February 24th, 2012
12:01 PM ET

The latest legislative tool: Satire

For the very serious business of making serious laws for states with legitimately serious problems, there’s an unexpected streak of comedic wackiness running through governmental chambers.

Consider a sample of legislative work since the start of 2012:

Alaska Rep. Kyle Johansen, R-Alaska, proposed the federal government take over New York’s Central Park and make it a development-free wilderness area as a way to blast back at those he says are in the way of drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Wyoming legislators followed up with a bill in support of Alaska's measure.

In Mississippi, Democratic lawmaker Stephen Holland introduced a bill to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. It's a swipe at Republicans who he says want to push everything having to do with Mexico out of the state.

To get more - ahem - personal, Democratic Oklahoma Sen. Constance Johnson wrote a provision for an anti-abortion bill that said men can ejaculate only into women’s vaginas, lest lives be wasted. Virginia Democrat Janet Howell amended an anti-abortion bill to require rectal exams for men before they could get erectile dysfunction medications.

This week Rep. Yasmin Neal, D-Georgia, tired of an anti-abortion debate she says ignored women’s points of view, introduced a bill that would block men from having vasectomies unless the procedure would prevent death or serious injury.

Nevermind filibusters, lobbyists and legislative majorities; when lawmakers really want the world to know their opinions, they crack a joke, keep a straight face and wait for the tweets to start.

“Irony has a lot of currency these days,” said Jeffrey P. Jones, author of "Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture" and director of Old Dominion University's Institute of Humanities. “It’s kind of a new public language.”

The way Jones sees it, American government is in a stormy period of red-faced ideological posturing, and legislators might have realized that quiet farce can be more effective than yelling louder.

“The divisions seem so intense, irony is kind of a way to break out of that mold, garner attention and get people to stop and think,” Jones said.

Nobody expects to go swimming in the Gulf of America this summer (although, Johansen’s Central Park resolution did have a hearing, and Howell’s rectal exam amendment was just a few votes shy of approval.) Legislators made their point by putting some dry wit on the public record and drawing the gaze of media.

There's nothing particularly new here - satire, irony and sarcasm have lightened the mood while making a point since the age of Aristophanes. But they travel beautifully in the age of Twitter trends and late-night comedy; Neal and her anti-vasectomy bill popped up on blogs and Facebook, and news networks - this one, included - were on the story before The Onion needed to make it up.

“I expected this to be a Georgia issue. It’s not anymore," Neal said.

Reproductive rights debates on the state level

Of course, it can backfire. Stephen Colbert’s 2010 Congressional testimony on immigration - “masterful as a rhetorical act,” Jones said - was roundly panned as “an embarrassment” and "a real joke" by Republican legislators. To those who take government most seriously, policy testimony from a comedian wasn’t so funny.

Neal, a law enforcement officer in her first term as a state legislator, admits she took a risk with the anti-vasectomy bill. Georgia Republican Rep. Doug McKillip, who sponsored the abortion-limiting bill, called the anti-vasectomy bill a “poor attempt at humor,” and plenty of online comments railed against wasted time and resources.

Neal said she feels like her colleagues paid attention like they hadn't before, and most laughed about the anti-vasectomy bill. After a collective crossing of legs, America seemed to giggle at it, too.

“As a female in the general assembly, you have to be careful – what you wear, what you look like. You have to be good and then a little bit better,” Neal said. “I felt I could do a pretty good job of molding the conversation. I trust Georgians and Americans. I knew they’d get it, and they do.”

The 7,382 state legislators introduce between 200,000 and 220,000 bills in a two-year term, Karl Kurtz, an analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures points out. The recent spate of satirical legislation might be a fad, courtesy of fast-moving news and legislators borrowing each other's ideas, although there's plenty of just-for-fun legislation in the record books.

“There are always going to be some oddballs and jokes and attention-getters,” Kurtz said.

Fear not, lovers of Central Park and vasectomies: Legislatures, Kurtz said, are designed to say no. Of all the bills introduced, less than one-fifth pass.

