E Uterus Unum

Organum Non Grata

Florida State Rep. Scott Randolph (D-Orlando) is frustrated with the 18 bills regulating abortion being considered by the Florida State Legislature. He feels that the legislative priorities are misplaced when Florida’s economy, like much of the nation’s, is in disarray. During a debate on a bill that would prohibit union dues being deducted from workers’ paychecks, Randolph (quoting his wife) suggested that she should “incorporate her uterus” so that Republicans would leave it alone.

That raised the ire of the Republican House Speaker, Dean Cannon. According to his spokeswoman, Kate Betta, the word “uterus” is no longer to be uttered (utered?) in the Florida Legislature:

The Speaker has been clear about his expectations for conduct on the House for during debate. At one point during the debate, he mentioned to the entire House that members of both parties needed to be mindful of decorum during debate. Additionally, the Speaker believes it is important for all Members to be mindful of and respectful to visitors and guests, particularly the young pages and messengers who are seated in the chamber during debates. In the past, if the debate is going to contain language that would be considered inappropriate for children and other guests, the Speaker will make an announcement in advance, asking children and others who may be uncomfortable with the subject matter to leave the floor and gallery.

It’s not about demagoguery, by golly! Do it for the little children whose eardrums would be seared by hearing the word “uterus” spoken aloud!

Is visceral speech Constitutionally protected speech?

Note: if you have a uterus and wish to incorporate it, the Florida ACLU has set up a site—http://incorporatemyuterus.com/, naturally—where you may do so. Extralegally, of course.

(Editor’s note: Monotreme has been reprimanded by 538 Refugees management for his unusually egregious utterance of the word ‘uterus’ in this post. We sent him a coupon for 55¢ off of his next purchase of a Jimmy Dean Breakfast Bowl. We apologize if anyone was enlightened)


About Monotreme

Monotreme is an unabashedly liberal dog lover, writer, and former scientist who now teaches at a University in an almost-square state out West somewhere. http://www.logarchism.com | http://www.sevendeadlysynapses.com
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to E Uterus Unum

  1. Monotreme says:

    Uterus. Uterus uterus uterus.

    There. I feel better now.

  2. filistro says:

    Oh my goodness! You should have warned me before that picture went up so I could be sure all our tender righties had their eyes averted.

    Now they’re probably scarred for life.

  3. filistro says:

    Does a monotreme even HAVE a uterus? Don’t they lay eggs… not viviparous?

    Viviparaous… now there’s a sexy word. (GROG… cover your ears.)

  4. filistro says:

    Seriously… 18 bills in one state? You’re kidding, right?

  5. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    I’m surprised that the Speaker was so taken by uterus.

    Most guys I know are MUCH more interested in the vagina.

    Guess he was less concerned with the playground and more so about the factory!

  6. filistro says:

    This seems like a good place to post the political quote of the day, from embattled Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi, speaking on a radio talk show about his upcoming sex trial:

    “In a survey for girls between 20-23 years old, they were asked, would you sleep with Berlusconi? 33% said: yes. 67% said: what, again?” – Silvio Berlusconi

  7. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    fili,

    Reminds me of the old joke:

    In a survey of Italian men, when asked; What do you do immediately after sex”? 67% responded: “Go home to my wife.”

  8. Monotreme says:

    I just want to say that puns in Latin are the most fun we can have on this blog. Thanks, Michael Weiss, for the E Uterus Unum pun. Also, one of the other editors noticed my juxtaposition of “uterus” with “utter”.

    I found out later that the two words have completely different etymologies, so they’re just assonant.

    Uterus, utter, uterque.

  9. mizunogirl says:

    Florida! the land of criminal governors…of course they have 18 bills to regulate something that is really not affecting the sad state of unemployment, or the sad state of housing, or the sad state of education, what can we say.

    I suppose we could say… “Uterus”

  10. filistro says:

    mizunogirl… welcome… I like your style! (That’s an awesome gravatar :-))

    And Treme… when pondering etymology we must also consider the fact that removal of the uterus is known as a “hysterectomy”…. thus “removing the cause of the hysteria”.

