On March 31st, 2011, in a floor debate in the Florida House of Representatives about the coordinated attack on privacy and women’s health, Representative Scott Randolph said “if my wife’s uterus was incorporated,” the legislature “would be talking about deregulating.”
The House leadership then added freedom of speech to its targets by formally chastising Rep. Randolph for using the word “uterus.” His spokesman said that “uterus” was “language that would be considered inappropriate for children and other guests.”
In a chamber where little over 20% of the legislators are women, how can we trust that legislators take women’s health seriously when they’ve decided that talking about a woman’s body is inappropriate? How can we trust that politicians respect free speech when they move to muzzle a fellow legislator who is speaking about a bill?
The truth is, we can’t. Real talk about women’s health is not inappropriate speech and should not be silenced, no matter how much those trying to regulate women’s bodies don’t like it. Protect yours: incorporate it.
25 comments
Leave a Reply
Share This Site!
Oh no. Not the “U” word! LMAO! Maybe they would have felt better about it if he had called it a woowoo.
LOL… great story/truthful account. What a joke? Anybody who’s lived in Tallahassee know the capital buildings’ phallic shaped architecture could only be described as a rocket ship by it’s crew.
LMAO. Typical nonsense. We all need to be informed – and VOTE!
would ‘baby maker’ be more appropriate? how about ‘the oven’? no?
That’s why you should look into EMILY’s list, the political organization dedicated to supporting and electing progressive, pro-choice women to all levels of government. It is absolutely pathetic that decades after supposed equality, women still make up a measly 20-25% of our congress.
How is a uterus family-inappropriate? Don’t the Florida House conservatives know where babies come from? Somebody should let them know that children come out of uteruses. That, or I guess Florida conservative constituents don’t consider a preschool-level grasp of the birds and bees a candidacy issue.
I agree with the concept that incorporation would DISCOURAGE regulation by Republicans…*however* ladies – you have to accept the full results of that deal…hands off means HANDS OFF – in other words, if we want the govt out of it, we cannot seek funding to do as we please with it. I think this is where too many women show a great deal of hypocrisy – let’s stand up – 100% – when we say get out – we mean it.
I don’t think that argument holds up, JH. We have the right to liberty, and the right to privacy, but we also have the right to health and happiness. Poor women have unequal access to good health when health care is only provided through certain jobs with certain employers or private purchase. It is the government’s role to support health care so that everyone, regardless of their employment status or income (or any other factor), has access to health services.
“If we want the govt out of it, we cannot seek funding to do as we please with it…”
What country is JH from? Surely not the US.
The precedent here is more than clear: once we incorporate our uteri, we can go ahead and hire armies of K Street lobbyists who will win handsome subsidies on our behalf. If the government has cash to hand over to oil, ag, pharma, defense, and now the health insurance companies, surely there’s money to go around to provide women with contraception and the full range of reproductive health services.
If the feds pay private farming corps not to grow stuff, why shouldn’t they pay us not to have babies? If they subsidize oil production by private companies, why not subsidize private people production as well?
It’s brilliant, really. Why didn’t we think of this years ago?
Uh, hello, Medicare coverage of Viagra??? Why don’t we say family planning should be covered as a side-effect of treatment for ED?
It may interest you to know that a woman’s body is inseparable from her uterus. If I advocate for funding for healthcare, I’m advocating for funding for medical care of the WHOLE woman, not the woman minus her uterus. And yes, that includes decisions — MEDICAL decisions — on how to handle family planning. Whereas the idea on the other side of the fence is, “We’ll refuse to let you have any healthcare at all if that means you get to decide how you handle your family planning decisions. And, by the way, if you do it the way we want you to” (e.g., take a risk of pregnancy at each sexual encounter, whether said encounter is consensual or not) “we still won’t help you support the progeny of this venture. No assistance with food, nor education, nor healthcare, nada, zip, zilch.” That’s NOT an acceptable policy.
