Thanks for the welcome!

[Sans__Culottes]

176. Thanks for the prop & the welcome!

[bemildred]

4. She is not passing a law about his penis.

He is passing a law about her vagina.
This is a legislative body,
Eh?

[TBMASE]

5. Really? It was about HER vagina?

Was the law targeting her specifically?

Had she been in opposition to viagra, would she have been interested in the penises of every man who took viagra? She'd be yelping like a kicked dog, had someone made a reference like that to her in a similar situation.

What if a congressman made reference to "her vagina" in a derogatory way....would it still be about the word or the manner and place in which it was used?

[bemildred]

6. Do you favor legal restrictions on access to abortion?

Or should it be between a woman and her physician?

[TBMASE]

7. No. However I do favor a civil debate on the issue among legislators

where people don't act like teenagers.
Especially when, if the roles were reversed and it had been a comment about the women of the legislative body being interested in the penis of a male counterpart, the discussion wouldn't be about the use of the word "penis"

Her comments were out of line. And, quite frankly, I wasn't aware abortion was about restricting her vagina in any way shape or manner.

The debate has always been about whether or not the fetus is a life and and the mother deciding whether or not she wants to terminate her pregnancy.

[bemildred]

8. You stick with that argument.

I'll leave you to it.

[Taverner]

60. I think you're in the wrong place

[TBMASE]

66. Is it because I expect legislators to behave like adults

instead of children?

The issue was abortion, not her vagina and her assumed interest in it by her colleagues

[kiranon]

98. Vagina is a "civil" word. It is used in sex education classes all over this country.

Reproductive rights includes reference to a woman's anatomy not just to her mind.

[TBMASE]

99. We're still pretending she just said the word vagina

instead of what she really said?

She got up on the floor, said "Vagina" and then sat down. Got it.

[aquart]

133. Of course it was about her vagina.

Or do you believe that laws passed to govern all women do not relate to any individual woman?

Is that your thinking?

[ohheckyeah]

11. Bullshit.

We're not talking about high school here. Whining? Do you think that's what it is when a woman has a legitimate complaint about a hostile work environment? I've never heard of a woman complaining that it was a hostile work environment when someone used the proper name for a body part in a non-sexual manner.

[TBMASE]

12. Had a man said to his female counterparts

"I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my penis, but no means no."?

This discussion would be about his inappropriate statements and the women who were offended.
Her comments were inappropriate for the setting and, quite frankly, have little to do with the debate on abortion.

The discussion wasnt about her vagina or anyone else's vagina, it was about the right to terminate a pregnancy without restriction by the state.

[ejpoeta]

14. do you not know where babies come from?

what state was it where they didn't want the word uterus said?

[TBMASE]

19. Had she said Uterus, I wouldn't have commented

The discussion wasnt about anyone's vagina, especially hers

[ejpoeta]

29. it is about women and their reproductive organs. it doesn't have to be about hers specifically.

these people want to force their religious beliefs on women forcing them to have children whether they want it or not. They apparently care a lot about women's vaginas.... that is how you get to the uterus.

[TBMASE]

39. If it were a discussion about the rights of the father

when the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest, maybe.

[ejpoeta]

43. i see what you are doing there from your responses to me and others.

pick a specific thing and claim that it makes her point not a good one. But as a woman myself of child bearing age, it affects me and my kids to have people trying to legislate their religious beliefs. Regardless whether you think that just because this woman might not be specifically affected by this law, I am sure that she has family and friends who would be. She has every right to represent her constituents which is what she was sent to the state to do. And which is exactly what she was doing.

[TBMASE]

50. And if another congressman calls her a whore, based on the beliefs of his constituency

should we debate the use of that word?

She made the discussion about HER vagina, in the same breath, painting her opponents as rapists who won't take no for an answer.

The discussion was about abortion, not whether her male counterparts had an interest in her vagina

[Tsiyu]

129. The other congressmen did even worse

They just told her she was a second class citizen.

