State's Wrongs

« March 2010 »
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2
6
7
9
10
13
14
20
21
23
27
28

Memo to Steve Brunk, Bob Marshall, and Roy Ashburn: YOU ARE DUMB A DAY EARLY.

Tomorrow is my annual official day off, on account of the fact that science hasn't figured out how to keep me from aging. But it would be wrong of me to deny both of us our traditional weekly tripartite mocking of the dense, so here's a special, early, and all-state-legislature themed edition of IDIOTS SAY THE DAMNDEST THINGS.

"The bill would require a police report to be filed if the woman wants an abortion to be covered by her insurance under the incest or rape exemptions. You’d have to have a report that someone stole your car. This is kind of the same thing.” - Kansas state congressman Steve Brunk.

A bit of context for the awe-inspiring douchery involved here. First, the Kansas state legislature is considering a law that would prevent health insurance from covering abortions unless women specifically pay extra for abortion coverage. Which is the most hypocritical interference in the free market by moralistic fussbudgets I may have ever seen. Not only are they strictly regulating the products the health insurance industry can offer, but they're doing it ass-backwards, by preventing coverage of basic services companies already provide. That's not where the health care problem lives, you corn-fed numbnuts.

Luckily, heavy sarcasm, they're including an exception that allows basic health coverage to pay for abortions in the case of rape, as long as the woman provides ample documentation of that rape to the insurance company bureaucrats. Which led to the charming fucking analogy from Steve Brunk above. Because as we all know, reporting your stolen car to the police involves a much greater social stigma than reporting rape or incest just to qualify for an insurance exemption that wouldn't even be necessary if fuckheads like Brunk decided to interfere in both a woman's reproductive system and health insurance coverage at the same time.

"“The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children. In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.” - Virginia state delegate Bob Marshall, explaining the birds and the bees.

OK, first, let's assume he's lying about that statistic, because it sounds exactly like the kind of claim you'd get in your e-mail inbasket, in all-caps, from your Jesus-freak aunt, complete with fifty forwards and ugly angel graphics. So it's probably not true. But if it IS true, I find the theological implications of Marshall's claim problematic. If God, who we must remember is the embodiment of Christian love and mercy, really does punish children for their parents' previous abortions by giving those kids handicaps, why would the number increase? The implication here is that it's disproportionate to any increase in abortions - that God is making a point by making this happen more often.

Now, I know God is supposed to move in mysterious ways, but is he really supposed to move, like a two-year-old playing chess, in ways that make no damn sense at all? He decides on a punishment, doles it out in a statistically insignificant frequency so that we can't make the connection, and then increases that frequency now because... why? Because we've been restricting abortion more and more over the past 20 years? Because we have. To an alarming degree, honestly. If God were fair and just, the numbers would be going down every time a parental notification law passes or a Dr. Tiller gets shot. God is the least believable fictional character in the entire world, if you go by the collected anthology of his motives and actions as explained by the people who claim to know his godly mind best.

"I felt my duty, and I still feel this way, is to represent my constituents. I don't think it's something that has affected or will affect how I do my job." - California state senator Roy Ashburn, almost pulling it off.

In case you were wondering, how Roy Ashburn represented his constituents is by steadfastly and stridently voting against any accommodations for gay rights in his time in the California senate. The "it" that supposedly hasn't affected or will affect that voting is the fact that Ashburn is gay. Which he just admitted. After being arrested on a DUI. The driving in question being from a gay bar and to his home. Which is what prompted his incredibly difficult admission.

And honestly, as excuses for voting against your own secret nature go, "it's what my constituents wanted" is a pretty good one on the surface. I mean, the same argument has been used against Democrats from states that overwhelmingly support the public option, while their representatives vote against it. There's only one problem. Ashburn didn't run as an openly gay candidate. Because no matter how much he promised to fight for his bigoted constituents' bigoted views, they're bigots. And as bigots, they know that all homosexuals promote the homosexual agenda, no matter how they say they'll vote. An openly gay Ray Ashburn is not what his constituents want, and you knew this, so you stayed in the closet until you got caught and voted to support your own second-class citizenship. Nice try, asshole.