South Dakota Bill Outlaws Treatment of Yeast Infections
“Culture of life” extended to protect yeast fungi
PIERRE, S.D. (BP) – In a stunning victory for pro-life activists, the South Dakota legislature has passed a bill to protect the lives of Candida fungi by banning the treatment of yeast infections.
The bill makes it a felony for anyone to treat yeast infections, with doctors facing up to 5 years in prison if convicted. The language of the bill – named the Women’s Health and Fungal Life Protection Act — says that “yeast fungi are unquestionably alive” and “biologically unique from the host woman.”
In debate on the bill, sponsors noted that scientific findings have expanded understanding of the fungi that cause yeast infections.
“We now know that the yeast is alive from the moment it infects the woman,” said Senate sponsor Julie Bartling. “It used to be we weren’t sure, but countless fourth-grade science experiments since 1973 have proven that those little yeast thingies really are alive. You just have to drop them in some water and add a little sugar, and they start giving off gas bubbles like you would not believe.”
House sponsor Roger W. Hunt emphasized that the yeast fungi have different DNA from the host woman. “It’s not just some icky mucus in there that’s part of the woman’s hoo hah,” he said. “We now have the science to know that the yeast has its own DNA.”
Republican Governor Mike Rounds, who is pro-life, is expected to sign the bill into law.
“I’ve indicated I’m pro-life, and I do believe that we should do everything we can to save lives,” Rounds was quoted as saying in the Associated Press. “South Dakota is ready to stand up for the lives of those who can’t speak for themselves, like those little yeast guys. If this bill accomplishes that, then I am inclined to sign the bill into law.”
39 Responses to “South Dakota Bill Outlaws Treatment of Yeast Infections”
-
Burrow says:
HA!
Ok, I osscillated between being amused and being sad. I hate South Dakota
February 26th, 2006 at 3:00 pm EST -
Steve says:
Reason #345 to love Dr. Socks.
-
Infidel says:
It is known that Lewis Thomas was held for questioning about the genetic research he partook in during the ’70s on these little buggers.
-
manxome says:
*snort!*
Was that as hilarious as I thought or am I just emotionally drained?Does this mean the antibiotics I took 20 years ago were an abortificant for the innocent chlamydia life within me?
OMFG - save the tapeworms!
-
Alon Levy says:
Why are you all so biased in favor of eukaryotes? Do you heartless people think bacteria don’t deserve to live? Ban antibiotics now, I say!
-
will says:
I am ok with that as long as I dont have to pay yeast support. A man should have an equal say in whether a yeast fungi gets terminated or lives. It isnt fair that I cant make her keep the yeast fungi if I want it to live.
-
Violet says:
If you move to South Dakota you can be Daddy to all the yeast you want. I’m not sure about the yeast support thing, though. Does SD force yeast-fathers to pay?
Really, South Dakota should just put the decision in the hands of the father or nearest male relative. I have a sneaking suspicion that’s what they really want to do anyway.
-
bitingbeaver says:
LMAO. That was frigging hilarious! Thanks for the chuckle on an otherwise slow Monday.
-
Alon Levy says:
No, they don’t. Patriarchs want to control women’s sexuality; religious fundamentalists, who form the bulk of the anti-choice movement, want to control everyone’s sexuality. I think it was Orwell who made the point that totalitarianism requires state suppression of human desires in order to channel them toward zealous support of the ruling ideology. While various authoritarian sexists might be content with a system wherein men have full sexual control of women, religious fundamentalists would much rather suppress everyone’s sexuality, which is why they tend to be violently anti-porn, anti-prostitution, and anti-sex in general.
-
Violet says:
What we have in the U.S. is a patriarchy-flavored religious fundamentalism, or a religious fundamentalist-flavored patriarchy — however you like. It’s the classic Christian combo. They’re anti-sexuality, for sure, but they are especially anti-female sexuality, anti-gay sexuality, anti-any sexuality that threatens patriarchal control.
-
Infidel says:
What ever happened to harems? I like that scene in Ben Hur when Charleston says,” ya know in the days of Solomon if a master should see one of his slaves that caught his eye he could just pick her out and bring her to himself….wise old days of Solomon.”
Does monogomy follow monotheism? -
Alon Levy says:
What we have in the U.S. is a patriarchy-flavored religious fundamentalism, or a religious fundamantalist-flavored patriarchy — however you like. It’s the classic Christian combo. They’re anti-sexuality, for sure, but they are especially anti-female sexuality, anti-gay sexuality, anti-any sexuality that threatens patriarchal control.
Oh, I completely agree with that… religious fundamentalists are especially into control of women, even though like all totalitarian ideologues, they like to control everyone.
-
Infidel says:
Harems have cultural significance. They reflect a society more like wild pack animals. The strongest get all the females leaving weaker frustrated weaklings with nothing to do but blow themselves up. And females, weaker from the get go, totally dominated.
-
Infidel says:
That’s where seven virgins in heaven looks so good.
-
will says:
Which camp do I need to be in if I want to control women, yet am pro-sex?
-
Violet says:
Will: Islam is your friend.
-
Alon Levy says:
There’s a fairly strong current of mostly secular conservatism that’s like that. I think it’s strongest in Japan, where the Prime Minister endorsed “boys will be boys” as a justification for rape.
-
Alon Levy says:
Well, at any rate, you’ll want to leave the West, where sex-positiveness correlates very strongly with feminism.
-
Infidel says:
Where monotheists worship their godbag women
-
Violet says:
Infidel, where on the planet are women worshipped?
-
Infidel says:
Not where. When. When a man loves a woman. Diamonds, dinner, ritual.
