Home » Featured »Missouri »Politics/Policy » Currently Reading:

Readers Not OK With Legislators Introducing “Bait” Bills

March 27, 2019 Featured, Missouri, Politics/Policy No Comments
Missouri Capital, Jefferson City, MO, April 2011

When I first read about a Missouri legislator’s bills requiring gun ownership I quickly became upset. I became more upset when I read he’d introduced them to “bait the left.” Then I remembered applauding when I heard about a bill in Georgia:

HB 604 would amend Chapter 1 of Title 35 of the Official Code of Georgia so that “any male 55 years of age or older shall immediately report to the county sheriff or local law enforcement agency when such male releases sperm from his testicles.”

The bill was sponsored by five female Democratic representatives, including Rep. Dar’Shun Kendrick (D-Lithonia). 

Kendrick made waves online after she tweeted she intended to introduce a “testicular bill of rights” that would seek to regulate male sex organs. It was in response to the House’s passage of HB 481, dubbed the “heartbeat abortion bill,” that would ban abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected – usually at around 6 weeks. (WCNC)

Most likely this is a case of people object to such bills when they’re opposed to the point being made. Although the Georgia bill is in response to other legislation that had passed, that’s not the case with the Missouri bills.

Here are the non-scientific results of the recent Sunday Poll:

Agree or disagree: I’m OK with legislators introducing bills simply to “bait” those with opposing views.

  • Strongly agree: 1 [3.57%]
  • Agree: 2 [7.14%]
  • Somewhat agree: 1 [3.57%]
  • Neither agree or disagree: 2 [7.14%]
  • Somewhat disagree: 2 [7.14%]
  • Disagree: 5 [17.86%]
  • Strongly disagree: 15 [53.57%]
  • Unsure/No Answer: 0 [0%]

— Steve Patterson

 

Comment on this Article:

Advertisement



FACEBOOK POSTS

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe