Women Congress Reps, Banned for using the word "Vagina" Is this stupid?

That this whole thing is stupid.

Man what an orgasm *LOL*

Not only were their rights of freedom of speech infringed upon, the ones banning are definitely acting like penis-heads.

If you can't feel comfortable with someone saying vagina, you shouldn't be allowed to legislate about vagina.

Since when is using medical terminology inappropriate? If the Republican legislators don't want people using the word VAGINA--STOP LEGISLATING IT!!!

If they can't say it, they shouldn't try to legislate it.

Amen Karen, my sentiments exactly.

Currently in my mailbox: "Vagina, vagina, vagina" -- send a message to Michigan Republians. :) campaigns@dailykos.com.

Beyond stupid. Go back to the 17th Century, little scaredy-cats.

I like hoo-ha. :)

Was she suppose to use some inane drivel like va-jay jay or you-hoo? Something seriously wrong with the Republicans and their relationship to sex. I think there is some heavy duty sexual repression going on.

Raved

I think I could not find this story.

you can find it on Google

probably

One of the dumbest things I've ever heard. 52% of the population in fact HAVE a vagina, and the other 48% actually HAVE a penis. What's the big deal?

I don't think I know. I know a devil in a human is offended by vaginas, and all of the sexual organs, and all kinds of sex too. The devil is behind the adults only too, and the 18 year old limitation to see nude art.

If they used the word Penis they would have been all right!Those boys don't know what a vagina is,thats the problem,they think its something dirty,like their minds!

these male congress critters need to get an effing clue - if they are unable to discuss natural biological functions that affect all of us - we ALL (well, most of us, anyway) passed through a vagina ... what is the problem?

And if the baby didn't pass through the vagina, the sperm sure did!!!

they're prob afraid of arms and eyeballs too! ha ha ha!!!

Their behavior and crude usage of the word is what got them into trouble.

What word should they have used? "Coochie "perhaps? The word is anatomically correct as penis. Or do you call that a "wee-wee"?

I think you need to see/read for yourself. The word itself was not the problem as I have already stated. In fact see the next post down from Gracious.

I saw the video replay. Have you? You being a women, I'm rather taken aback by your attitude.

I have no doubt as a liberal you are taken back by the attitude of many traditional, God fearing women.

Oh so you're saying these two reps do not have a faith belief? Your faith belief is the only legit one? It speaks for everyone? That's religious bigotry.

You are free to call me anything you like Mel. I am certainly saying they aren't representing "whatever" faith they have or don't have very well.

I didn't call you anything Are you that paranoiac? For "Christs" sake. *LOL*

Excuse me, you IMPLIED it when you said that was religious bigotry. I believe in God's WORD if that is religious bigotry to you - then so be it.

ha ha ha ... G-d's word ... people who think they have heard G-d speaking are called psychotic!! ha ha ha!

Well sir - Thank God that there are QUITE A FEW of us psychotic people here in America. Try to get ANY president elected without us. How is that hope and change working for American right now?

It's working slowly but surely. This country wasn't established to be governed by your religious beliefs.

Not everyone agrees..........

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - - John Adams

"Not everyone agrees.........."

that's not what the US Constitution says.

They don't have to agree. Just don't interfere with the rest of us.

Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government. A number of the states effectively had established churches when the First Amendment was ratified, with some remaining into the early nineteenth century.

Subsequently, Everson v. Board of Education (1947) incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states). However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by the states. In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

remember: the US Constitution protects minorities from the (potential) tyranny of the majority/ies

protection of minorities from majorities does not constitute interference

Yes Mark many times it can constitute interference.

how would protection of minorities from majorities constitute interference?