For now, it seems likely the spermatozoon of Georgia’s men will flow as freely (or not) as the fellas choose; the true test of the anti-vasectomy bill might be whether the abortion-limiting bill becomes a law.

Satire drew attention for Neal's cause this time, but would she try it again?

She winces a little: “I’m going to be picky about the next one.”

Post by:
Filed under: Georgia • Health • Politics
soundoff (649 Responses)
  1. diana

    I just don't like the idea that the potential father has no say in whether or not they want the child. I understand the woman carries the child (I've carried two myself) but if the man wants the child and the woman does not, it's just not fair.

    February 24, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

      Oh what you mean plan a family.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • Punkass

      Thank You!!! As it stands now, the man has NO RIGHTS at all. It defintely takes a mane to conceive a child so why shouldnt the man have a say? I thought the goal was equality? Love your post

      February 24, 2012 at 3:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • luvlar

      Couldn't agree with you more. The way I see it – it's the woman's baby when she wants to kill it, ie abortion, but it's our baby when she wants child support. Just isn't fair. Women have the choice to become a parent, a man should too.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • cw

      or said another way, planned parenthood?

      February 24, 2012 at 3:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • sumday

      That has always been an issue for as well, yes it's your body, but it's also my life that you are now controlling as well. If she wants the baby and the father does not she should have to sign a waiver releasing the father from all responsibility. Just bc it's your body should not give you control over another person’s life who is not attached to your body. The man has no say, but total responsibility solely based on the women’s choice how is that fair?

      February 24, 2012 at 3:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bill

      luvlar I couldn't agree more. Alimony and child support are stupid, dated concepts. If a woman can't support herself without a man then that is her fault. Likewise the opposite is true. I'm a pretty liberal person, but personal responsibility is the (wait for it) responsibility of everyone. Don't wanna pay for the kid? Don't have one! Don't wanna pay child support? Don't have one! Still wanna have s ex? Use contraception! Doesn't work? Get an abortion.

      How does this not make sense? Oh that's right, your faith dictates my lifestyle...I forgot about that.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • EaglesQuestions

      I agree completely.
      I'm female, but its clearly evil that a man has no say in whether or not his descendants are disposable.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Punkass

      Bill – you keep bringing up faith. Whats the difference between your beliefs and theirs? We still enact laws based on non-religous beliefs that affect someone else, you just dont stick religon in front of it but, its the same thing. Everyone does it, its called being human. Obama believes every girl should have contriception, the Catholic church disagrees but for some reason the religous beliefs dont hold as much weight. BTW Im atheist...just so we're clear

      February 24, 2012 at 3:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • Whatthe...

      So just take women back to the stone age then will ya?!

      February 24, 2012 at 3:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • JLS639

      Um, no, becoming a father requires certain specific actions and not taking those actions avoids fatherhood with 100% efficacy. Even when those are performed, certain precautionary actions taken entirely by a man can prevent him becoming becoming a father with close to 100% efficacy when done according to manufacturer's instructions (nearly all failures in this regard are due to not following instructions).

      Speaking as a man, I have successfully avoided becoming a father when given opportunity. It is not that difficult, actually, if you have a minimum amount of self-control.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bill

      @punk – the difference between my beliefs and "theirs" is that I am not trying to push my beliefs onto anyone else. Pro-Choice doesn't force other people to get abortions. This is the reason for the animosity directed at religion. Every Christian on the planet would say making Sharia Law a legal concept in this country would be a mistake. How is that any different from passing legislation that is solely based on Religious Beliefs?

      And for the record, there are plenty of secular laws that I do not agree with. However, they have valid social issues that they are addressing. In my dream country all illicit drugs would be legal. Just dont hurt anyone else. However, I understand that these drugs have bad effects on the whole of society. It is in society's best interest to at least control these substances. However, a woman making a personal choice that affects nobody but herself is a totally different story, and an argument against it with nothing but religious faith to base it on, for me, is not an adequate reason to deny a woman that right.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • LouieD

      Thank you so much for expressing this view. I've felt the same way for years and think that it's way under-publicized. Furthermore, if the mother wants an abortion but the father doesn't, and the mother makes the ultimate call to get one because hey, I'll grant that it's HER body... Then the father should not be obligated by any means to contribute financially to the procedure.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • E

      wear a condom, or find a woman who wants kids. there are your choices.