They just told her she and her doctor cannot be trusted to make informed medical decisions.

They just said that even though they don't have vaginas, they know exactly what people with vaginas should do with them. Like rapists do.

It would be better if they called her a whore.

[bemildred]

21. Ultrasound. nt

[TBMASE]

27. Ultrasounds are given as a matter of practice

by the abortion provider to establish the age of the fetus. In most cases it's a vaginal ultrasound because they are more accurate.
This same argument came up in Virginia, where planned parenthood was already performing vaginal ultrasounds but the state wanted to make them mandatory for all providers AND they wanted to mother to view the picture

[bemildred]

37. Thanks for clearing that up. Definitely seems to involve the vagina.

As does an abortion, or so I've heard.

[TBMASE]

40. So does an OB/GYN visit

and the government regulates those

Her comments were inappropriate in the setting. No one was discussing her vagina or discussing doing anything with her vagina that would be against her will.

[bemildred]

45. What's inappropriate is censoring a legislator in the legislature,

while debating a bill before it. I can win every debate if I get to control what my opponents can and cannot say.

[TBMASE]

48. Soooo, if the opposition called her a whore

would that be relevant to the discussion and not worthy of censorship?

[bemildred]

52. They did censor her and call her names, that's what this is about.

No need for any false hypotheticals. They did it. No need to make something up.

[TBMASE]

54. Did they call her a whore on the floor of the legislature?

[Cerridwen]

58. Quit trying to change the conversation.

This isn't about being polite while being under attack.

This is about being under attack.

Why aren't you upset about that?

Women are under attack and you're defending the attackers.

This board is predominantly populated by Democrats. In case you hadn't noticed, the majority of the attackers are repubs.

Quit defending them.

[TBMASE]

62. I'm not defending anyone

I think the debate should have stayed on the topic of abortion without discussion of her vagina and a reference to being date raped by her colleagues.

Now, no one is discussing the issue, which is the state intrusion on women's rights...they're discussing the use of the word VAGINA on the state house floor, without regard to the context in which it was used.

[Cerridwen]

67. They went after a Democrat.

Check the name of the board.

Quit attacking the Democrat for not being polite enough.

BTW, I noticed you did your part to take the issue of abortion out of the conversation your first post in this thread.

If the subject had been viagra and the roles reversed

and someone suggested she were interested "his" penis, she'd be whining to anyone who would listen about a hostile work environment.

Who's in the "hostile work environment"? Why don't you go after the repubs for attacking women. Quit trying to create an equivalency that isn't there.

[TBMASE]

70. This guy says it better than I do

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=824875

[Cerridwen]

71. No he didn't. He's doing the same

derail and defense of repubs while attacking the Democratic women.

Why don't you guys hold the repubs to the same standard?

repubs are attacking women. Really, they don't need your help or his to do so.

[TBMASE]

73. Then, you're saying

had the tables been turned and it was a republican making a comment about his penis to his female counterparts, you'd have no problem with his statements?

I would find them equally offensive, given the setting, and certainly off point when it came to the debate.

[Cerridwen]

77. I'm saying women are under attack.

Democrats are under attack.

In this specific case, Democratic women are under attack.

And you keep trying to provide an equivalency that isn't there.

This is not a hypothetical situation.

Quit using their argument to attack Democratic legislators.

[TBMASE]

82. I'm asking you to think about what you're saying

Would you have a problem if a MAN had made similar comments to his female colleagues, especially if he were a republican making the comments to Female Democrats?

Would we be discussing the word penis or would it be about sexism today?

[bemildred]

84. She was not propositioning anybody.

Trying to embarass them, yes, and apparently with great success.

And yes we can talk about our penises, if that's relevant to the business of the legislature.

[Cerridwen]

88. Again with the hypothetical.

The topic is abortion. The topic is the war on women being conducted by repubs, and apparently a few who would defend them.


