She just doesn't get it

What is it with some of our lawmakers trying to challenge commonly held ideas in our government? First it was David Obey trying to convince people that war wasn't free. Now it's Barbara Boxer trying to convince people that someone other than old, white conservative men from rural states are the best judges of what to do with a woman's body. Furthermore, she's trying to do it by noting obvious hypocrisies in what Ben Nelson's abortion bill allows for women and what the current bill allows for men.

BOXER: There’s nothing in this amendment that says if a man some days wants to buy Viagra, for example, that his pharmaceutical coverage cannot cover it, that he has to buy a rider. I wouldn’t support that. And they shouldn’t support going after a woman using her own private funds for her reproductive health care. Is it fair to say to a man you’re going to have to buy a rider to buy Viagra and this will be public information that could be accessed? No, I don’t support that. I support a man’s privacy, just as I support a woman’s privacy.

Babs, I think our government had been extremely clear about one thing: lady parts are icky, boners are awesome.

I know you might think that it's somewhat hypocritical that we have bills to regressively restrict actual medical procedures for women, co-sponsored by what looks like the roster for Satan's baseball team, while we deem it OK for hard-on pills to get covered. But that's probably because your ladybrain got confused as to whether you have dominion over your own body and the extent to which hard-ons are radical. Don't let it happen again.