A growing trend in federal legislating seems to be naming proposed laws after girls. That’s right: laws for girls.

Take Michelle’s Law. Passed recently to become Public Law 110-381, it is intended to ensure that dependent students who take a medically necessary leave of absence do not lose health insurance coverage.

Michelle was a real person. Diagnosed with colon cancer as a student, she was told by her doctors to cut back on school, but if she did she would lose her coverage. This page, focusing on a state version of this legislation, has the details.

Then there’s S. 144, known as Mynisha’s Law. It would provide Federal coordination and assistance in preventing gang violence. H.R. 1069 is the House companion bill. Mynisha Crenshaw was a San Bernardino girl, slain in an apparent gang-related shooting, and the bills are dedicated to her memory.

Jane’s Law, H.R. 871, is intended to strengthen enforcement of spousal court-ordered property distributions. You guessed it: Jane is a woman whose husband absconded with a bunch of property he owed her. Obviously, Jane is a woman, not a girl. Badly titled post.

Ari’s Law is in a similar vein. I’m pretty sure Ari is a boy’s name. And we can guess what happened to him. The bill would the construction of fencing and other protective structures along railroad tracks.

Haley’s Act (H.R. 1947) would promote safety and the welfare of big cats. That’s right: Haley was killed by a Siberian tiger.

There’s Danielle (House; Senate), and there’s Phylicia; Emily, and Savannah. Nino (House; Senate) – another boy, I think.

Jenny.

Now, each of these is a tragic or tough story for the victims and their loved ones, and I confess that I’m being a bit cavalier about them. But before you get mad at me, consider the politician who introduced the bill seeking to capitalize politically on the tragedy. Real as their pain is, I don’t like it when parents try to turn their private loss into public policy.

And there’s a real question whether the practice of lawmaking by anecdote is a good idea. Does one case illustrate a whole category where the law needs a fix and the fix won’t create new problems? Or are we punching holes in good law and spending money better used elsewhere just to make some bereaved parents happy for a while?

For my part, I’m taking bills named after girls to create reasonable suspicion of grandstanding, however real the tragedies behind them are.