I'm done.

[bemildred]

64. How would I know? Why would I care?

I expect it would be in the legislative record if they did. Why don't you look into it?

[Cerridwen]

15. The subject was abortion.

What they were responding to is repubs telling women "pregnancy is your punishment for having sex" and "if that means you'll die, then die."

I find that extremely vulgar and hate-filled.

Hostile? Hell, their shit is downright murderous.

[Bandit]

16. And you know this to be true...How?

Or are you just blowing smoke out your ass? Neither Penis or Vagina are out of bounds as they are both correct terminology for body parts....I doubt very seriously if any woman legislator or Congressperson would feel threatened in any fashion if the word Penis were to be mentioned...

[4th law of robotics]

22. Was she simply referring to a vagina in general

or was she referring to *her* vagina while throwing in a pseudo-rape accusation?

This is I think what the person you are responding to was getting at.

She made a direct reference to her vagina couched in a rape accusation but people are framing it as "oh so no one is allowed to say vagina?!?!?".

[TBMASE]

25. You are correct in your thinking

that's exactly what I'm getting at.

[Tsiyu]

122. Why?

*cue happy cheery cartoon music*

"Here we go! Down the Primrose Path! Woo-hoo. Skippin' Along!"


So she talked about her own personal vagina and now THAT is the offensive part that got her banned?

Geez. I can't keep up.

Don't the legislators all bring up personal stuff when legislation is being discussed? Their war hero uncles, their wives with cancer, their brothers-in-law with addiction problems, their days on the farm picking cotton?

Does this legislation or does it not affect the female legislator's vagina personally, or not?

Hello?

Well, let's see here.



Hmmmm.......It DOES!

Her vagina is, in fact, made a party to this legislation. Since her vagina cannot talk (at least in ways the legislators might understand) she spoke up for her own personal vagina.

Wow!

Scary, huh?

No wonder you guys all ran for cover and made that naughty girl be quiet!


*Doopdeedooo*

[TBMASE]

23. Would she feel threatened her co-worker said he was flattered by her interest in his penis

if she had none?

No one was discussing HER vagina. No one had expressed interest in HER vagina.
Her comments were inappropriate given the debate.

[leftynyc]

49. You make no sense whatsoever

If they were talking about abortions or transvaginal ultrasounds, they were most certainly trying to legislate what happens in her vagina - and my vagina - and the vagina of every woman in this country. The only thing inappropriate is a bunch of men thinking it's okay to legislate this kind of shit without getting push back from the people it's actually going to concern.

[TBMASE]

53. Planned Parenthood and their associates

already use TVUs as a matter of practice to get an accurate age of the fetus. It's more accurate.
We had the same argument, here in VA, and it came out that almost 90% of abortion providers already require a TVU before an abortion will be provided. The state sough to standardize the practice AND wanted the mother to view the Ultrasound.

So, if it's already being used as a matter of practice why would it be against a woman's interest to have a standard for all providers?

[leftynyc]

107. Your numbers are lies

and I have no idea where you got them from. The reality is that the vast majority of abortions are done in the first 14 weeks and a transvaginal ultrasound is not necessary as it doesn't matter - the procedure is the same. Maybe abortions done in the late 2nd or 3rd trimester require the ultrasound but it's simply not true that 90% of all abortions require it.

I see you like to argue the right wing position on all arguments (which are mostly based on nothing but lies and exaggeration). Interesting.

[TBMASE]

109. I didn't say 90% of all abortions require it

Perhaps you should get someone to help you understand what it was I actually said before you accuse me of lying or any of the other nonsense you accuse me of.

[leftynyc]

114. This is EXACTLY what you ssaid

Planned Parenthood and their associates already use TVUs as a matter of practice to get an accurate age of the fetus. It's more accurate.
We had the same argument, here in VA, and it came out that almost 90% of abortion providers already require a TVU before an abortion will be provided. The state sough to standardize the practice AND wanted the mother to view the Ultrasound.