    It’s a man’s world, truly.

  11. teevagirl says:

    I have thought about this all day. It comes back to a simple truth..This is my body no government no one should have the right to take that part of myself away.

  12. teevagirl says:

    It all comes down to abortion. I hope we know that is the last choice. The first choice is birth control..I hope it is the thing we can agree on. I suppose FLA would like to use an Axe..

  13. Gator says:

    This whole thing is ridiculous. This ‘article’ above is full of misleading crap. The issue under discussion was business regulations. The Dem that made the statement about his wife’s uterus neglected to mention that his wife is a Democratic activist, the former campaign manager for… wait for it… Alan Grayson. They were formulating a way to get attention. SHE came up with the phrase as a way to instigate a media frenzy. SHE gave him the line to use knowing that given the venue and the topic that was ACTUALLY under discussion it would garner lots of media attention. The Florida speaker DID NOT ban the use of the word. He did indicate that his feeling was that legislators shouldn’t be provocateurs and that decorum in speech was important. I think he over-reacted a bit to the word. He rose to the bait. And that is exactly what it was… intentional eye-poking and political grandstanding.
    If you are going to write about something, maybe you should know about it first.

    There are 18 abortion bills only if you want to make a loud headline splash. There are 5 ‘pro-choice’ (as per Planned Parenthood as shown in the link) bills under consideration and 9 ‘anti-choice’ bills. The Senate and House have duplicate bills for a number of these and therein comes the “18 ABORTION BILLS IN FLORIDA LEGISLATURE” nonsense.

    Many of the ‘anti-choice’ bills are regarding things like parental notification for minors seeking abortions, “Choose Life” license plates, bans on abortions past 20 weeks etc. In other words things that are either not directly related to the legality and availability of abortions, or things that should be open for discussion regarding the parameters of abortion services. And of course there are a couple of looney-tunes pieces of legislation attempting outright bans and so forth. So what? There are ALWAYS a couple of nutty abortion bills floating around in virtually every state house in the country.

    http://www.floridaplannedparenthood.org/legislative-issues/current-legislation/current-legislation

    I’m still waiting for the gutless coward that deleted my posts to acknowledge it and apologize. No compunction against dumping my comments because I embarassed you, but not enough guts to admit it and defend your stupidity or apologize. Typical.

  14. filistro says:

    What’s truly ridiculous is that the government is apparently going to shut down simply because the Democrats refuse to defund Planned Parenthood.

    All sides seem to agree that the numbers are now pretty much acceptable, but it’s the “riders” that remain the stumbling block.

    If the Republicans actually go ahead with this, they will destroy themselves.. and rightly so.

    And Gator… messages are deleted if they are abusive or grossly obscene. A few of the moderators here have been known to have their messages deleted, more than once… and will continue to do so if they are unable to restrain themselves 😉

  15. Gator says:

    Mine were neither abusive nor grossly (or even slightly) obscene. It was retribution for embarassing someone. Punitive, plain and simple… and pathetic. I have to debate with people whom I routinely make look silly, and yet those very same people have the ability to delete my comments at will. I guess this is the far left’s idea of “level playing field”. When this arose, I emailed Mr U to complain about this stupidity. He said that I enjoy beating up on liberals and that he was just protecting you all. Gutless cowards.
    If it was justified/justifiable then whomever chose to do it should defend their reasoning or apologize.

  16. shortchain says:

    Gator,

    The only person you regularly embarrass here is yourself.

    To whit, the “it’s not 18 anti-abortion bills, it’s only 9”. Go to the link you provided. Count the bills. There are 18 anti-abortion bills listed.

    Now, you may regard some of these as not anti-abortion — but that’s your opinion, now isn’t it?

  17. filistro says:

    Gator… DO you enjoy “beating up on liberals?”

