Republicans redefine rape to obstruct funding for abortions

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In a move that should make pro-lifers and misogynists very happy, Republicans have decided to whittle down that pesky "except in cases of rape or incest" loophole that allows for government funds to pay for abortions in those circumstances.

Quote :

[T]he "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion.

Perhaps an unwanted baby will teach the stupid teenage slut not to open her legs for a man who's eleven years older than her.

Quote :

Laurie Levenson, a former assistant US attorney and expert on criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, notes that the new bill's authors are "using language that's not particularly clear, and some people are going to lose protection." Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes. "There are a lot of aspects of rape that are not included," Levenson says.

As for the incest exception, the bill would only allow federally funded abortions if the woman is under 18.

Because eighteen year olds are just swimming in disposable income and can easily afford to abort daddy's little rape-child.

Quote :

The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill's authors don't offer their own definition.

Just lovely.

You know, I hear over and over that pro-lifers don't hate women. But look at the company they keep.

The limited mental capacity part was what really bothered me. Not that the other parts didn't, but this was the thing that hit closest to home. Hell, I have the high-functioning kind of autism, and even then it's severe enough for me to know that there's zero chance of me being able to properly care for a baby. So what about the girls and women who have even worse mental problems than me? I remember one story on some incarnation of GAFF about a woman with Down Syndrome who was raped by her boss and didn't even understand the concept of going into labor! How can people like that be expected to be responsible parents?! I guess adoption would be an option, but it might be difficult to find parents who are willing to adopt a potentially disabled child.

One thing that really bothers me is that they're trying take away the exception for life of the mother. Do these boneheads not have the faintest clue what medical necessity is (or that if the mother dies with the baby still in her, the baby will also die, making the refusal of an abortion absolutely pointless)?

As to rape being defined as only "forcible rape"...what planet are these yoyos living on that they think that rape is only defined as happening when a woman is struggling against it? Do they not have the faintest clue about coercion, about being drugged, about not having the mental capacity to say yes or no? Many date rapes happen through coercion, not physical violence. Sure, she could scream and fight, but odds are, in that kind of situation, all she would be doing is adding physical trauma to the emotional trauma. And why is being raped after being drugged not considered forcible? Few women would consent to being drugged before intercourse.

I saw this on some other forums, too, and some the arguments there made me Stuff like:

Quote :

Well, if she was drugged it wasn't really rape because she should have kept an eye on her drink or not accepted a drink.

Since when does setting your drink down or accepting it in the first place constitute consent for sex?

Quote :

A woman shouldn't get pregnant if she has health problems.

Sometimes, pregnancy happens even when a couple is trying to prevent it. Does this mean that women who have health problems should not be able to have sex? Also, sometimes problems crop up because of the pregnancy, or a dangerous illness will be contracted during pregnancy, or an accident will happen during pregnancy. (Oh, well, I guess she should have looked into her crystal ball and seen what the future would hold before she got pregnant.)

Quote :

Abortion should be banned because some women who get raped want to have the baby.

Yes, some women who get pregnant from being raped do want to keep the baby--and they're allowed to. No one can legally force an abortion on a woman who doesn't want one. Banning abortion (or restricting it, through financial or other means) will just send women to people like this guy.

Quote :

The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill's authors don't offer their own definition.

Fucking hell. Are they seriously going down the "There's 'rape' and then there's 'rape-rape'" path?

Isn't the single-digit rape conviction statistic enough, they have to make that count when applying for medical aid too?

Christ, America, what the fuck is wrong with you sometimes?

Though it makes sense that they'd try to keep as many incest babies as they can. After all, they turn out to be, at best, babbling retards. Why would the GOP want to eliminate their primary demographic?

Maybe, but research is rarely humorous.

So the GOP turns out to be morally bankrupt. This is news?

Oh, that is such fucking bullshit! I got about three lines in to this before I had that reaction and felt the need to post. It's also why no matter if I have Republican leanings (and I do on some issues), I will never ever EVER 'go to the darkside', so to speak.

EDIT: Lady Anne's post tipped me over into seeing red too. I know people actually say those things, but I just cannot fathom how they can push all the responsibility on the victim. WARBLE GARBLE al;kdsfjasdlkfasdfklasfdasldk;fjasd!!!!!!!!!!!

Max is going to go now, before she pops her cork completely.

Maximilia wrote:

Oh, that is such fucking bullshit! I got about three lines in to this before I had that reaction and felt the need to post. It's also why no matter if I have Republican leanings (and I do on some issues), I will never ever EVER 'go to the darkside', so to speak.

Yup. This sort of thing is why secular conservatives bitterly lament the hijacking of the Republican party by the Religious Right.

WD40 wrote:

Quote :

The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill's authors don't offer their own definition.

Fucking hell. Are they seriously going down the "There's 'rape' and then there's 'rape-rape'" path?

If they are, they're really begging for a court to slap them into next week. You can't create gradations in a criminal statute without defining what the boundary lines are. It would be like creating one punishment for petty larceny and another for grand larceny, but not setting a threshold where the former becomes the latter.

They know this thing is a dead-ender - the Senate has already said it's DOA, and the President will veto it even if it got to his desk. If they were in any way serious about doing this, they would've done it when Bush was President and they controlled both Houses of Congress. It's just to gin up the evangelical base to turn out next cycle.