So, if it's already being used as a matter of practice why would it be against a woman's interest to have a standard for all providers?



Are you blind or do you not remember what you wrote from day to day? Your argument is that since it's already used in almost 90% of cases, why not make it standard practice. And once again, your numbers are lies. You argue like a winger but I'm a bit bored today so I'm willing to play with you some more.

[TBMASE]

115. Once again, go get someone to help you read it

90% of PROVIDERS, not ABORTIONS

Planned Parenthood and their associated clinics do it for determination if the morning after pill is appropriate and also to find out if there is an ectopic pregnancy. And this came out during the debate over a state bill being discussed.

[leftynyc]

116. NO THEY DONT

Planned Parenthood nor their associated clinics DO NO SUCH THING. I've been there - have you? Why are you spreading such lies?

[TBMASE]

117. I'm not spreading any lies

I'm saying what was reported and admitted to by Planned Parenthood in Virginia

You couldn't even comprehend what I said

[leftynyc]

158. You simply cannot read

Transvaginal ultrasounds are OFFERED at Planned Parenthood (and any other clinic that provides health care for women). They are not REQUIRED for abortions except for states that have passed such laws (TX for one). That you misunderstood what you read is not my problem.

[TBMASE]

159. Argue with Planned Parenthood Virginia on this

You went from accusing me of claiming they were required for 90% of abortions, which I didn't say to arguing the practices in a state I wasn't even discussing.

[leftynyc]

160. What's with the lying?

You said that almost 90% of abortion providers REQUIRE a TVU. In fact, I'll quote you directly:

We had the same argument, here in VA, and it came out that almost 90% of abortion providers already require a TVU before an abortion will be provided. The state sough to standardize the practice AND wanted the mother to view the Ultrasound.

Where is the link to this (false) information?

[TBMASE]

165. Like I said, argue with Planned Parenthood

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/22/planned-parenthood-abortions-ultrasounds/

That’s just the medical standard,” said Adrienne Schreiber, an official at Planned Parenthood’s Washington, D.C., regional office. “To confirm the gestational age of the pregnancy, before any procedure is done, you do an ultrasound.”

According to Schreiber, Planned Parenthood does require women to give signed consent for abortion procedures, including the ultrasound. But if the women won’t consent to the ultrasound, the abortion cannot take place, according to the group’s national standards.

Schreiber said there are several options at that point. If the woman is uncomfortable with a transvaginal ultrasound, which is more invasive, she can wait until the fetus is large enough to opt for a transabdominal ultrasound.

[leftynyc]

168. Right wing source (it figures)

That's what they're TRYING to require. And like I stated early this morning, for late abortions, it is required but not in early ones (which constiture the VAST majority). You really should do more digging - when something doesn't look right, try a different source (and really, stay away from right wing sources which only know how to lie).

[TBMASE]

170. So now the representative from Planned Parenthood is lying

That’s just the medical standard,” said Adrienne Schreiber, an official at Planned Parenthood’s Washington, D.C., regional office. “To confirm the gestational age of the pregnancy, before any procedure is done, you do an ultrasound.”

According to Schreiber, Planned Parenthood does require women to give signed consent for abortion procedures, including the ultrasound. But if the women won’t consent to the ultrasound, the abortion cannot take place, according to the group’s national standards.

Schreiber said there are several options at that point. If the woman is uncomfortable with a transvaginal ultrasound, which is more invasive, she can wait until the fetus is large enough to opt for a transabdominal ultrasound.

You're either illiterate or willingly stupid if you think they're talking about late term abortions here.

[PotatoChip]

173. You do realize that Adrienne Schreiber

is the one and only Planned Parenthood *official* to have made this claim?

Furthermore, (and this is important to consider) though this quote can be found all over the internet on just about every single right wing blog and discussion forum (including, but not limited to Free Republic) it originates from ONE source... Alana Goodman, CONservative blogger and assistant online editor for the RWing 'Commentary' magazine.

