Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., became the target of a viral roast campaign following an impassioned rant on the House floor on Tuesday, during which she slung false accusations at Republicans.
Ocasio-Cortez criticized the “Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act” in a two-minute speech that included both inaccurate and unsupported claims. She concluded her remarks with an unexplained statement that “CEOs love this bill” in connection with the ongoing California wildfires, Fox News reported.
The bill ultimately passed with all 216 House Republicans voting in favor, along with two Democrats. Meanwhile, 206 Democrats, including Ocasio-Cortez, voted against the bill.
Ocasio-Cortez began her argument by referencing Republicans’ history of voting against the “Violence Against Women Act” and made an apparent false claim regarding their position on abortion rights.
“Republicans who have voted consistently against the violence against women act, who have taken away the right of all women
to choose and have control over their own body, who, as women are bleeding out in parking lots across the country, standing there, allowing us to die, now want to pretend today that they care about women!” Ocasio-Cortez ranted.
Abortion is currently protected by state law in 21 states and the District of Columbia, with President-elect Trump consistently stating that under his administration, abortion rights will be determined by the states, as determined by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June 2022.
Ocasio-Cortez was also among many Democrats who made unsubstantiated claims in suggesting that the law would expose young girls to sexual predators.
“And why? To open up gender, and yes, genital examinations into little girls of this country, in the so-called name of attacking trans girls!” Ocasio-Cortez claimed.
Nowhere in the bill does it specify that girls or women would be required to undergo genital examinations to participate in sports. However, Ocasio-Cortez, along with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other Democrats opposing the bill, have highlighted this possibility as their primary argument against the act.