I used to think that the human body was a singularity also. Then I realized that was not true, at least in the medical profession. Your eyes are in a different category, as are your teeth. That’s the reason you need special insurance for those particular body parts.
can’t say uterus on the floor? how about intrauterine on television? what’s the punishment for that?
the golden girls were so ahead of their time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qIZFFfyfLw
I think Rep. Randolph was supposed to use the word ‘nunu’ in front of children and others with underdeveloped minds. (For example, Republicans.)
Maybe Rep. Scott Randolph should have immediately asked the House “Leadership” what phrase is permissible. What a joke!
Better yet, let’s get the names of all House “Leadership” members and start an email/media campaign to have them provide a list of phrases that are deemed :… inappropriate for children and other guests.”
I think they’d say “who-ha” or “lady-parts”.
Is it just female body parts that cause the GOP so much pain and anguish? ‘Nipple’, ‘breast’, ‘vagina’ must also send them into a frenzy. How about those male body parts? But then again, the use of those words would never be necessary. Republicans would never dream of legislating anything that involved male bodies…
I think the male member should always be referred to as “Little River” and the uterus as “Miami”
GOP…Keep your Boehner out of my Uterus?!!!!!!
And there’s no womb for compromise!
If they don’t like the use of the word, or even the notion of the term uterus, perhaps we can at least deduct mileage on our stork.
Those who neither have, nor have the ability to pronounce the clinical term of uterus should not, in any way, shape, form, or fashion, attempt to legislate, regulate, or otherwise place any legal mandate on said uterus.
The word, “uterus” is not slang, nor foul; the uterus is not derogatory, and having one is not a concept, thought, or object to be ashamed of. Those who are uncomfortable with the mere foreign concept of the proper clinical pronunciation of a woman’s reproductive system are specifically the ones who should not in any fashion associate with them, nor should they be preparing laws or regulations in regards to any woman’s uterus, vagina, breasts, medical rights and responsibilities, or clinical care.
Those who would create a platform of public chastisement of the utterance of the word “uterus” should be nowhere near a uterus of any sort – including reproduction, reproductive rights, and reproductive responsibilities – until such time as a proper, well-rounded, suitable education has been given in all such matters.
Which, as it turns out, is extremely unlikely, given the circumstances.
Sir, have you lost your mind?
My daughters, age 6, 9, and 11, are quite comfortable with the words “vagina” as well as “uterus” and “ovary” (and she has witnessed our cats and our dogs mating and getting stuck together (and later the puppies’ birth), as well as our fish breeding and our parakeet laying an egg).
Neither my wife nor I have observed any untoward effect on her (such as her being “anxious”, “uncomfortable”, “frightened”. I must assume from your comments that you no longer have an active sex life with your wife and that you suffer from some retained sense of guilt and embarrassment from the way your own father and mother taught you. Sir, for the love of God, you WORK in a building which looks like an Erect Penis!
I believe you’re doing our society a tremendous dis-service in “admonishing” or “censoring” any member of our elected leadership about their chosen method of speech. We are, in America, entitled to speak our minds – and I especially prefer our leadership have that freedom. If someone is stupid and not worth being in a leadership role, I’d like to hear that myself, rather than have that person “shushed”… and probably controlled… for you, or your cronies, best interests. Sir, you work for us, not the other way around. Perhaps you’ve forgotten that.
To do otherwise suggests of “smoke-filled rooms and back-room deals” which, though good for you as an individual, may not be good for the people who elected you.
I’m not sure where to put this, but it would be great if this website was trans-inclusive. Not everyone with a uterus who has pregnancy capabilities is a woman. I’m not.
H: welcome to the Uterati. You don’t have to have one to be a member. We’re the ACLU; all are welcome. We all came from a uterus. This site is about raising our voices about privacy and freedom from government intrusion into private medical decisions. Men are members; women who’ve had their uterus removed are members; I hope that trangender people are members.
hahahaha atta boys This is absolutely ridiculous lol