It has been parroted verbatim so much by the right-wing that even a site called Little Green Footballs smelled the BS. And believe me, they have not always been much of a friend to the left. Here is what they had to say:

First, the wingnut chorus is obviously a little unclear on the concept of consent. Even if ultrasounds are part of the Planned Parenthood procedure, it’s rather obvious that any woman who undergoes one will have explicitly given her consent. This is vastly different from a state law requiring the procedure in all cases, medically necessary or not.

But is it even true that Planned Parenthood already requires ultrasounds before abortions? Let’s check out their website under In-Clinic Abortion Procedures:

What Happens During an In-Clinic Abortion?

It’s common for women to be nervous about having an abortion — or any other medical procedure. But most of us feel better if we know what to expect. Your health care provider will talk with you and answer your questions. But here’s a general idea of how it works and what to expect.

Before the abortion procedure, you will need to
•discuss your options
•talk about your medical history
•have laboratory tests
•have a physical exam — which may include an ultrasound
•read and sign papers

Notice the operative term: may include an ultrasound. Planned Parenthood’s policy is to do ultrasounds when they are freely chosen by the patient, with the advice of the medical professional doing the exam.

To equate this situation with a state-enforced law is not just misleading, it’s downright dishonest. But this entire debate over whether women need to be humiliated is just rancid with dishonesty.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39957_Another_Right_Wing_Lie-_Planned_Parenthood_Does_Not_Require_Ultrasounds

And if PP's own words are not enough to convince you that your sourcing may have been (ahem) misinformed, consider PP's actions. Approximately one month after this so-called Planned Parenthood *official* supposedly made that statement to Goodman, PP was out fighting against another anti-choice bill, this time in Florida, that sought to force women seeking abortions to have ultrasounds. Now why would PP concern themselves with this bill if Schreiber's (or Goodman's?) words were factually correct, and they (Planned Parenthood) were already doing them?

Source: The Orlando Sentinel:

Planned Parenthood rallies across the state, calling on Crist to veto pre-abortion ultrasound bill

On Thursday, Planned Parenthood launched a statewide campaign opposing the bill with rallies in four Florida cities –Orlando, St. Petersburg, Tallahassee and West Palm Beach.

Tacked on as an amendment to an unrelated health-care issue, the provision would require women to undergo an ultrasound of the fetus at their own expense before an abortion could be performed. They also would need to listen to a doctor describe the development of the fetus.

"It's bad legislation," said Sue Idtensohn, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando. "It's mandating something that doctors and their patients should decide on their own. What other medical procedure would lawmakers try to force people to undergo?"

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-05-13/features/os-planned-parenthood-lobbies-crist-20100513_1_planned-parenthood-ultrasound-undue-burden

[TBMASE]

174. I grabbed the first article that came up in a google search

it was the same thing I heard on ABC radio here in DC during the debate.

Like I said, argue with her not me. I'm only relating what I heard during the time of the debate. If she's wrong, then she's wrong.

[Egalitarian Thug]

33. Just keep flinging it, I'm sure something will stick. This argument is absurd, you begin with a

false premise then try to create a false equivalency, and finish up by positing a non-existent response to your own creation.

So just are you going for here?

[TBMASE]

44. then you believe her coworkers had interest in her vagina

is that because she said so

[Egalitarian Thug]

55. Again with the false premise -> false equivalency -> straw man. You have no argument,

you're just trying to find some way of justifying the unjustifiable.

[TBMASE]

57. The false premise was her assuming there was interest in her vagina

to begin with

[Egalitarian Thug]

63. Continually restating your fallacy will never change reality. This tactic doesn't work on

people that know how to think when the republicans do it, and that is why it will not stand here.

