People of all ages and backgrounds are saying “no” to violence against animals, and their buying habits are reflecting that choice. One result of their choice is that violence-based industries have fallen on hard times.

Another result is that the English language is evolving. Language evolution is nothing new or even unusual. As science, technology, and cultural practices move forward, human languages move with them. The English language, in particular, has more active vocabulary words than any other human language, precisely because English evolves easily, constantly absorbing new words and meanings.

A good example of how languages evolve can be seen in the word “bug.” The word “bug” can be used to denote an insect. But this word can now also be used to denote a hidden error in a computer program; indeed, this latter meaning may be more common in our technology-based society than the former meaning. Meanwhile, other existing words take on new meanings all the time, just as the word “bug” has done.

But the U.S.’s Democrat-Republican bloc hopes to prevent such evolution in at least one case: the word “milk.” Yesterday, August 1st, the U.S. Senate—which has remained in the exclusive control of Democrat-Republicans, without interruption, for over a century—voted overwhelmingly (by a margin of over 5-to-1) against a measure that would have protected the natural evolution of the word “milk.”

This vote appears to have been prompted by at least two other recent efforts to prop up the failing dairy industry. Five Democrats, including leading Democrats such as Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), have joined two Republicans to co-sponsor a bill they are calling the “Dairy Pride Act.” This Act seeks to prevent the word “milk” from evolving, such that, unlike “bug,” the word milk would not be allowed to take on new meanings. Instead, the word “milk” would only apply to secretions of a grieving mother. Accordingly, vegans could no longer use the word “milk” to denote plant-based alternatives to violence milk, such as soy milk, rice milk, or almond milk. The FDA is also reported to be considering a version of this approach.

Using the U.S. government and law-making process to prop up failing animal-exploitation industries is nothing new for the Democrat-Republican bloc. In 2006, Democrat-Republicans approved—by unanimous consent—the so-called “Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act” (“AETA”), which was co-authored by another leading Democrat, Diane Feinstein (D-CA). The AETA made opposition to violence-based industries, such as dairy, an act of terrorism. Related Democrat-Republican measures also include “Ag-Gag” laws, which prevent whistleblowers from exposing the cruelty behind everyday products, such as violence milk.

In addition to protectionist laws, however, the animal-exploitation industries also receive direct financial support in the form of government subsidies, such as those promoted by former candidate for the Democratic Party’s nomination for U.S. President, Bernie Sanders.

However, the long run of history is on the side of language, evolution, and the progress of science, technology, and thought. The latest Democrat-Republican attempt to hinder this natural process will prove to be as effective as Savonarola’s book-burning efforts were.