Absurdity
Pro-Life Lawmakers Vote to Cut School Lunch Funding for Already Born Children
By BSN Staff, . BSN Network. Satire.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The House Pro-Life Caucus voted 34 to 2 this week to eliminate federal funding for the National School Lunch Program, arguing that the roughly 30 million children who rely on it have, at this point, already been born, and are therefore beyond the caucus's area of professional concern.
The bill, titled the Protecting Life at Every Stage Act, defines "every stage" as the period between fertilization and delivery, after which, according to the bill's own language, "the federal government's custodial obligations are considered fulfilled."
Caucus chair Rep. Dale Forster of Alabama called the vote "a victory for life" at a press conference held in a room where no children were present or invited.
"We have always believed that every life is sacred," Forster said. "And we have delivered on that promise. These children exist. They are here. That is on us, and we are proud of it. What happens next is really more of a them situation."
The bill now moves to the Senate, where it is expected to be debated by people who will describe it as "a conversation worth having" before voting for it.
Critics pointed out that the same caucus voted last session to increase funding for prenatal nutrition programs, making the federal government an enthusiastic investor in the dietary needs of American children for approximately nine months, followed by a hard stop.
"It's not a contradiction," said Forster, contradicting himself. "Before birth, a child is a miracle that requires our protection. After birth, a child is a constituent, and constituents are expected to bring their own food."
The bill includes a provision redirecting the lunch program's annual budget toward a new initiative called the American Life Begins Here Fund, which will purchase ultrasound equipment for hospital systems in districts represented by caucus members. The fund has no provisions for what happens to the child after the ultrasound.
Seventh-grader Marcus Tully, 12, of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, who qualifies for free lunch and learned about the vote during social studies, said he found it "kind of confusing."
"They're pro-life," Marcus said. "I'm alive. I don't understand why that's not enough."
His teacher declined to comment, citing the fact that she had already used up her "explaining irony to children" quota for the semester during a unit on the Louisiana Purchase.
The White House issued a statement calling the bill "a meaningful step toward ensuring that life is valued at its most vulnerable," which press secretary aides confirmed referred to the pre-birth period and not, for instance, the period when a child is hungry at 11:45 a.m. and has forty minutes until dismissal.
The National School Nutrition Association called the vote "catastrophic." The caucus did not respond, as the association represents people who work in cafeterias, and the caucus does not take meetings with people who work in cafeterias.
Rep. Carol Vance of Tennessee, one of two members who voted against the bill, released a statement saying she was "troubled by the implication that our commitment to children has an expiration date."
Forster's office responded with a statement of its own, noting that Rep. Vance "does not have children" and is therefore "speaking from a position of theoretical concern rather than lived experience," which is a thing a man who has never missed a meal said about feeding children.
The bill is expected to be signed into law before the end of the fiscal year, at which point the federal government will have successfully protected every American child from the dangers of not existing, and left the rest of it up to them.
This is satire. The events and quotes are invented and none of it is real news.