Wait Bette Grande, I Have A Better Idea…

Dear Bette Grande,

I write to you today because I understand that your efforts toward limiting abortion in North Dakota are based in your firm belief in the sanctity of life.  While I may not necessarily agree with all your views, I recognize they are generated by a sincere belief that you are doing the right thing.  I applaud such conviction to one’s moral beliefs.

Because I understand the end result you seek Bette – and I hope you don’t mind if I call you Bette – I can tell you that I have a better idea that will accomplish your end result with much less opposition and legal wrangling.  It is an option that sits purely in the arena of regulated behavior and does not cross the line into government control over folks’ bodies.

So here is my idea: Don’t wait for pregnancy to engage in this whole sanctity of life discussion, nip it in the bud by legislating a preemptive strike. The preemptive strike will almost wholly remove the need to discuss abortion, will promote marriage, will reduce unplanned pregnancies, will create industry in the state, and will make North Dakota the talk of the nation.

And here it is – the preemptive strike – a law that requires condoms for all sexual interaction between males and females that are not married.  And I am not talking about those cheap condoms that tear, pop, or spring a leak when their wearer gets overly excited and within three feet of a vagina.  Oh, no…I am talking about industrial strength condoms made to government set specifications and tested vigorously until their incident of failure is below .0001.  Think about it, this whole debate about abortions can be dropped like a hot potato and we can go right to the root of the problem – those little swimmers intent on making their mark on a woman’s egg – sperm, the maker of babies everywhere.  The state can add a tax to these government approved condoms to cover the regulatory costs of the law and North Dakota businesses can compete to produce the quality of condoms required to meet the standard.  North Dakota will be on the front end of the most aggressive condom movement seen in the history of civilization.  I tell you Bette – it’s exciting!

Now before you scoff at the practical application of my idea, take a moment and think about the beauty of it all.  This approach – a statute that mandates use of a government approved condom during any sex act between a male and female (wherein the female is below age 55) that are not legally married to each other – will not only take care of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, it will also greatly reduce the spread of disease.  Think about the number of folks who will be forced to wait until they are married to create a family.  Think about the social ills that will be addressed as a byproduct of this progressive law.  From a pro-life perspective, this is one of the most forward thinking public health initiatives in the history of mankind!

Bette, I know what you are thinking.  Men will never agree to this intrusion in their private life…they will never agree to the inconvenience of having to wear a condom each and every time they have sex with a woman.  But wait, can they even logically argue against such a law?  After all, they can avoid the law entirely by waiting for sex until after marriage; and,  even if they choose to engage in sex before marriage – let’s face it – requiring men to wear a condom is a less onerous burden than requiring a woman to carry a baby to term against her wishes.  One law seeks to regulate behavior to a small extent and reach into folks’ bedrooms (and perhaps their kitchens, showers, cars, offices, etc. as well), and the other seeks to regulate someone’s body and life in a major way by reaching into a woman’s control over her own uterus.  Clearly, the lesser regulation should be the choice.

Bette, can you imagine the backlash against men should they put up a fuss about such a logical and sensible law?  Especially when the alternative may result in attempted termination of an embryo or fetus?  This is an idea that pro-life advocates can put all their weight behind. With a mandatory condom law, there will be no choice to make…can you get any more pro-life than that?

Yes, I get that it may radically change the way some folks enjoy sex in this state.  We all know that sex with a condom is different than sex without a condom.  But think about what a great reinforcement this law will be for the old adage, “Sex is better when you are married.”  With the condom law it might actually start ringing true.  There are all kinds of hidden perks in this law Bette…perks that will never be realized with legislation focused solely on abortion.

As you are aware, there is a long history in the United States of legislating areas surrounding sexual behavior that capitalizes on the vulnerability of others.  There is also a history of legislation that focuses on mandating certain steps to maintain folks’ general safety and well-being. This legislation will not only protect the health of both men and women, it will also protect the most vulnerable of all – the unintentional byproducts of such unprotected liaisons.  This will protect the fetus you seek to recognize as a viable human being at six weeks from ever being realized. This condom law could potentially eliminate the debate about abortion entirely.

Yes, that is the power of the codification of mandatory condom use in North Dakota.  No need to overturn Roe vs. Wade.  The twinkle in the condom wearer’s eye will never even result in an embryo…it will all be left in that glorious problem solver, the North Dakota sanctioned condom.  It really is as simple as that Bette.

Now, as with any law worth its snuff, there must be penalties for violators.  The penalties must be stringent enough to dissuade potential violators.  The responsibility of ensuring condom use under the law will necessarily fall on men.  I would suggest a $1,000 penalty for the first offense; a $3,000 penalty for the second offense; and chemical castration for two years for a third offense.  I think that should carry a sufficient deterrent effect.  Indeed, I bet men everywhere just cringed after reading the proposed penalties above.