      February 25, 2012 at 12:06 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Linann

    Diana- That's what rubbers are for. To many men are dropping their seed like there is no tomorrow, becaue they calim they can't feel anything. I have yet to meet a man, who want's to keep a baby when the women does not.

    February 24, 2012 at 3:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • just sayin

      i would. i think it's extremely unfair that a woman can get an abortion even if the man wants the baby. i'm sure some will say that she will have to carry it, ruin her body, whatever. but, she played she can pay. a man does if she does decide to keep it and he doesn't want it. equality, sucks when the shoe is on the other foot.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • diana

      oh I have and there are plenty out there. I don't believe in abortion, but certaintly is not my place to judge, but feel that both potential parents should have to make the decision together.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • EaglesQuestions

      Like Greg Fultz?

      February 24, 2012 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Whatthe...

      diana is probably a man...don't let him get to you

      February 24, 2012 at 3:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mr C-men

      Find a way to sterilize people at birth in a safe manner that can be easily reversed. Anyone desiring a child must get a permit/ license. The license requires a certain degree of classes. Anyone wanting a child must show proof of employment.
      Get all that done and then you can have children...

      February 24, 2012 at 3:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • JLS639

      If he cannot feel anything, he has nerve damage. Believe me, you can feel it. Even if you are allergic to the hypoallergenic materials used, there are alternative materials available with mail order. The ladies might feel too awkward to tell him feel it through the barrier or feel nothing, but I for one am going to call BS on men who claim they cannot feel it or cannot use them.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • sameeker

      There was a case in the 1980s in Terre Haute, Indiana where a father wanted his child and sued to stop the mother from having an abortion. The judge ruled in favor of the father. The mother ignored the court order and went to Illinois and got an abortion. She was not punished. In Illinois, if a person causes a woman to miscarry, they can be found guilty of murder; however, a woman can abort her child at will. I am so tired of the double standard. Fathers should have the right to opt out of all financial responsibility if they do not want a child. Or, make abortion illegal. You can't have it both ways.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:47 pm | Report abuse |
  3. jas

    how hard is it to respect someones choice? if a woman wants to have an abortion, it does not affect my or anyone's life; and it shouldn't. If a woman doesn't want to have a child, regardless if you are a mother, father or husband no one but the woman should have to decide.

    February 24, 2012 at 3:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • Punkass

      As it stands now, men dont have a choice. Apparently woman dont need men for anything because their opinion on the matter isnt relevant. Its all about the woman and her body...wait, I forget, how are babies conceived again? Sorry, I failed biology....and I guess so did you.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • jim

      If a man wants a baby, then maybe he shouldn't knock up a woman who doesn't want one.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • LivinginVA

      As soon as they perfect a system whereby the fetus can be removed AS SOON AS THE WOMAN FINDS OUT SHE IS PREGNANT and transferred to the father's body, I'll back you on that. In fact, as soon as they can do that I'll be willing to talk about outlawing abortion if ANYBODY is willing to finish growing the fetus and take responsibility for it.

      February 24, 2012 at 4:58 pm | Report abuse |
  4. Bill

    That's the benefit and the responsibility that comes with the burden of being a mother and being a woman. Every one has a worthy argument to make against abortion, and for men to have a say in it, and I respect those opinions. However, the reality is that one woman carries that responsibility. It is her body. It is her decision. I find it hard to reconcile the contradictory stance that conservatives take; on one hand they believe the government should stay out of our lives, while on the other they insist on injecting the goverment into the most personal, private aspects of our lives!

    Does nobody else see the absurdity in this? The aspects of our society that impacts the WHOLE, i.e. economic policy, medical care, education, etc. These are the areas where conservatives want the government gone. These are the areas where they SHOULD be, because of the impact on the whole of the country. However, when it comes to issues of personal choice, be it religion (or lack thereof), personal medical care decisions, etc., they call it a Moral Calling and then decide to legislate their beliefs.

