This is not invasive because the TSA doesn't use it.

[State Sen. Dan Patrick] wrote a separate bill that would have criminalized patdowns from TSA security officers, which ultimately passed the state Senate but failed to become law amid threats from the federal government to divert flights from Texas in response. “There was a time in this state, there was a time in our history, where we stood up to the federal government and we did not cower to rules and policies that invaded the privacy of Texans,” Patrick said in one floor speech.

Dave Simpson, lead sponsor of a corresponding bill in the House that would charge any TSA official who touches the “anus, sexual organ, buttocks or breasts of the other person or touches the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person” with sexual harassment, spoke of his legislation in similar terms. “You can’t go to third base without giving us a reason,” Simpson told ABC News.

Boy, Republicans sure do hate it when the government gets invasive and starts touching them in their private areas, don't they? That's why, via Benjy Sarlin at TPM, some Texas Republicans are introducing bills to crackdown on all that inappropriate government-mandated touching:And he's not the only one:That makes sense, of course, because who could possibly want to be forced to submit to being touched in their private parts "in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person"? Thank the lord these two brave Texas Republicans are taking a stand for people who don't want to have their sexual organs touched just because some dummies in the government thinks it's necessary! It sure is refreshing to see Republicans refuse to—how did the state senator put it?—"cower to rules and policies that invaded the privacy of Texans."

Wait a minute. Hold on. What's this?



A strict anti-abortion bill written by Texas state Sen. Dan Patrick went into effect earlier this year, requiring women seeking an abortion to first have a sonogram to ensure that they listen to their fetus’s heartbeat and hear a complete description of its development before they can obtain the procedure. Women’s advocacy groups deride the new law as an undignified invasion of privacy, but advocates say it’s a necessary intrusion in order to further the pro-life cause.

“I oppose the use of force to invade a body, but when you’re using force to destroy a human being it’s important to give them the knowledge of what they’re about to do,” Simpson told TPM. “You can refuse to see or hear it. The sonogram performed is a matter of care.”

And what's this?Right. So it's wrong for the government to touch you in a way that a reasonable person would consider invasive. Unless it's a "matter of care" in the name of protecting the sacred fetuses, in which case, grope away! And quit whining, ladies, because it is totally not the same thing at all. In one case, Republican men don't like being touched, which is why we should be their comfort ahead of concerns about national security.

In the other case—they one that will never affect them because they don't have vaginas to be probed and touched and invaded in an "offensive" manner—we're talking about protecting those precious little preborn fetuses, which is far more important than national security, so stop thinking only of yourselves and your own personal comfort, ladies, and spread 'em.