[TBMASE]

74. whatever

you just stick to hamburger toppings. Pay no mind to the context of her comments

[nolabear]

34. Bull. You're just making things up.

And being contemptuous while you're at it. Save me from any "if-then" posts that are based on nothing but fantasy. And a revelatory fantasy at that.

[TBMASE]

41. The fantasy began when she decided that her coworkers had interest in her vagina

[Tsiyu]

123. So their anti-woman legislation is all just fantasy?

Are you saying those legislators didn't do ANY medical research about women's reproductive health before they wrote their legislation?

Surely, if the legislators want to tell doctors what is medically appropriate in a female reproductive situation, they would want to do some medical research into female reproductive medicine, no?

I mean, if they were going to write a law decreeing that every male should be circumcised and have a penis piercing by his twenty-first birthday, and they want their law to tell doctors and rabbis exactly how to perform said procedures, you would want the legislators to know a little bit about circumcision and penis piercing, am I correct?

So the legislators have been VERY interested in women's reproductive organs, why else write laws about them?

I would say that it is no fantasy that the legislators are very concerned with women's vaginas, including hers. They have proven it.

Nice try, though.

[Initech]

13. "Vagina. The word itself makes some men uncomfortable and they find it difficult to say."

"Whereas without batting an eye a man will refer to his dick or his rod or his johnson."

- from The Big Lebowski. Sad but true.

[bemildred]

18. Some men are so sensitive, they get all testerical when you say crude things to them. nt

[Zorra]

30. Those are the men that inevitably go totally limp from the devastating testeria the word invokes!

[nolabear]

36. Nice turn of phrase! Is that original? Mind if I steal it?

Love it!

[bemildred]

38. Seems unlikely to be original, but if it is, I place it in the public domain. nt

[Zorra]

46. It's actually been around for quite awhile. nt

[Zorra]

9. How long until the conservatives in MI make it a misdemeanor to say "vulva" or "clitoris"

in public?

I'm seriously wondering if there's any new legislation banning the utterance of female reproductive system components pending in MI....

Oh nooooes!

A Bill Seeking To Regulate Use of the Word Vagina
It’s time for the government to stop women from using anatomically correct terms.

Republican Rep. Mike Callton noted later that Brown’s comment “was so offensive, I don't even want to say it in front of women. I would not say that in mixed company."

The scourge of women being allowed to speak the word vagina in a legislative debate over what happens when women use their vaginas must be stopped. And if women are not capable of regulating their own word choice, the state should regulate it for them. To that end, we propose that the Michigan House promptly enact HB-5711(b)—a bill to regulate the use of the word vagina by females in mixed company.

[ananda]

10. So we should say cunt, bush, squirrel??

Instead of the just fine, anatomically correct word "vagina" ??

Here's George Carlin's list of dirty words for vagina.

http://listoftheday.blogspot.com/2008/08/george-carlins-dirty-words-list-vagina.html

By the same token, should we not use the word "penis" but rather
cock, dick, well.. here's George Carlin's list.

http://listoftheday.blogspot.com/2007/01/george-carlins-dirty-words-list-penis.html

[seabeyond]

32. uterus is the word the woman was looking for. nt

[DearAbby]

20. The reporting of this is disturbing as well

"Cunning Stunt": Michigan Lawmaker To Read Vagina Monologues On Capitol Steps

Title to this article: http://www.mediaite.com/online/cunning-stunt-michigan-lawmaker-to-read-vagina-monologues-on-capitol-steps/

I did a double take on that, like WTF?! Is it me or am I being overly sensitive?

[Cerridwen]

26. No, you got it. I guess the title writer didn't

think he'd get away with F*****g C**t.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. What are "Nice Girls" and what do they call a vagina?

Do they get awarded a "nice" prize if don't know what their vaginas are or what they're for? Are "nice" men required to plug their ears or faint if they hear the word vagina?

[WCGreen]

56. Lady parts or...

The woo hoo down there..