I was so going to post this. Revolting. Absolutely revolting.

the asylum wrote:

Though it makes sense that they'd try to keep as many incest babies as they can. After all, they turn out to be, at best, babbling retards. Why would the GOP want to eliminate their primary demographic?

Bolded the part that makes you sound most like a horrible person (though really, it's a pretty shit post to begin with). Seriously, that's fucking ableist, and denigrating to victims of incest who decided to keep the child(ren) that resulted from it and to people who are those children, and you deserve to be slapped into next week for it on here.

It's not a person's fault if they happen to be the result of incest, and incestuous parentage itself is not a guarantee that that person will have mental difficulties.

This...no, fuck it. I don't have enough words to complain about the so-called "logic" behind this bill. Can I complain instead that of the handful of Democrats who're co-sponsoring this bill, two are from my state?

Sparrow wrote:

This...no, fuck it. I don't have enough words to complain about the so-called "logic" behind this bill. Can I complain instead that of the handful of Democrats who're co-sponsoring this bill, two are from my state?

Knock yourself out. You'd think the "Blue Dogs" who managed not to get tossed out last time around would learn that hitching your wagon to the Religious Right is not a shrewd electoral tactic.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Sparrow wrote:

This...no, fuck it. I don't have enough words to complain about the so-called "logic" behind this bill. Can I complain instead that of the handful of Democrats who're co-sponsoring this bill, two are from my state?

Knock yourself out. You'd think the "Blue Dogs" who managed not to get tossed out last time around would learn that hitching your wagon to the Religious Right is not a shrewd electoral tactic.

They think that the Tea Party runs America, I guess.

Can I just take a moment to lament that Aaron Schock, the one Republican I can kind of get to like under normal circumstances, is evidently a supporter of this redefinition of rape? The man is about as openly gay as you can be while still also being professionally Republican. I know this is being stereotypical (and I am being facetious here), but aren't gay people supposed to be pretty progressive about this sort of thing?

The whole attempt to 'redefine' what constitutes rape is no less than I'd expect from a group of largely white, well-to-do Christian men. God forbid that women have any control over their own bodies.

I had a friend in high school that used to say if men could get pregnant, abortion would be considered as unalienable a right as owning a gun. The older I get, the more I realize she was right.

Malganis wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

Sparrow wrote:

This...no, fuck it. I don't have enough words to complain about the so-called "logic" behind this bill. Can I complain instead that of the handful of Democrats who're co-sponsoring this bill, two are from my state?

Knock yourself out. You'd think the "Blue Dogs" who managed not to get tossed out last time around would learn that hitching your wagon to the Religious Right is not a shrewd electoral tactic.

They think that the Tea Party runs America, I guess.

Yes, because people who are against further taxes will unanimously approve of religious right bullshit.

Penguin wrote:

Yes, because people who are against further taxes will unanimously approve of religious right bullshit.

The people who are against further taxes still want all the services that benefit them (because they're speshul), and belief in religious right bullshit hinges on the idea that God approves of them (because they're speshul). The groups may not "unanimously approve" of each other, but they are natural allies because they are both in a constant state of war against reality.

rachel wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Yes, because people who are against further taxes will unanimously approve of religious right bullshit.

The people who are against further taxes still want all the services that benefit them (because they're speshul), and belief in religious right bullshit hinges on the idea that God approves of them (because they're speshul). The groups may not "unanimously approve" of each other, but they are natural allies because they are both in a constant state of war against reality.

Oh, so that's why it's so easy to find TEA partiers who are calling for the continuation and expansion of all tax-funded programs!

Penguin wrote:

rachel wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Yes, because people who are against further taxes will unanimously approve of religious right bullshit.

The people who are against further taxes still want all the services that benefit them (because they're speshul), and belief in religious right bullshit hinges on the idea that God approves of them (because they're speshul). The groups may not "unanimously approve" of each other, but they are natural allies because they are both in a constant state of war against reality.

Oh, so that's why it's so easy to find TEA partiers who are calling for the continuation and expansion of all tax-funded programs!

No, they're are calling for the discontinuation and reduction of all tax-funded programs that benefit other people. (Except, of course, in cases where they have become the "other people". ) Programs that benefit Americans who are not them? Pfft!

rachel wrote:

Penguin wrote:

rachel wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Yes, because people who are against further taxes will unanimously approve of religious right bullshit.

The people who are against further taxes still want all the services that benefit them (because they're speshul), and belief in religious right bullshit hinges on the idea that God approves of them (because they're speshul). The groups may not "unanimously approve" of each other, but they are natural allies because they are both in a constant state of war against reality.

Oh, so that's why it's so easy to find TEA partiers who are calling for the continuation and expansion of all tax-funded programs!

No, they're are calling for the discontinuation and reduction of all tax-funded programs that benefit other people. (Except, of course, in cases where they have become the "other people". ) Programs that benefit Americans who are not them? Pfft!

...you're acting like this hasn't been a mainstay of Republican and Democrat politics since, like, forever.

You mean human nature since, like, forever.

grmblfjx wrote:

You mean human nature since, like, forever.

Pretty much, yeah.