Add birth control to the growing list of taboos in the Florida House of Representatives. House leaders threw out a proposal yesterday that would make April 12 “Birth Control Matters Day,” because House Rules Committee chair Gary Aubuchon, R-Cape Coral, thought the resolution was “controversial.”

This newest installment of women’s-topics-that-make-Florida-legislators-uncomfortable comes on the heels of a dust-up over the word “uterus” last week.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, Aubuchon rejected the proposal by Rep. Evan Jenne, D-Dania Beach, because “it did not meet the standards for ceremonial resolution.”

In an email sent to Jenne, staff director Stephanie Birtman explained that “Ceremonial Resolutions should express condolence, commendation, or commemoration and should not contain controversial policy statements.” Apparently, Jenne’s proposal did not fit the bill — even though the proposal makes reference to the societal benefits of birth control and endorses public funding for it.

Planned Parenthood organizers are set to rally against anti-abortion measures that Florida legislators have pursued without any discernible discomfort today. Aubuchon’s actions drew a line between the legislature’s views on restricting access to abortions and limiting the need for them in the first place.

0 Shares:
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

PHOTOS: Occupy Miami supporters march on Bank of America

About 200 people, representing a diverse array of organizations and unions, marched in Miami on Tuesday to demand accountability from Bank of America and to support the Occupy Miami movement. The protest came on the same day Bank of America announced it is dropping a controversial proposal to charge $5 for using debit card use.

According to docs, blocking Amendment 6 one of Brown, Diaz-Balart’s ‘official duties’: News. Politics. Media

Financial records for two Florida congresspeople indicate that legal expense funds associated with their offices were created in order to defray legal costs that arise in connection with official duties and position in Congress — so why is that money being used to sue to block a Florida constitutional amendment that will handicap politicians' ability to gerrymander districts?