[dkf]

113. I guess TV news has turned my 7 year old nieces into bad girls.

They we're going around talking about "vaginas" and laughing up a storm. We were telling them they shouldn't use that word but now I realize why they started.

That's just great.

[Kingofalldems]

59. Looks like we have a couple repub sympathizers

in this thread.

[Cerridwen]

61. Defending attacks on Democrats. n/t

[sufrommich]

87. In January, the former Michigan Republican Party Executive Director

called her " a government hooker" on Twitter , the republican party had no problem with that.

Here's his reply to protests about the tweet:

McNeilly said Thursday there was never anything disrespectful to women in his Tweet "because that's not who he is."

"But it appears Democrats hyperventilate at the least provication and attempt to silence their critics through bullying and other political correct tactics," he said.

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/06/michigan_rep_lisa_lyons_calls.html

[Cerridwen]

95. "The Worst Attack on Women's Health in Michigan History"

Last Thursday, Republican Representative Bruce Rendon introduced HB 5711, a piece of legislation that takes every attack on women's health in Michigan and combines them into the greatest assault on reproductive rights in Michigan history.

<snip>

These bills endanger nearly all aspects of reproductive health care by targeting doctors and creating expensive regulations in the hopes of shutting down health centers that provide abortion services. Here’s a breakdown of just what this bill includes:

<snip>

This package of bills would have disastrous consequences for reproductive freedom in Michigan, putting women's lives at risk and making it harder for everyone to access health services including lifesaving cancer screenings.

The ACLU put this up before the bill passed. I was reading about it on a couple of blogs. The women posting from Michigan were various degrees of sad, angry, fearful...it ran the gamut.

http://www.aclumich.org/blog/2012-06-06/worst-attack-womens-health-michigan-history

[Tsiyu]

101. It is sickening

And it is criminal, but everyone says "ooh - the vagina *sparkly* word!" as a way to deflect attention.

As if the male legislators were assaulted by strangers because they had to hear the anatomic name for a body part most of them slid through to get here.

Lots of thanks their mamas get. Those legislators want to endanger the health and welfare of every single female in their domain.

They deserve to hear far worse, from far more women and any men who care about women.

[Cerridwen]

104. It is. Criminal.

First; thank you for a great reply to the player upthread. I applauded and laughed. Out loud. Scared the dogs and had the boyfriend wondering what the hell was happening. He read your post and applauded, too.

Second; if the words I read on that blog are any indication, you are in good, and extremely angry company about what those legislators did.

I don't think 'vagina' is going to be the only word they hear hollered at them. I predict it won't be just words, either.

The ongoing war against women is a constant reminder of how much some men want to control us. I hate it, but, maybe it will wake up a sleeping giant.

Again, thank you.

[Tsiyu]

105. Thank you Cerridwen

I always love your posts.

I am humbled by your praise.

We shall rant on, because this woman fer one ain't goin' back.

And I know I'm not alone

[Cerridwen]

106. :)

[Festivito]

96. "NO MEANS NO" is the (new) real reason, not vagina.

Tonight she will read the Vagina Monologues on the Capitol steps. So, top of the hour (NPR I'm sure I had on the radio) says she was silenced for "no is no" because "no is no" is a reference to rape.

Perhaps that will keep up confused until the think-tanks can come up with something else.

Kochs must be paying those think-tanks overtime pay.

[sufrommich]

97. I think the reading started at 6:00, it's 6:40

here now. Sure wish this was on CSpan.

[Festivito]

102. That sounds like THE party tonight.

I hope that's a good time out there while those stupid Pubbies cower at home in a cold sweat.

[sufrommich]

103. lol, it looks like it would have been a blast! nt

[Retrograde]

167. Nice girls don't talk back to men, their natural superiors

That's what I think this is about: putting those uppity feminazis back in their proper places, the kitchen and the nursery, not in legislatures.

[flvegan]

177. "Nice girls" or any other women say what the fuck they want.

And folks, especially men like myself, embrace it.

LOL! Idiots.