Lawmaker Banned From Speaking After Referring To Her Vagina In Abortion Debate

[Mitch Cronin]

Lawmaker Banned From Speaking After Referring to Her Vagina in Abortion Debate

by Allison Yarrow Jun 14, 2012 6:55 PM EDT

Rep. Lisa Brown talks to the Daily Beast’s Allison Yarrow about her controversial floor speech

Two female state representatives were banned from speaking on the Michigan House floor Thursday, one for invoking her “vagina” in an earlier floor debate about abortion.

“Mr. Speaker, I’m flattered that you’re all so interested my vagina, but no means no,” Rep. Lisa Brown said Wednesday as she argued against the 45-page House Bill 5711, which later passed the chamber and would regulate abortion and provider clinics so stringently that Brown says many will simply close.

Thursday, she was banned from speaking on the floor.

“If I said 'elbow' would I have gotten in trouble?” the West Bloomfield Democrat rhetorically asked the Daily Beast. “If you’re regulating vaginas, I don’t know how we’re supposed to not talk about them.”

Brown said that the Republican leadership did not tell her why she was banned. In her brief floor remarks Wednesday, she also explained that as a Jewish woman, she chooses to keep kosher in her home, and that she also abided by the Jewish tenet dating back to the biblical era that “abortions performed in order to preserve the life of the mother are not only permissible, but mandatory.”

Brown said rhetorically that she might never know whether she was banned for being Jewish, saying “vagina,” or both.

Brown was not sanctioned based on the subject matter or her religion but because of the context of her remarks, according to a spokesman for Grand Rapids Republican Jase Bolger, the House speaker.

“It was inappropriate in the way it was used during a floor speech and that’s his decision to make,” spokesman Ari Adler said of the speaker’s crackdown. “We have passionate debates on the House floor. The only way to continue doing so is to maintain civility.” He added that plenty of other women in House were being allowed to speak. He did not elaborate on how, exactly, the context was inappropriate.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/14/lawmaker-banned-from-speaking-after-referring-to-her-vagina-in-abortion-debate.html

[sustainable]

That country is truly effed up. I'm encouraging my kids as they become adults to get as far from ground zero as possible.

[FA@AC]

That country is truly effed up.

Its political system and its politicians certainly are. From watching their politics and paying attention to their media you'd be hard pressed not to conclude that they're a nation of morons. But they aren't. Most everyday Americans are disgusted with things. Don't encourage your kids to stay away. Encourage them to visit and to meet Americans. They'll find a people far different from those you see on TV. Charitable, warm, intelligent, open, hard working, entrepreneurial and unfailingly optimisitc.

Besides, if Harper's gang has many more years in government here you'll wind up reading accounts of similar happenings in our own Parliament.

[dagger]

Then again, I give Rick Snyder, the governor of Michigan, points for circumventing his own stone age legislature - which is bought and paid for by special interests like the owner of the Ambassador Bridge - to get a new international bridge built between Windsor and Detroit.

[GTFA]

Regarding the original post:

Maybe the reaction wasn't too far off the mark. Excessive maybe, but not neccessarily ignorant. Really. After all, abortion is not about anyones vagina. I have no doubt that the body part was referred to for dramatic effect. If the reference was made in purely medical terms then there would be no issue. If you want to talk about abortion let's talk about that, without the sexual innuendo.

Don't get caught up in the hype. This is a serious issue and our rights need to be protected from narrow-minded meddlers.

[Seeker]

After all, abortion is not about anyones vagina. I have no doubt that the body part was referred to for dramatic effect. If the reference was made in purely medical terms then there would be no issue. If you want to talk about abortion let's talk about that, without the sexual innuendo.

You are 100% correct. She did this to create a buzz due to shock effect and her attempt to create further dissension with implying that her Jewish faith might have something to do with it too means she deserves to be muzzled.

[chockalicious]

Regarding the original post:

Maybe the reaction wasn't too far off the mark. Excessive maybe, but not neccessarily ignorant. Really. After all, abortion is not about anyones vagina. I have no doubt that the body part was referred to for dramatic effect. If the reference was made in purely medical terms then there would be no issue. If you want to talk about abortion let's talk about that, without the sexual innuendo.

Don't get caught up in the hype. This is a serious issue and our rights need to be protected from narrow-minded meddlers.

