[url=http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion]Mother Jones[/url]
[release]Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.
For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "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. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)
Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense.
There used to be a quasi-truce between the pro- and anti-choice forces on the issue of federal funding for abortion. Since 1976, federal law has prohibited the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman. But since last year, the anti-abortion side has become far more aggressive in challenging this compromise. They have been pushing to outlaw tax deductions for insurance plans that cover abortion, even if the abortion coverage is never used. The Smith bill represents a frontal attack on these long-standing exceptions.
"This bill takes us back to a time when just saying 'no' wasn't enough to qualify as rape," says Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser to the National Women's Law Center. 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.
The bill hasn't been carefully constructed, Levenson notes. The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill's authors don't offer their own definition. In some states, there is no legal definition of "forcible rape," making it unclear whether any abortions would be covered by the rape exemption in those jurisdictions.
The main abortion-rights groups despise the Smith bill as a whole, but they are particularly outraged by its rape provisions. Tait Sye, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, calls the proposed changes "unacceptable." Donna Crane, the policy director of NARAL Pro-Choice America, says that making the "already narrow exceptions for public funding of abortion care for rape and incest survivors even more restrictive" is "unbelievably cruel and heartless."
"This bill goes far beyond current law," says Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), a co-chair of the congressional pro-choice caucus. The "re-definition" of the rape exception "is only one element" of an "extreme" bill, she adds, citing other provisions in the law that pro-abortion rights groups believe would lead to the end of private health insurance coverage for abortion.
"Somebody needs to look closely at this," Levenson says. "This is a bill that could have a dramatic effect on women, and language is important. It sure sounds like somebody didn't want [the exception to cover] all the different types of rape that are recognized under the law."[/release]
ugh this is absolutely disgusting
I bet one of those guys raped someone and is trying to change the law so he can get away with it
That isn't actually what it's about. Moreso funding for abortions.
[editline]28th January 2011[/editline]
A for effort though!
Oh boy, two years of this stupid shit. Nothing says good government like symbolic gestures and ideological bills.
e: I mean really, they call something like this a "top priority". Not fixing the budget, reducing deficit, revamping social programs and education and all, no, we gotta make sure we don't pay for any baby murders.
Hasn't rape always had to involve force? because you know, you FORCE someone to have sex with you...
[QUOTE=slinkman;27725770]Hasn't rape always had to involve force? because you know, you FORCE someone to have sex with you...[/QUOTE]
Well, the victim could be unconscious or too young to know better.
sniiiip
[release]Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.
For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "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. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)
Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense.
There used to be a quasi-truce between the pro- and anti-choice forces on the issue of federal funding for abortion. Since 1976, federal law has prohibited the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman. But since last year, the anti-abortion side has become far more aggressive in challenging this compromise. They have been pushing to outlaw tax deductions for insurance plans that cover abortion, even if the abortion coverage is never used. The Smith bill represents a frontal attack on these long-standing exceptions.
"This bill takes us back to a time when just saying 'no' wasn't enough to qualify as rape," says Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser to the National Women's Law Center. 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.
The bill hasn't been carefully constructed, Levenson notes. The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill's authors don't offer their own definition. In some states, there is no legal definition of "forcible rape," making it unclear whether any abortions would be covered by the rape exemption in those jurisdictions.
The main abortion-rights groups despise the Smith bill as a whole, but they are particularly outraged by its rape provisions. Tait Sye, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, calls the proposed changes "unacceptable." Donna Crane, the policy director of NARAL Pro-Choice America, says that making the "already narrow exceptions for public funding of abortion care for rape and incest survivors even more restrictive" is "unbelievably cruel and heartless."
"This bill goes far beyond current law," says Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), a co-chair of the congressional pro-choice caucus. The "re-definition" of the rape exception "is only one element" of an "extreme" bill, she adds, citing other provisions in the law that pro-abortion rights groups believe would lead to the end of private health insurance coverage for abortion.