    Because “beating up” on anybody, liberal or conservative, is not the purpose of this site. There are other places to do that. We’re really trying our best to achieve what’s on the masthead.. “Reasonable political discourse.”

    We’re all human, and there are times when we fail and fall short… but we do keep trying. 🙂

  18. Gator says:

    SC you once again demonstrate your reading comprehension issues. YOU go look at the link and compare the HBs and the SBs and you will see, as I noted, that they are the same bills, just reproductions of the other chambers bill.

    For example this: Parental Notice of Abortion HB 1247

    and this: Parental Notice of Abortion SB 1770

    are the same piece of legislation. They will not be passed as two pieces of legislation, were they to pass, but rather as a single bill. This is not two bills, this is one bill. I clearly explained that in the original post. Not too bright are you?

  19. shortchain says:

    Gator,

    Except that they are, by definition, different bills, with different numbers.

    How many pass or don’t pass has no bearing on that.

  20. Gator says:

    I don’t ‘beat up’ on people. I disprove foolish statements and correct erroneous opinions. If you don’t want me calling someone moronic then instruct them not to BE moronic. I calls ’em likes I see’s ’em.

  21. Gator, you are sadly mistaken. Your comments were directed at shortchain, who has zero authority to moderate this site. Once you two devolved into ad hominems, those were the ones that were deleted.

  22. Gator says:

    SC you want to argue semantics and the minutiae of how bills are labeled. I want to talk about the political shenanigans at play.

    However for just a moment let’s play your stupid game. Were those various bills to pass the Florida legislature and become law, how many laws would be enacted? Unless and until you can answer that question, you are in no position to opine on the Florida legislation as you clearly have no understanding of the process. Here is a hint- the answer isn’t 18, the number of bills you claim there are. So if there are 18 bills and they all passed, how could there possibly not be 18 new laws? And yet there wouldn’t be.

  23. Gator says:

    MW you misunderstood. I know SC didn’t dump my comments. He takes my jibes with reasonable aplomb. Whomever did it, did it as retribution for previous threads and the embarassment from those threads. I discussed this wth Mr U at the time. Those comments, mine and Shorty’s, were not outside of the boundaries of civil discourse. It was an unwarranted, punitive action. So it is you who are sadly mistaken.

  24. Gator says:

    In fact MW, at the time Mr U tried to justify the deletions by saying that I had been profane in another thread but was ‘allowed’ to leave my post up. I showed him that in fact he was wrong about that and that what he referenced weren’t my words but a copy of a linked article. He acknowledged that he was wrong and further said that it didn’t matter because he was standing behind the moderator even if he/she was wrong as well.

    In other words, it doesn’t matter if we were wrong, your comments are still deleted. You are not ‘one of us’. That was the same discussion wherein he accused me of beating up on libs. Gotta’ love that fairness – level playing field thing. Cowards.

  25. Gator says:

    BTW Michael, those weren’t ad hominem arguments. An ad hominem would be if I said ‘SC is wrong about position A because he is a mathematician and everyone knows they are schmucks, so he can’t be correct’. I simply called him a moron. That is not an ad hominem, simply an observation.

  26. Gator, this is the last I’m going to say about it. Anything else you take up offline.

    I pulled both yours and his comments because they had devoled into personal attacks. At the time, we were having trouble with the comments on the site shifting more to personal attacks and less to the topics at hand, and I was trying to keep things from devolving further. It wasn’t punitive, nor was it retributive. And since I was the one who did it, I’m probably the best judge of the state of mind.

  27. Monotreme says:

    The number 18 came from the linked source, the Miami Herald.

    If you don’t like the accounting, take it up with them.

  28. drfunguy says:

    “Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions.” -Wikipedia

    Hmm. Gator, even if Shortchain were a moron it has nothing to do with the logical merits of his argument. Classic ad hominem per this definition.

  29. Gator says:

    @ drfunguy – But I wasn’t using it as refutation to his argument. He had no argument. I was merely commenting on a state of being. Observationally, if you will.