    The only difference between the goals of the Christian Right and the concept of Sharia Law is this: one is Christian, one is not. Just because something is "Christian" doesn't make it right. If you want the goverment to stay out of YOUR life, then stay out of MINE.

    February 24, 2012 at 3:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • Punkass

      Well the woman wouldnt be carrying a child if it wasnt for a man so right off the bat your point is moot.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bill

      And the man wouldn't have a place to put his seed without the permission of the woman. I agree that the man, on the surface, seems to warrant a say in the decision. In a perfect world I would agree with you. However, the man shares no risk in the pregnancy. Any health, financial, social, religious, etc. issues arising out of the pregnancy fall solely on the woman.

      Men literally have the option to walk away. They can just be a ghost of a memory if they want to. My mother raised me with no help from anyone, same with my sister. But even if 30 men helped raise us, they have no say in what my mother or any woman does with her body.

      It's funny that people hate mandated medical insurance, yet roll over easily when the Bible and Christian Right get involved.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • CMB

      You'e rigth, they want to impose moral & religious believes in our lives even if I don't believe in the same convictions, they have their Freedom of religion but I can't have my choice

      March 1, 2012 at 9:05 am | Report abuse |
  5. WachetAuf

    This is pathetic. What idiots we are.

    February 24, 2012 at 3:11 pm | Report abuse |
  6. D from VA

    Limit the population. Free Sterilization for all who request it. Forever.

    February 24, 2012 at 3:16 pm | Report abuse |
  7. SPENT

    America is so silly!

    February 24, 2012 at 3:17 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Jeff Block

    Kudos to you. Very smart.

    February 24, 2012 at 3:22 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Sindy

    What if daddy takes off and mommy can't find him? What if mommy tries to find daddy, but he is nowhere to be found? F him. Mommy's choice to be a mommy or not. No one else's.

    February 24, 2012 at 3:24 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Terry

    Sorry Sindy, you seem to have missed that BestWest made the argument that s/he has a right to do whatever s/he pleases with her/his body. That argument is false and really has no relevancy in the conversation because BestWest actually doesn't have the right to do whatever s/he pleases with his/her body. If BestWest wants to make the case that everyone should literally be able to do whatever they want with their body whenever they want to, then that could be a valid point to discuss, however, I would argue that it doesn't belong in this discussion.

    Pro-Life whackos can't 'take away' your right to do whatever you want with your body, because you already have that 'right' taken away by many other laws.

    February 24, 2012 at 3:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sindy

      Abortion isn't one ofem, nor should it be, by any legislative body. Pun intended.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Terry

      Unfortunately my nice long reply didn't appear for some reason..

      Anyway, if a person bases their pro-choice argument on a falsehood like "I can do whatever I want with my body," then it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with that person.

      As an example, if you say that life begins when the entire fetus exits the mother's body and that is why you are pro-abortion and I say that the absolute latest that a life becomes a life is 21 weeks. Then we could ask eachother why each of us believes what we do. We can continue to disagree but our discussion could be valid. If your main reason for being pro-abortion is that 'I can do whatever I want with my body' then we cannot really have a valid conversation because your reason is a falsehood. (not saying that is your reason, but that was BigWest's reason)

      February 24, 2012 at 4:02 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Jeff

    Great, so what this article is pointing out is that lawmakers are acting like children. Good to know

    February 24, 2012 at 3:28 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Missing the Point

    How about we stop all this wating of time and money with legislation that even the proposer knows is a joke/ scam / political F/U. Why should we pay any of these yahoos with our tax money to put these junk ideas on to the table to eat away at budget and time that could actually be spent solving some issues!

    February 24, 2012 at 3:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • Terry

      Yes, stupid for wasting time and money, and stupid for making analogous satire that is not analogous.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sindy

      Well, there really isn't any equivalent for pregnancy for males, now is there?

