Yes, yes, but what about abortion?

A long time ago, back in the halcyon days of Summer 2012, a time when “Call Me Maybe” was tearing up the charts and people were watching baseball, I guess — one Monday in late June of that year we posted an article.

It was this article, looking at revisions to the nation’s flood insurance policy. The idea was so sensible, so cost-effective, that we assumed even in the Wacky World of Washington™ they stood a good shot of passage.

After all (we wrote, smiling) the legislation simply allowed the Federal Emergency Management Agency to update flood maps and insurance rates to consider the impacts of higher sea levels. Opposing such rational action made no sense at all, we noted, then joking that irrationality “has never once in America’s 223-year history of Congress been an obstruction to politicians introducing legislation.” Just a joke, Congress! We knew you’d come through!

Grist thanks its sponsors. Become one.

We were so innocent back when we wrote that, yesterday.


The Senate’s flood insurance program looked like it was headed toward smooth passage — but now, there appears to be an abortion-related wrinkle.

Yes, abortion.

Grist thanks its sponsors. Become one.

That’s at least according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who said Tuesday that a Republican senator is insisting on a vote on an amendment defining “when life begins.” Reid didn’t name the senator, but it was Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) who had offered the amendment.

We just … we can’t …

So, the Senate can’t update flood insurance rates and projections — a move which would save the government a ton of money — because abortion?

Paul responded to reporters Tuesday: “I think the people who believe in protecting life would like to see a vote.”

There happened to be a camera in the room when we heard the news. It captured our reaction, as seen below.