    Quality research there, Treme. Quote the Herald. ‘Cuz newspapers never use inflammatory/attention grabbing ledes or storylines, so you’re always safe assuming the validity of everything in them. Nice.

    MW you were wrong. They were not abusive. At least you manned up and I know who did the foul deed. Took you a while.

    To all the ‘lefties’ – aren’t you glad these guys are keeping you safe from my scathing commentary? Max you should thank them for protecting you… because I know that’s what you want. Protection from my biting wit. LOL!
    Same for the rest of you. Sleep tight knowing you’re safe from being called an idiot. And thank the lords and ladies of this little fiefdom for their beneficence and protection. LMAO!

  30. shortchain says:

    Gator,

    So, according to you, if one of the bills is pulled or fails to make it through committee, that automatically kills at least one other bill.

    If that is so, please let me know.

    If not, then the bills are, indeed, different bills, no matter what your personal opinion says.

    Also, if one bill is amended, then that automatically amends the other bill, right?

    If not, then they are different bills.

    Just correct me here.

    Thanks.

  31. drfunguy says:

    For the record, I don’t see the need to delete comments. But its not my house.
    Our host is generally gracious in allowing our, sometimes noisy, discussions in his livingroom and if he sees the need to clean up certain messes that is his perogative.
    If I thought he was deleting substantive material I would be annoyed but I have no reason to think that is the case.

  32. shortchain says:

    For the record, and as a person who had some comments deleted, I didn’t have a problem with it, nor will I have a problem with it if somebody wants to delete them again.

  33. Gator says:

    SC it was fun but I’m not going to argue this silliness. The point of the piece was seemingly to belittle Florida. And to use inflammatory headlines to do so. The House and Senate each have the same base bill. They work them and resolve them and they become one bill that is voted on by both houses. You know this. And you know that this is utter obfuscation and has nothing to do with my point. I notice you couldn’t refute the political nonsense that I alleged… because it’s true. I notice that you fail to acknowledge that the inflammatory language intentionally inflates the ‘abortion’ legislation before the FL Congress and goes so far as to include the ‘pro-choice’ legislation in the total to make it look more outrageous, knowing that people will, as many seemed to on here, assume that ‘abortion bills’ can only mean one thing. It’s disingenous crap and I don’t blame you for trying to nit-pick a semantic nothing in order to hide from the much larger ugly truth. You failed miserably, but I understand why you tried.

  34. Monotreme says:

    Gator,

    The point of the piece was seemingly to belittle Florida. And to use inflammatory headlines to do so.

    As the author of said piece, I’m 100% certain you missed my point.

  35. Gator says:

    drfunguy said:”If I thought he was deleting substantive material I would be annoyed but I have no reason to think that is the case.”

    Well to your point, SC was involved in the discourse so you are probably correct.

    Now see, this might get deleted. Which would be ridiculous. There should be some latitude for clever. LOL!
    All kidding aside, my problem is that the people that I argue with have a power over me that is unilateral. There is no fairness there. Mediators SHOULD NOT be commenters. You guys already have the deck completely stacked and it isn’t enough. As an ugly little coup de grace – irritate someone and they delete your comments. Pathetic. If you want fairness, make specific guidelines. When you leave it up to personal discretion then it is inherently biased and unfair. It would seem that at least one of you would be smart enough to know that.

  36. shortchain says:

    Gator,

    I notice you didn’t answer either of my questions. Can we take it then, that:
    1. The bills all have different numbers (that is, they are different bills under the law).
    2. Their fates are individual.
    3. Amendments to one are not amendments to the others.

    Now, I understand that you don’t want to admit that the GOP in Florida has basically gone berserk. And I appreciate your position.

    Consider this: just because the bills are similar, in fact, almost identical, that does not mean that only one of them needs to be counted. After all, the purpose of all these bills is to elevate the status of what we might call “in utero humans” (AKA embryos) to higher status by making it more difficult for the person whose uterus they happen to inhabit to take actions in support of their rights, and interfere in decisions between a woman and her doctor. In that sense, they’re all the same…

    As for inflammatory language, well, I’ve got a tin (asbestos?) ear for that sort of thing. You may have noticed.