Abortion may not be about anyone's vagina but it is more about women than it is men. You have a woman legislator being somewhat provocative and sending the poor sensitive souls into a tizzy.

I am always fascinated by how men seem to know what is best for women's reproductive health.

And by the way it ios about the vagina. These legislative attempts to make women have intrusive procedures before getting a legal procedure are BS.

[J.O.]

I am always fascinated by how men seem to know what is best for women's reproductive health.

Bazinga!

[DEFCON]

"This is a serious issue and our rights need to be protected from narrow-minded meddlers."

Yes, abortion is a serious issue and genuine narrow-minded meddlers need to get a life for certain, but what of the issue of personal responsibility? Should the taxpayer be forced, as I think they are in Canada, to cough-up the cash to fund someones personal choices?

[GTFA]

Personal choices? Not always. But sometimes. And even then it can be argued that an individual was not responsible for their choice at the time it was made. If this is to be a procedure denied by a tax funded medicare program then it needs to be for a reason. Alcoholics get treatment, smokers get treatment, a$$hole drivers get treatment, even illegal immigrants with TB get treated. Why should pregnant women who choose to abort a pregnancy not be given the same consideration by the taxpayers? There are a lot of reason to do it and a lot of reasons to not do it. Dealing with morality issues is not fertile ground for responsible government. We need the government to ensure a process, not an outcome.

GTFA

[mrlupin]

In the same line of thought in Canada...

The Conservatives are muzzling scientists and now even civil servants will have to bow to Harper...

Parks Canada staff banned from criticizing Feds

Workers told they have 'duty' to support Harper government

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2012/06/14/ns-parks-canada-letter-warning.html?cmp=rss

[chockalicious]

In the same line of thought in Canada...

The Conservatives are muzzling scientists and now even civil servants will have to bow to Harper...

Parks Canada staff banned from criticizing Feds

Workers told they have 'duty' to support Harper government

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ng.html?cmp=rss

Appples and oranges on the two issues. How many employers do you think allow you to publicly criticize them before it becomes an issue. I love where I work but I am not supposed to talk to the media either.

[J.O.]

The difference is if you see a management practice that is putting the business (or safety) at risk, you are allowed - no make that duty bound - to bring it to someone's attention. With this government, this is only allowed if it agrees with their agenda.

[DEFCON]

The 'governments' of this Country are not 'private' corporations and the 'citizen' of a 'free & democratic' society has a 'Duty' to speak out against bad government.

[chockalicious]

@JO - I think there is adifference between not reporting hazards and not criticizing your employer.

@ Defcon - Again, difference between speaking out against bad government and criticizing you employer.

[UpperDeck]

And..if the employee speaking is espousing a "cause" or "agenda"? Canada Border employees, for example, will disseminate opinions that certain government policies will diminish the effectiveness of border security. Of course, those policies identified relate to productivity of agents and the employee position is to increase the number of agents.

And so the dialogue continues.

Not unreasonable to restrict access to public dissemination of what amounts to a political platform imo.

[DEFCON]

"Not unreasonable to restrict access to public dissemination of what amounts to a political platform imo."

Fair enough, but the government is not a private corporation and any ban on speaking out equates to a loss of transparency, which we all know isn't good for us over the short and longer term.

• 
  
• 
  

[mo32a]

And..if the employee speaking is espousing a "cause" or "agenda"? Canada Border employees, for example, will disseminate opinions that certain government policies will diminish the effectiveness of border security. Of course, those policies identified relate to productivity of agents and the employee position is to increase the number of agents.

Isn't that the "union" disseminating opinions rather than an "employee"?

[UpperDeck]

Isn't that the "union" disseminating opinions rather than an "employee"?

I was referencing "news items" where individual employees are quoted expressing the dire consequences of certain policy decisions. I wouldn't find it objectionable---or, at least less so----if the quote was attributed to "spokesman for ABC union currently in negotiations."

Think of the various press releases regarding the dangers confronted by border agents who therefore required sidearms. What a load of.....!!

That dialogue wasn't inspired by genuine and widespread safety concerns. Most agents were quite happy to NOT carry a firearm. However, having that "necessity" acknowledged became a bullet in the arsenal of arguments to justify wage increases.

It was all part of an organized campaign. And the consumer is once again manipulated to unknowing (and uninformed) support of a specific interest group.