General Discussion

Horse with no Name

(33,956 posts) Sat Mar 17, 2012, 10:27 AM Mar 2012

There needs to be a VAGINA amendment to the Constitution

And it needs to state that if you do NOT have a VAGINA..then you cannot legislate one.

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

There needs to be a VAGINA amendment to the Constitution (Original Post) Horse with no Name Mar 2012 OP

Similarly - we need a penis amendment. geckosfeet Mar 2012 #1

Penises don't seem to be an underclass. n/t Horse with no Name Mar 2012 #2

Could Republicans rise to the occasion? rfranklin Mar 2012 #3

Maybe rush could give them some of his illegal Viagra that he uses on his kiddy sex junkets? n/t Horse with no Name Mar 2012 #4

How about a "personhood amendment" for women? vixengrl Mar 2012 #5

How about, even if you do have one, you can't legislate one. hughee99 Mar 2012 #6

geckosfeet

(9,644 posts)

1. Similarly - we need a penis amendment.

Reply to Horse with no Name (Original post)

Sat Mar 17, 2012, 10:30 AM

Mar 2012

But that is already implied. It just needs to be made explicit so that there is no room for error.

Horse with no Name

(33,956 posts)

2. Penises don't seem to be an underclass. n/t

Reply to geckosfeet (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 17, 2012, 10:37 AM

Mar 2012

rfranklin

(13,200 posts)

3. Could Republicans rise to the occasion?

Reply to Horse with no Name (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 17, 2012, 10:44 AM

Mar 2012

That's a hard question!

Horse with no Name

(33,956 posts)

4. Maybe rush could give them some of his illegal Viagra that he uses on his kiddy sex junkets? n/t

Reply to rfranklin (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 17, 2012, 10:47 AM

Mar 2012

vixengrl

(2,686 posts)

5. How about a "personhood amendment" for women?

Reply to Horse with no Name (Original post)

Sat Mar 17, 2012, 11:02 AM

Mar 2012

This seems like a good start.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)

6. How about, even if you do have one, you can't legislate one.

Reply to Horse with no Name (Original post)

Sat Mar 17, 2012, 12:49 PM

Mar 2012

Better to be safe than sorry.

Reply to this discussion