Stupak's Flaccid Amendment Needs No Viagra

03/18/2010 05:12 am ET | Updated May 25, 2011

Americans Against Chafing (A.A.C.) Unite!

Oh, yes, it's time. With the House passing a health care bill with the Stupak Amendment, we really need to start talking about this. The political cross-dressers, also known as "Blue Dogs" not only authored, but voted for the Uterus Police.

The Stupak Amendment insures that no federal funds, or federally-funded insurance companies, would be used for abortions.

On Saturday night, 21 of the 39 Democrats who voted for Stupak then proceeded to vote against the Health Care bill. One-hundred seventy-five Republicans voted for the amendment but against the bill. How about this: If your vote attaches an amendment to a bill you won't vote for, that nullifies your amendment vote. I know, it's the rules...but it feels like someone just ordered an entrée for me from a restaurant I don't like and now, not only am I forced to eat it-I'm stuck with the bill! Thanks, but no's making me bulimic.

Hallelujah, the bill is out of the House.

Moving right along, I need a Senator to step up for the Americans Against Chaffing (AAC) Amendment. (If you've ever been chafed, you'll understand the acronym.) Since Congress has decided to balloon government to exert rule over the uteruses of its citizens, maybe they need to think about where all those precious feti are coming from. What's good for the womb is good for the wiener. Do you hear the sweet, lilting strains of "Every Sperm is Sacred" yet?

You may have seen the ads on TV. America has worked hard to overcome its withering epidemic of erectile dysfunction. Apparently, a blue pill and side-by-side bathtubs help. Every pregnancy, wanted or unwanted, is a direct result of a man rising to the occasion and saluting his power over gravity. My God, think about how many federally-funded doctors' appointments are needed when "an erection lasts for more than four hours"! How many unwanted pregnancies could be prevented?

Here lies the problem and need for "reform". The government pays for E.D. medicines and treatments. There is a chance their "cure" will result in an unwanted pregnancy, and we just can't take that chance! Federal money to stiffen the manly morale, but no funding to pay for an abortion if the woman so chooses? We have to nip this in the pud! The same members of Congress who voted against the financial stimulus package would be hard pressed to vote against the stimulating more local packages.

The suggestion coming out of Washington is for women to buy supplemental insurance to cover an unwanted pregnancy. Really? Should the other gender do the same? Should the American people pay for personal erector sets? Shouldn't E.D. medications be considered an out of pocket expense? To use their language, erections have consequences.

While the US Senate is massaging the AAC Amendment, the great State of Oklahoma should take notes. You see, Senator Todd Lamb penned a spiffy little bill
requiring abortion providers fill out a 10-page questionnaire for each procedure, and then post details of abortions on a public website.

Hmmm...Maybe pharmacists and doctors ought to post E.D. prescription recipients and the coathangerreasons for required doses? After all, I understand abstinence education may confuse some people; it takes two to create an unwanted or wanted pregnancy.

I'm sure the E.D. challenges we hear about more often than swine flu are serious, personal and deserve treatment with or without federal funds. Why are the rights of women different? If it was "Christian" (read X-ian) values that prodded you to vote for the Stupak amendment and not the health care bill...I'd like to remind you, none of the messages of Christ were about abortion, but most of the miracles were about HEALING THE SICK!

As for Congressman Stupak and your "C Street Family Fraternity"; some advice: if you don't have a vagina, perhaps you ought not to write or vote for such an invasive and offensive amendment. You're from the wrong district.