On the heels of a controversial “heartbeat bill” that limits abortion access in the state, the Georgia General Assembly swung back into action during Monday’s session with discussion of another reproductive rights bill, this time limiting access to birth control.
The birth control ban, outlined in Provisions 3 through 9 of the state’s newly proposed 2019 Georgia Welfare and Social Services Expansion Health Bill, would effectively eliminate the sale of condoms, patches, sponges and diaphragms in the state, as well as placing penalty on the report or discovery of practices like the rhythm method, pulling out, felching, and the loads-to-the-face and loads-to-the-tits methods. Noting their other applications, one provion states that oral contraceptives will be repurposed, although prescription for the sole purpose of birth control would be strictly prohibited. Yet another provision restricts access to intravenous birth control as well as tubal ligation or vasectomy surgeries.
The bill also outlines and endorses a state recommended “three squirt suggestion”. Upon the recommendation of the State Surgeon General, it is suggested that during intercourse, the man should remain inside the woman for the first three spasms of ejaculation before saying “oops, sorry, my bad,” and retracting to allow the rest of the ejaculate to spill between her buttcheeks and onto the seat of the pickup truck.
An early criticism of the bill — pointing non-specifically but especially to the language used in the “three squirt suggestion” — had several lawmakers take the floor to label the legislation as discriminatory and “anti-gay”. An open-floor discussion on the matter brought the lawmakers to agree that the bill should include language that allows for ejaculating during anal intercourse, but only in cases where it seems reasonable to believe that conception can occur using such a method. State Democrats agreed to hear the bill if those revisions were made, and the bill is expected to be rewritten in committee and presented again Friday, following the Incest Bill vote.
“They thought they were going to slip that anti-gay stuff past us,” said one Georgia Democrat. “But we sure outfoxed ’em.”
For more from The Brown Valley Observer, follow us on Facebook.
But it was Kamala Harris that said she smoked pot and listened to Tupac.(not Elizabeth Warren) I know it’s satire ,but there are a shit ton of twisted folks that cannot tell the difference !! Especially including teens and twenty somethings… I have a 21 yr. old…. rising Sr. Physics major….. he calls EVERYTHING I watch fake news. (it appears that kids these days are into YouTube…Pewtie Pie, Owen Benjamin,Steven Crowder… Is this “normal” ? I truly haven’t watched or followed.) OUR WORLD IS SO FUCKED UP !! I was a teen in the 70s… Roe V Wade had just passed. And I thank God for it. (Now, Ms. Warren may have listened to Huey !! I certainly did… early/mid 80s !!) The world was at peace…. at least it seemed that way…. I was in my 20s and the music was good…. I believe we were only worried about Emelda Marcos’ shoes !! Be good !
I think you posted this comment on the wrong article … but the Kamala Harris angle was directly addressed in the Warren article.
“Confessing to youthful indiscretions and guilty pleasures has been a stalwart tactic of 2020 Democratic candidates, and Warren hopes the admission — which resembles Kamala Harris’ well publicized confession that she smoked marijuana and traveled to the future to listen to Snoop Dogg and Tupac while she was at college — will help her gain traction with younger voters.”
Many of these articles are designed to make light of how the media covers the candidates as opposed to directly making fun of the candidates, themselves. In short, that article could have been written about any candidate, and Warren was chosen to be the subject more randomly than for any other reason (the “peace pipe” opportunity probably sealed that. Frankly, I think Warren is one of the better candidates running for the nomination.
That the media panders by taking about which bands these folks enjoyed in the 1980s is just silly to begin with, and oftentimes a distraction from their individual causes.
Take note: because of his ever shifting persona, I’ve written 3 articles about Beto O’Rourke’s image (so far … who knows how many more times we’ll see this). I still have no clue if Beto O’Rourke is a good candidate or not, he might be really great and no one really gets the chance to know. In two years, the media has covered his Hispanic heritage (which doesn’t actually exist, he’s Welsh-Irish), that he’s blue-collar (he’s married into a multimillionaire family with no significant work history), and his “punk rock” and “hacktivist” roots, but really nothing on policy. Now he’s resetting again because, more or less, he realizes that he’s come across as “inauthentic”. (Really, Robert Francis, you’re coming across as inauthentic? Pull my other leg!) Maybe he’d inspire more people if he wasn’t recreating himself as a new person every few months to pander and just focused and spoke in earnest about the issues. That would be a significant step-up for his campaign.
I played in metal and punk bands for over 20 years, and I just don’t give a shit that Beto O’Rourke played in some. None of my old punk buddies do, either, they’re disgusted that they’re being pandered to and told that they’re essentially responsible to prop up a candidate based around his music tastes from 20-30 years ago. And, to be honest, if any of my old punk buddies were running for office, I can think of very few that have what it takes to get my vote. “Issues, not hipness” would be a great message for Democrats to send to the DNC and/or these individual campaigns.