Two Excellent Bills Filed in Congress

But several very troubling bills filed in PA

OMG! Two Members of Congress (not from PA, sadly) have filed two excellent bills!!

The first, S.1147 - Defining Male and Female Act of 2025, was filed by Senator Roger Marshall, R-KS. The bill would, as its title indicates, define female, male, sex, “gender identity,” woman, girl, man, boy, and mother, but not father. Interesting. I suppose that everyone already knows what a father is, but a mother, well, that’s open to interpretation. If I were naming this bill, I would call it “The Frickin’ Common Sense Act of 2025” or the “I Can’t Believe We Have to Do This in 2025 Act.” Yes, Dear Readers, this is absolutely necessary in 2025. In fact, I’d go even further. I would ban the use of misogynist, woman-erasing, reality-denying oxymorons such as “pregnant people/person/individual,” “birthing people/bodies,” “people/bodies with a uterus/vagina/cervix/ovaries,” “host body,” “pregnant vessel,” “menstruator,” etc., ad nauseam, in all government documents and policies. S. 1147 is currently in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

The second bill is H.R.1015 - Prison Rape Prevention Act of 2025, filed by our friend Representative Nancy Mace, R-SC-1. This bill also defines female, male, sex, and related terms as S. 1147 above. It bans housing men in women’s prisons and “GAC” for prisoners. H.R. 1015 is currently in the House Committee on the Judiciary.

You know what to do, Dear Readers. Contact Senators Fetterman, McCormick, and your House member and urge them to pass these bills!

Meanwhile, here in Pennsylvania, two troubling bills on abortion are currently in the House Judiciary Committee with hearings scheduled on October 22, 2025. PA4SBR thanks one of our Intrepid Researchers for this information. Here is her astute analysis:

This Democrat bill would require women seeking abortions to meet with the physician at least 24 hours in advance, so that he or she can determine whether an abortion is “necessary.” It seems to be a way impose a waiting period. I don’t know why Democrats want to do this.

https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/2025/hb2005

The other Democrat bill calls for a Reproductive Rights Amendment to the PA Constitution. It provides for an “individual’s” right to end or continue a pregnancy, as well as to seek or refuse “fertility care.” It does not mention surrogacy specifically, but some consider surrogacy to be a type of “fertility care.” The amendment would require all of this to be permitted without discrimination based on a variety of factors, including “gender identity.”

https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/2025/hb1957

There are overlapping co-sponsors of these two bills, which is confusing. I would think a law saying that a doctor must determine whether an abortion is “necessary,” and which allows him or her to use “best judgement” in light of a variety of factors (including psychological and emotional ones), would violate the amendment these same legislators are trying to get into the constitution. It’s also interesting that the bill that restricts women calls us “women,” whereas the bill that would protect our rights in regard to pregnancy calls us “individuals.”

Oh, and in regard to the hate crimes package, it really does seem bad. One of the bills even creates a “hate group” database, which I can imagine politicians from both parties using as a personal enemies’ list. A “hate group” is defined as any group that “maligns a class of people.” Well, feminists malign misogynist men, environmentalists malign polluters, religious people and atheists malign each other, and on and on. Thank goodness the package doesn’t have bipartisan support.

The Anti-Hate Crimes Package is a series of four bills in the Pennsylvania House filed by Representatives Dan Frankel, D-23, and Napoleon J Nelson, D-154. As our Intrepid Researcher said, the package includes "gender, gender identity, and gender expression.” Rep Frankel has been refiling this package for a few years now. Your Author doesn’t understand how “[the package] would [define hate crimes] while honoring First Amendment protections for bigoted speech, unpopular speech, and hate speech.”

So, if I correctly call a trans-identifying male a man, is that “protected” hate speech or an illegal hate crime? I assume it’s the latter because we all know that TIMs are the most persecuted minority on planet Earth. Meanwhile, is rape a hate crime? Is sexual harassment? This package is simply a big mess.

Here’s veteran Democratic strategist James Carville defend women’s sports against "left-wing zombies." At least one prominent Democrat knows what a woman is.