      February 24, 2012 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Merkerb

      Bonehead, this is called the shoe on the other foot. Think of this restriction and whether a male would want to go through that. I'm male and already thinking, no, I would not want to go through so many hoops about something private.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • Terry

      Yes, unfortunately for those trying to make the abortion issue into analogous satire, pregnancy is unique. Which means it can't be discussed intelligently with blanket terms or lame attempts at humor.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • jk

      Why don't people like you stop commenting and go back to work? You're lowering this great country's productivity and reducing the tax dollars you share. And you are all much, much dumber than even the average legislator. Hypocrites.

      February 24, 2012 at 10:43 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Mike the true American

    We're not having enough abortions in my opinion. Any pregnant illegals they find in this country need to be marched straight to the clinic and get that anchor baby sucked out! Same goes for welfare recipients, they need a clinic right next to the food stamp office!

    February 24, 2012 at 3:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • Abbyka

      This right here is why the rest of the world hates America. Thanks for making all of us look bad.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mike the true American

      @Abbyka no this is why people look up to America!

      February 24, 2012 at 3:48 pm | Report abuse |
  14. Vertebrate Catholic

    "If I want to abuse or kill MY 3 year old child who came from MY BODY, you have NO RIGHT to tell me not to! Keep your personal views out of MY HOUSE. Who I murder or abuse in MY BEDROOM is NO ONE'S BUSINESS!!! SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!"

    February 24, 2012 at 3:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sindy

      Hey. thanks for making the case for abortion!

      February 24, 2012 at 3:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Vertebrate Catholic

      Sindy, exactly. This is the same line of reasoning used by supporters of legalized abortion. It's terrifying.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mike the true American

      Separation of church and state: Stay out of my cathedral so my priest can diddle all the little kids they want!

      February 24, 2012 at 3:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Merkerb

      Nope. When the child is already born you know you can't do that. It's when the fetus is in the womb it can be aborted. Most people don't like abortion so that's why contrary to stupid church people we should have the pills etc. Duh!

      February 24, 2012 at 3:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Vertebrate Catholic

      Mike, anti-Catholic bigotry aside, I think you get it. The line of argumentation used by supporters of legalized abortion also supports legalized child abuse.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bill

      Are you unable to discern the difference between a human being with rights and the fetus that is inside of a woman? You are aware that this is an issue dealing with women controlling their bodies during pregnancy, and not the unadulterated mass murder of innocent children, right?

      A shame. To think that your argument has to rely on such childish, poorly thought out metaphors. It's never a good sign when someone resorts to such a tactic in a debate. I'd say my much more reasonable train of logic (that being a woman controlling her body and nobody else having a say in it) is worthy of legislative protection, as did the Supreme Court a while back.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sindy

      Except a three year old isn't the equivalent of a fetus, and what is terrifying is that you think along those lines. If I had a three-year-old fetus still inside, I'd CERTAINLY want it out!

      February 24, 2012 at 3:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • Vertebrate Catholic

      Merkerb, why does a parent have a right to kill their child simply because the child is in an earlier stage of development? This implies that a human's right to life is predicated upon a certain mental capacity or level of development and not upon their simply being human and alive. A toddler is still in an early stage of human development. Who says a parent doesn't have the right to kill a toddler? It's not as if the toddler is a fully functioning adult capable of understanding rights yet.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sindy

      If you have a beef with the Catholic Church, that's one thing...but to take away the rights of all women regardless of faith is something else. Your analogy that women who support choice also support child abuse is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard brought up in a debate. How about you stay out of my uterus and I'll stay out of yours. Absurd!

      February 24, 2012 at 3:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Vertebrate Catholic

      Sindy, I am a Catholic. If your reason for supporting legalized abortion is that the government has no rights to tell you what to do with your body and that of your child who happens to be in an early stage of development, then you should be aware that this also supports legalized child abuse. A 3 year old child is still in an early stage of development and is dependent upon you. Birth seems an arbitrary cut-off point for legalized murder.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • Merkerb

      Vertebrate Catholic because the church always pretend they know and they don't know jack. They tried to put Kepler to death for think that the Earth is not the center of the Universe. Now they want to decide if a fetus is developing with 3 heads and 4 tails the host whose life is in danger should do nothing about it.