"Somebody needs to look closely at this," Levenson says. "This is a bill that could have a dramatic effect on women, and language is important. It sure sounds like somebody didn't want [the exception to cover] all the different types of rape that are recognized under the law."[/release]
AKA loophole
Why do they have to redefine it? Rape is fine the way it is.
They're doing this to make abortions harder to get.
Glad to see the GOP can add misogyny to their repertoire
Want to hear a pick up line? Works 100% of the time.
"Excuse me ma'am, does this smell like chloroform to you?"
Come here Glaber, defend this bullshit.
why do they care about this now there are much more pressing issues
[QUOTE=leadpumper;27725894]Want to hear a pick up line? Works 100% of the time.
"Excuse me ma'am, does this smell like chloroform to you?"[/QUOTE]
How original.
So a 13-year-old from a poor background gets persuaded and statutory raped. She can't get an abortion, so she goes through pregnancy. Later on it damages her body, her spine begins to get crushed and life begins to become hell.
When the baby is born, it is miscarried. She also dies in childbirth.
Brace yourselves for that, USA. Oh and welcome back to the republican bigots.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27726539]Come here Glaber, defend this bullshit.[/QUOTE]
I'll post for him.
"Abortion is murder and the right to live supersedes the right to not have to experience the pain of childbirth. In fact, the constitution does not say that women have the right to any abortions at all. And as we know, the government allowing or doing something that is not expressly written in the constitution is unconstitutional! I think we need to ban all abortions or fall to the tyranny of socialism."
o dear
Hurray for religiously motivated politics. When is the American people (the non-delusional side) going to decide they won't put up with this shit any longer? A serious re-definition of American politics is way overdue.
Oh and that is absolutley horrible - making the life of rape victims worse so they can push their agenda. The GOP is fucking evil.
This is fucking stupid...
I hate my Government.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;27727217]I hate my Government.[/QUOTE]
So do something about it! Voice your opinion somewhere other than on the Internet! Write to your representative about the changes you'd like to make! Talk to your family and your friends! Spread the word! The GOP is doing damage but the fact that people are standing by, politically and rethorically apathetic - that's even worse. When you avoid entering the political arena you let senseless idiots roam free - that's a major issue within American politics. Obviously I'm just speculating here but I think people with more liberal values than the republicans are a majority in the US - they just don't speak up, allowing small but noisy groups like the Tea party hijack the debate.
Political passiveness is a huge issue.
So I can now "rape" someone with black mail as there is no force involved?
America, meet the pisser, you'll be down there in the U bend soon enough.
[quote]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: [b]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.[/b] (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)[/quote]
I feel sorry for you Americans
[QUOTE=Jon27;27726983]So a 13-year-old from a poor background gets persuaded and statutory raped. She can't get an abortion, so she goes through pregnancy. Later on it damages her body, her spine begins to get crushed and life begins to become hell.
When the baby is born, it is miscarried. She also dies in childbirth.
Brace yourselves for that, USA. Oh and welcome back to the republican bigots.[/QUOTE]
She deserves it, she's a [b]filthy whore who turned her back on the Lord![/b].
Contag, your local Fox News contributor.
So long as any woman can have any man she wants charged with a felony, labeled a sex offender and sent to prison with nothing but a tearful testimony, I'm fine with this.
I thought the US government was supposed to be secular?
Remember: fucking kids is a-ok as long as you don't force them.
-GOP, 2011
I've now lost all respect for the US government.
I will no longer work for the government or attempt to aid them in any way other than paying taxes and stuff like that.
And voting to get these idiots out of office.
Keep in mind America
This is the congress YOU voted in
That is all
[QUOTE=Zeke129;27729135]Keep in mind America
This is the congress YOU voted in
That is all[/QUOTE]
hey fuck you i JUST turned 18
i didn't vote for SHIT
it's what the majority of americans voted on
and the majority of americans are FUCKING RETARDED
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.