I know I can count on you to sponsor this law Bette as it meets your moral agenda and will reduce the demand for abortions dramatically.  I believe in your ability to make it happen.  Once passed, it will only be a matter of time before other states create similar laws using North Dakota’s successful law as a model.  I suggest the law be referred to in shorthand as the Condom Code.

I realize that the making of law is much more complicated than just tossing out an idea as I have here, but I have faith that you are capable of fleshing out the minutia of the law.  And of course I would be more than happy to testify to how much more sensible the Condom Code is than additional restrictions on abortion.  I am right behind you on this one Bette…me and my uterus.


Ms. C

Day one thousand three hundred and fifty-one of the new forty – obla di obla da

Ms. C

21 Responses

  1. dottie

    Your dripping sarcasm reads like a 8th grade book report.
    How about instead of trying your hand at comedy, you consider only dropping your panties for a man you are in a relationship with?
    Realize the laws you fear changing do one thing alone: protect unborn humans from being killed. You clearly have been living in an educational setting for so long they’ve taught the common sense right outta ya.

    1. lisa jennings

      Dottie: your hatred of privacy, women’s health and choice spits from your fetus freak piehole. Modern people do not like the slow death of children not wanted, abused, starved and prefer SAFE legal medical procedures for abortion – an act that has been with humanity since the dawn of time.

      You are the one that lacks common sense, empathy and tolerance for a private life decision that DOES NOT IMPACT YOU IN ANY WAY. How about pulling your panties over your mouth and mind you own business.

  2. Amy

    Go CC!! I am tired of legislators forcing their beliefs on me. What I believe should be between my conscience and any one I choose to share it with (or not). I don’t have a right to force my beliefs on Bette- why should she have the right to force hers on me?!

  3. Amanda

    Hey Dottie,

    Your preachy comment reads like a sad attempt at relevance.

    How about instead of trying your hand at slut-slaming, you consider doing some research into the causes and correlations between abortions, poverty, education, and access to family planning services.

    Realize that the laws that you favor do one thing alone: make abortions more dangerous for women. You’ve clearly been living in a self-righteous judgmental state of mind so long that you’ve lost your ability to have compassion for other people, respect for their choices, or the ability to do *empirical analysis.

    *Something an educational institution could help you with if your gosh darn folksiness ain’t cuttin it!

  4. Adriana

    Ms C,
    Brilliant proposal! I foresee a small problem, which Mrs. Grande may need to resolve. At what age, how, and where will the State instruct men and women in the use of NoDak condoms? We must not leave such important education to educators lacking common sense.

  5. Keely M. Bassette

    I am in favor of the Condom Code, this makes far more sense then the current proposed law! Excellent idea.

  6. JJ

    Thank you for making me laugh, when I’ve felt like crying, over this entire legislative over-reach. Mandatory condoms! Wish I’d thought of that!

  7. Barb

    Oh dottie. Oddly enough, all the women I know who have had abortions were in married relationships and had a birth control failure.

    Stereotype much, ms dottie?

  8. Leah

    Ms. C. – this is great! I’m so sick of this being a “women’s” problem! It takes 2 to tango! I don’t understand why legislators think they can control our bodies with these stupid, unconstitutional bills. Dottie – get bent. If you educated yourself on these issues, you’d see Ms. C’s proposed solution to the personhood/abortion/embryo problem is more “common sense” than what our state legistlators are trying to push through.

  9. s. r. luthi

    Hmmm…I live in ND, and I don’t know how or why people thinks this woman will or can represent their interests. She has not explained to me, or anyone, just exactly how it is “in the State’s interest” to force a woman to give birth. Also, I am tired of Bette Grande trying to politically “make her bones” on the back of other womens’ uteruses. I thoroughly and loudly applaud Ms C.’s writing!:-)

  10. Stacie

    Ms C, I just found your blog. I think you are brilliant. 🙂 Thank you for telling the ignorant bitches to shut up in a much more polite way than I ever could! (I think Dottie needs to get laid. Perhaps we could stretch an industrial strength condom over her mouth so we can’t hear her babbling?)

  11. RJ

    And thankfully, because us gay men can’t get married, we will never have to worry about that dreaded unwanted pregnancy or the need for an abortion.

    Hey, Dottie: Why doesn’t the conversation from your side ever focus on what happens to that life after birth? The only important thing is that there is life, not that there is any quality of life!

  12. Karl Krebsbach

    Re Carol’s Condom Code thought experiment. Yes, human sexual relationships are disordered. But the disorder will remain even if every male partner suddenly willingly used condoms, for the sexual act will remain in its essence one of exploitation. She needs to read JP2’s Theology of the Body, which supplies the antidote to the instrumentalist and materialist understanding of sex.

Comments are closed.