      February 24, 2012 at 4:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bill

      @Vertebrate

      Your entire stance relies on this statement: "If your reason for supporting legalized abortion is that the government has no rights to tell you what to do with your body and that of your child who happens to be in an early stage of development"

      However, the argument stops after the word BODY. Nobody is saying we have the right to murder children based on their stage of development. The argument we are making stops at the woman's body. It could be a frozen turkey dinner inside of the woman, or a full grown adult; the point is that it is her body.

      But, I'll play ball with you. What do you have to say to the stance that a woman has control over her body, including abortion rights, but once the child is born he has the full protection and rights of any other American Citizen? Can we call that a compromise?

      February 24, 2012 at 4:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • Vertebrate Catholic

      Merkerb, your over-simplification and characterization of Johannes Kepler's relationship with Ecclesial authorities of his day is irrelevant. Do you believe that a human's right to life is predicated upon a certain level of development or mental capacity? If so, what level exactly, and on what grounds did you determine this?

      February 24, 2012 at 4:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • Vertebrate Catholic

      Bill, your argument is predicated upon the assumption that a developing child in the womb is part of the mother's body. Is it really? Do the chromosomes and genetic information of this developing child match those of the mother?

      February 24, 2012 at 4:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • Merkerb

      @Vertebrate Catholic okay, just one question. I take your point about fetus being life. Now, how about for example the birth control pill. There we can avoid messing with the fetus. I'll wait for your answer.

      February 24, 2012 at 4:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sindy

      You are going by the premise that a newly-fertilized egg is exactly the same as a three year old...because of the term early developement? Ami I correct in that? Because I want to be absolutely sure that is what you're saying.

      February 24, 2012 at 4:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bill

      Actually, I included the example of a 40 year old man and a turkey dinner specifically to discount that as a part of my argument. The simple fact that there is SOMETHING inside of a woman givers her dominion over it. Whether the fetus is developed or not, alive or not, talking or not, it is inside of another human being.

      So, like I said, can we call that a compromise? And just to make it clear for you, my argument is this: her body, her choice. Doesn't matter what or who is inside of it. When the child is born, it has rights and protections and consequences will ensue. Can we call that a compromise?

      I would like to see your response now that I've more clearly laid out the concepts for you.

      February 24, 2012 at 4:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Amanda

      I had an abortion an I would do it again if I had to. Were you goin to be at the hospital ready to adopt my baby that I had been carrying around in me even though I smoked and drank all the time?

      February 24, 2012 at 4:20 pm | Report abuse |
  15. YGBKM

    Glad to see our country is so well off that these politicians have all this time on their hands. Good thing we don't need them to do the job they were hired to do.

    February 24, 2012 at 3:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Merkerb

      U missed the point.

      February 24, 2012 at 4:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bill

      Yeah, YGBKM really did miss the point. I love how satire so easily separates those with a working intellect from those who don't. Even Vertebrate Catholic can see the satire for what it is. I don't agree with them, but even they were able to see the point. This other dude though...yeah. I bet $20 they don't do a lot of reading. I've noticed satire always falls flat when its thrown at people who don't read.

      February 24, 2012 at 4:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Terry

      You can't totally blame him because the satire was pretty weak.

      February 24, 2012 at 4:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bill

      Actually, Terry, the weak nature of the satire (which I do agree, it was weak) should make it that much easier to recognize.

      Why aren't the anti-abortion parties being called out for wasting everyone's time? They keep barking up this tree and beating that dead horse even though, according to the sarcasm in YGBKM's post, there are plenty of other things that they could be doing.

      YGBKM missed the point. Why he missed it is irrelevant, but I think it's due to a lack of reading. That is usually the cause of a reading comprehension issue.

      February 24, 2012 at 4:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • Merkerb

      @Vertebrate Catholic Verte, I guess that was a tough question.

      February 24, 2012 at 5:12 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16