One of the more interesting twists I’ve seen at the Legislature happened on Feb. 13 in the Iowa Senate. Minutes after voting against an amendment to the Iowa Constitution, Sen. Tony Bisignano (D-Des Moines) used a point of personal privilege to discuss how much he’d like to see animals protected in Iowa.
So, to be brief:
1. Bisignano voted no on a proposed constitutional amendment to say there is no constitutional right to an abortion or taxpayer funding of an abortion.
2. Just minutes later, after voting against protecting unborn babies, he rose to speak out about wanting to vote to protect animals.
“We have protected the women of Iowa with your vote,” he said sarcastically. “How about next week, Mr. Majority Leader, Senator Whitver, how about next week, instead of protecting the women of Iowa, which we just did, we’re going into Week 6 of the legislature, why don’t we protect domestic pets. Why don’t we do the animal cruelty bill next week, since I think we’re 49th in the country.”
Bisignano said the Iowa Senate is “running out of time” to pass House File 737. He estimated the bill would pass with 40 votes or more — which would be at least eight more than simply allowing Iowans to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment that neither provided nor restricted the right to kill an unborn baby.
“I represent 65,000 people who want me to vote on animal cruelty,” he said. “And many of you do too because how many emails have we answered and how many do we want to keep answering? I mean, I see that in my sleep.
“So, Mr. Majority Leader, put that on the debate calendar. Let’s throw that one out there to protect another segment of Iowans, our pets. They’re being tortured.”
Don’t get me wrong, I love animals. I’m a dog person, myself.
But hearing a lecture from someone about protecting a “segment of Iowans” after that same someone just voted against an amendment that neither restricted or provided the right to kill an unborn human being just seemed the height of hypocrisy.