-
Infidel says:
Sycophants like myself. “Sick ohs”. I’m sorry. Who am I to speak for a gender?
-
Jim Deeny says:
So let me get this straight. They’ve banned the treatment because a yeast infection contains “DNA”?
What are they going to do with the DNA? Stem-Cell research?
-
Violet says:
Yeah, diamonds/dinner/ritual doesn’t exactly equal worship or even love. Tribal Muslim husbands in the M.E. show their “love” for their sequestered wives by providing them with food and loading them down with gold. And there are lots and lots of rituals. It’s ownership, not worship.
But I’m not saying love doesn’t happen. Individual men do fall in love with individual women, and when that happens they often follow the same romantic rituals that are common to the culture. Long-winded way of saying: yes, sometimes diamonds/dinner/ritual does mean love.
-
Jim Deeny says:
I think the term is adornment. I do that very well with my wife. It’s delivered her spiritually, mentally and feministically!
-
Violet says:
Adornment means something like “decoration.” Do you mean that you adorn your wife with jewels? Or do you mean “adoration,” as in you adore your wife?
-
Jim Deeny says:
Adoration Violet. :)
Thanks for correcting me.
-
Infidel says:
Worship the almighty dollar. Idol worship. Worship movie stars. Tree worship.
My mother was a saint. Not really. Mother Theresa was a saint worthy of worship. But I don’t, but maybe I do. Saint Faustina was so beautiful too, so gentle, so humane- maybe caught up in patriachy-but hell give me a break she never hurt anyone. You can’t worship like that- the closest you’ll ever get(Joe normal) is love of a great woman, a mom, or wife…so why fake it- Be a priest, tend to your family, or write a book. -
Michael Bains says:
unHoly yeastBeavers BatMan! I think the Joker’s taken over South Dakota. To the BatMobile!
Niiice. Are you, perchance, Viole of TRA’s site, fraulein Doctor Violet? This was very much akin to his shtick and her biting lucidity.
naaaahhh.. .)
On the plus side though (per the “article”,) it looks as if Yellowstown has a new range to which to relocate the burgeoning wolf population.
Gotta love all Life, eh.
-
Infidel says:
Not all life. Maggots are fair game but the flies we gotta leave alone.
-
Violet says:
Are you, perchance, Viole of TRA’s site, fraulein Doctor Violet?
Nope. I haven’t been inducted into the Evil Atheist Conspiracy yet. I’m still trying to get an in with the International Jewish Conspiracy via Alon. I’m hoping once he’s introduced me to the Elders he’ll hook me up with the atheist overlords.
-
JimDeeny says:
Easy now. I’m Jewish. This is not a Holy war, we have plenty to deal with on the big brothers plate already.
I dont give a hoot who you are what you believe or what you care for, these concrete walls in America are what they are and will be, changing them is the challenge we all face everyday. Hey Alon, who’s that man that sued the government because the dollar bill said “God” on it? -
Violet says:
Easy now. I’m Jewish.
So is Alon. And Will and I are honorary Jews. Trust me, Jim, this is a very Jewish-friendly blog. The International Jewish Conspiracy is a little running joke.
-
Alon Levy says:
Hey Alon, who’s that man that sued the government because the dollar bill said “God” on it?
I think it was Michael Newdow, though in all honesty, I don’t remember any such lawsuit; I do remember Newdow’s two lawsuits to remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, though.
Nope. I haven’t been inducted into the Evil Atheist Conspiracy yet. I’m still trying to get an in with the International Jewish Conspiracy via Alon. I’m hoping once he’s introduced me to the Elders he’ll hook me up with the atheist overlords.
Next time I’m in New York I can register you at the International Jewish Conspiracy’s headquarters. The Evil Atheist Conspiracy is somewhat harder to get into, because it works more like a revolutionary movement than like a Jewish-owned banking corporation; I’m still basically a peon, so you should talk to PZ or Brent about joining.
-
JimDeeny says:
Yeah, it was Newdow. I coundnt think of his name and it was eating at me all night, thanks. I understand the jewish thing now, thanks Violet.
-
will says:
I actually had a client just leave my office who wanted to make sure that I wasn’t Jewish. Apparently, her grandmother (who is paying the bills) freaked the last time my client used a lawyer who was jewish.
I just looked at her with a stunned look on my face and said “No, but I am an honorary one and I am appalled that you would ask such a thing.” She apologized and blamed the question on her grandmother.
-
Feminist Law Professors » Blog Archive » South Dakota Bill Outlaws Treatment of Yeast Infections says:
[...] “Culture of life” extended to protect yeast fungi In a stunning victory for pro-life activists, the South Dakota legislature has passed a bill to protect the lives of Candida fungi by banning the treatment of yeast infections. Full story here. [...]
-
steve says:
Let me get this straight, we cannot kill yeast for our own benefit because it contains it’s own DNA and is thought to be alive. If so, does that mean that south Dakota will soon be banning carnivorous activity as aren’t animals alive and contain DNA. You could also argue fruits and vegetables are alive and they contain DNA, and so will there be a ban there too. What exactly are they going to eat in south Dakota?
-
appletree » Blog Archive » Reclusive Leftist says:
[...] I just found my new favorite site. I was going to link and comment on one of the articles, but then I started scrolling down, and found one important, well written article after the other. Today, it’s a story about young women in Colorado praying for the defeat of a bill that would make emergency contraception legal. Yesterday, it was a satirical piece on a bill to outlaw the treatment of yeast infections in South Dakota (culture of life, heh). Just go check it out and prepare to be astonished. [...]