    But then, my reading skills are so poor that I thought the blog entry was about the desire, on the part of the GOP speaker in Florida, to prevent the word “uterus” from being uttered on the floor.

    And, just to top it off, let me just say: uterus! uterus! uterus!

  37. Gator says:

    Then what was the point, Treme? Your assertion that uterus was to not be said in chambers was wrong. The ’18 Abortion Bills’ is a disingenous load of crap. Oh and you included a link to help someone incorporate a uterus in the state of Florida. What exactly was your point?

  38. drfunguy says:

    Gator
    Maybe you should try Free Republic for a while. Then perhaps you’ll appreciate how good we have it here. Personally I don’t see the need to constantly denigrate those with whom you disagree.

  39. Gator says:

    SC said: “After all, the purpose of all these bills is to elevate the status of what we might call “in utero humans” (AKA embryos) to higher status by making it more difficult for the person whose uterus they happen to inhabit to take actions in support of their rights, and interfere in decisions between a woman and her doctor.”

    You really aren’t very bright. Exactly how many and which of these bills attempt this? Be specific. And please show the wording that accomplishes these goals.

    And here is the FL Speaker on the assertion that he was trying to ban the word uterus:

    Randolph said he was chastised by GOP leaders for saying ‘uterus’ on the floor.

    “That is silly,” Cannon, R-Winter Park, told reporters this morning. Cannon said he hasn’t spoken with Randolph, D-Orlando, in weeks.

    The Speaker said he never banned the use of the word ‘uterus’ and went on to bash Randolph, who used the term during debate on a union bill.

    “One of the reasons why he is probably one of the least effective members of the Democratic caucus is he substitutes things that have provocative value or shock value rather than making a policy argument,” Cannon said. “Not only have I not spoken to him, not reprimanded him, nor had any conversation with him, we haven’t banned the word uterus from the floor.”

    Continue to ignore this Democratic game playing all you want. The above article is full of incorrect information and is, quite franlky, garbage.

  40. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Gator,

    Ah’m shore glad y’all threw in that “LOL” in that comment! Michael or no, you have MY permission to call me names anytime my arguments can be shown (not opined) to be incorrect. I’ll STILL buy you that beer! (Two, if you come up with something I’ve never been called before!) Besides, it’ll help you drown those tears over that Butler comeback in the last minutes of the second half!

    I, too, have been hit by Sir Michael with deletions. I, too, consider at least a couple grossly inappropriate (The “BJU” ones, MW) and without true justification. But, overall, I AM a guest at the site. I know the moderators and Mr. U’s published guidelines and while it may piss me off to be censored, I’ll admit to prior knowledge. Particularly when I also know that Sir Michael has censored OTHER mods, the matter is just a part of the deal. If the other mods have made the deal such for themselves, I can go along with them.

    If one doesn’t like the house rules one can always simply GTFO! I always have that option should I feel it so warrant, as we all do.

  41. Gator says:

    Max said: “If one doesn’t like the house rules one can always simply GTFO! I always have that option should I feel it so warrant, as we all do.”

    Sound advice, my friend. I wanted to know what POS had deleted my words. I now know. This is such a slanted and unfriendly place that I think GTFO is the absolutely correct prescription for what ails me. Ya’ll enjoy patting each other on the back and telling each other how smart you are. It is one very long monologue in here. I was hoping for dialogue.

  42. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Awww Gator, don’t be a wuss!

  43. Monotreme says:

    Gator said:

    Continue to ignore this Democratic game playing all you want. The above article is full of incorrect information and is, quite franlky, garbage.

    I was hoping for dialogue.

    Thanks for sharing your point of view. I can certainly see how your comment is designed to help promote reasoned dialogue.

  44. Pingback: Free Forum Friday April 8 Edition | 538 Refugees

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s