Here is how I assume this meeting went:
Male Republican Senator 1: Fellows, I have some alarming news. It seems that, for reasons we have yet to discern, people at the polls are reacting differently to terms like “pro-life.”
Male Republican Senator 2: Not people, sir. Women.
Male Republican Senator 3: True, Kevin, true. Now, we don’t know what’s causing this. Maybe they just got tired of the letter L. Or they don’t like that pro-life contains seven distinct letters with no repetition.
Male Republican Senator 4: But so does pro-choice.
Senator 1: No, that has two O’s.
Male Republican Senator 5: Hmm!
Senator 1: Much to discuss. What about this slogan has made it so off-putting to these people …
Senator 1: Sorry, vessels — when it used to be so, well, on-putting before? It’s got to be the letters, somehow. Or the word “life” now evokes something unpleasant to them, because of the rising rents and temperatures. Whatever it is, we need to stop it before it develops into a problem, as is our absolute right.
Senator 4: Could it have something to do with the policies?
Senator 1: Say more, Todd.
Senator 4: Maybe people …
Senator 2: Baby-containers.
Senator 4: Sorry, yes — maybe they see “pro-life” and then the first thing that springs to mind are the stories about states whose blanket abortion bans have forced child victims of rape to give birth. Or women who have been forced to carry nonviable pregnancies to term, or wait dangerously long times to receive medical care. Or they look in the news and see the attorney general of Alabama is threatening to prosecute anyone who helps with interstate travel for someone trying to obtain an abortion. Or they see the towns that are trying to create checkpoints on their highways to prevent “abortion trafficking” and they think, “Yikes, we can’t travel now? What a terrifying and broad-reaching curtailing of rights!” And then they look at all our policies to help after the babies are born …
Senator 5: What policies?
Senator 4: Well, exactly. And these people …
Senator 2: Wombs with legs.
Senator 4: Sorry, yes. They think, if this is “pro-life,” I don’t like it. I will be voting for the opposite of whatever this is. Maybe that’s why they’ve soured on the slogan.
Senator 1: No, I think it’s the slogan.
Senator 3: It’s got to be the slogan.
Senator 2: Nothing satisfies those incubators!
Senator 5: I’ve got an idea. How about we describe the policy as “pro-baby”?
Senator 5: Details, details.
Senator 3: Look, if there is one thing I know as a masculine legislator who has never once had the law encroach on my bodily autonomy — as a person who, if someone wanted to access my kidney after my demise, would still have to actively consent, I don’t understand their problem. Our laws are great.
Senator 1: They are. They’re all winners. Maybe we just need to put an exclamation point after “pro-life.” Pro-life! Maybe that does it.
Senator 5: That sounds pretty good. I have studied them for years and I think I once communicated with one.
Senator 1: What did it say?
Senator 5: “Hello,” I think. If only there were some way of knowing what they wanted! They’re so mysterious! If only they were able to communicate their desires and preferences with us, say, by speaking. Like people.
Senator 3: I am confident that I speak on behalf of every woman when I say, We ladies don’t care about the assault on our bodily autonomy. We just need a slightly different slogan. Maybe one that is pink. Women love pink, I, a male legislator, think. And wine and things written on driftwood!
Senator 1: Maybe “pro-life” but all the letters are pink and the “I” has a little heart on top of it? Is that anything? Or one that says, “This Barbie Doesn’t Need Reproductive Autonomy.” Did anyone see “Barbie”?
Senator 3: No, but I sent a letter saying I disapproved.
Senator 2: Idea! Are we sure they need to vote?
Credit: Source link
