Taking Mace's logic (i.e., that this "jeopardizes the safety" of female lawmakers) who then is to protect men from having a woman in *their* restrooms? Does anyone really need "protecting" when they pee in a congressional loo?
Taking Mace's logic (i.e., that this "jeopardizes the safety" of female lawmakers) who then is to protect men from having a woman in *their* restrooms? Does anyone really need "protecting" when they pee in a congressional loo?