Pubbies come out as the pro-rape party

[Nessus]

The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape
Drugged, raped, and pregnant? Too bad. Republicans are pushing to limit rape and incest cases eligible for government abortion funding.

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."

Welp. How much does the American public value their tax dollars? Enough to rape drunken or date-drugged people? The future will tell. Vote for the Pubbies, vote for rape!

Que Lewkowski and his slut-hating. It's always the woman's fault, rape cannot exist as a concept, and this is how some Pubbie representatives present themselves!

Can a woman be raped? If she can, do not vote Pubbie.

[Steely Glint]

I just wish I could say I was surprised.

[RandBlade]

That's insane.

[Steely Glint]

That's insane.

Partisan!

[littlelolligagged]

Assholes.

Hell, I think the government should be paying for every abortion, no matter the reason. Even an "oops, my condom broke" abortion - at least the women who are getting abortions know that they are incapable (emotionally, financially, time-wise) to care for a child for 18 years.

To say that a rape isn't a rape unless force is used is just foul.

[GGT]

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.

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

A TOP PRIORITY! What a buncha jerks.

[RandBlade]

Assholes.

Hell, I think the government should be paying for every abortion, no matter the reason. Even an "oops, my condom broke" abortion - at least the women who are getting abortions know that they are incapable (emotionally, financially, time-wise) to care for a child for 18 years.

To say that a rape isn't a rape unless force is used is just foul.

100% agreed.

[Khendraja'aro]

It's also interesting that the overwhelming majority of the senators co-sponsoring this bill is male.

[Ominous Gamer]

This is the same party whom's members voted against an anti-rape amendment for federal military & civilian contractors in 2009; result of the insane Jamie Leigh Jones ordeal.

[Dreadnaught]

It's amazing how you all are so easily trolled into a frenzy by an openly left-wing publication eager to shift conversation away from fiscal issues.

Obviously I'm pro-choice. But there are people who are anti-abortion and don't want their government taxes paying for abortion of any kind. Okay, well this isn't really news. This was controversial as recently as March during our debate over the nationalized healthcare bill.

This proposed bill isn't "redefining" rape, it's narrowing the legal categories of rape eligible for federal funding away from consensual statutory rape to forcible rape only.

Lots of folks here have debated the merits of said statutory rape provisions, EG locking up a 19 year old for sleeping with a 17 year old. So it's sort of odd that there are people here who have questioned whether somewhat arbitrary statutory rapes are actually rape. But when abortion funding is mixed in, these same people insist that it's definitely rape.

I don't have a big problem with federal funding for abortion, but it's obviously a controversial issue given that large segments of the population don't think abortion should be legal. So it's a bit immature to go apoplectic and buy-into this claim that rape is being "redefined" because of a fracking funding law that narrows the types of rape that will receive funding.

It's the most minor and possibly insignificant front in the debate to allow women to continue to have a real choice. And choice != the choice to get things for free. I'm more concerned with laws that prohibit the circumstances where one can get an abortion, no matter who pays for it. That's a real limitation on choice.

PS-

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

Just to emphasize how the article headline conflicts with the article text.

[Steely Glint]

Because statutory rape is the only kind of non-forcible rape possible, right?

Fucks sake.

[Khendraja'aro]

Because statutory rape is the only kind of non-forcible rape possible, right?

Fucks sake.

Yeah, somehow stuff like GHB seems to have passed right by him.

[Dreadnaught]

Because statutory rape is the only kind of non-forcible rape possible, right?

Fucks sake.

Can you list the types of non-forcible rape besides statutory? Where the sex is consensual but legally considered rape? Isn't that the definition of statutory rape?

And can you describe how any of that is really related to the merits of providing government funding for abortions?

This is exactly what opponents of the healthcare law warned about: when you throw government funding behind every potential healthcare decision, it politicizes every potential healthcare decision. Even for issues that haven't been controversial in a generation.

[Khendraja'aro]

Again, Dread, GHB. Read up on it.

[Steely Glint]

Uh, let me see

1) Date rape
2) Coercive Rape
3) Sex with someone too drunk to consent
4) Rape by deception
etc

And can you describe how any of that is really related to the merits of providing government funding for abortions?

The thread isn't about providing funding for abortions, it's about the reprehensible attempt by (mostly) the GoP to limit the definition of rape to non-consensual sex involving the use of force.

This is exactly what opponents of the healthcare law warned about: when you throw government funding behind every potential healthcare decision, it politicizes every potential healthcare decision. Even for issues that haven't been controversial in a generation.

Oh, just fuck off you piece of shit.

I really thought you were at least better than this.

[RandBlade]

It's also interesting that the overwhelming majority of the senators co-sponsoring this bill is male.

Aren't the overwhelming majority of senators male?

This proposed bill isn't "redefining" rape, it's narrowing the legal categories of rape eligible for federal funding away from consensual statutory rape to forcible rape only.

Lots of folks here have debated the merits of said statutory rape provisions, EG locking up a 19 year old for sleeping with a 17 year old. So it's sort of odd that there are people here who have questioned whether somewhat arbitrary statutory rapes are actually rape. But when abortion funding is mixed in, these same people insist that it's definitely rape.

That is precisely why this is a bad thing. It is hypocritical.

If a man can be arrested, imprisoned, have his life turned upside down, be put on a sex offenders register, lose his job, be villified in public, be called a rapist, etc, etc, etc because it is "rape" ... but then the woman can't have an abortion because it is "the wrong type of rape" ... then that is ridiculous.

I'd have more sympathy if they were redefining rape. If they were arguing that a 17/19 yo relationship is not rape, oh by the way that means no abortion, then that would be fair enough. But that's not the case.

[Loki]

Odd to see people care more about idiotic bills that have no chance of passing than slightly less idiotic bills that actually pass.

[Dreadnaught]

Uh, let me see

1) Date rape
2) Coercive Rape
3) Sex with someone too drunk to consent
4) Rape by deception
etc

The thread isn't about providing funding for abortions, it's about the reprehensible attempt by (mostly) the GoP to limit the definition of rape to non-consensual sex involving the use of force.

Oh, just fuck off you piece of shit.

I really thought you were at least better than this.

Calm down and please read what I'm saying carefully.

In many jurisdictions, none of what you listed is considered "consensual rape". Using date rape drugs and coercive drugs is forcible rape or sexual assault. Abortions stemming from those instances would theoretically still be covered by federal funding, depending on the specific state where it happened.

But please read the article and my post again.

This is about funding. This isn't about being prevented from obtaining an abortion, it's about whether the government will reimburse someone for it.

This is also exactly what I was afraid of with our health care bill. When you make every medical procedure eligible for funding, it opens up an unending political debate about funding medical procedures (like abortion) that were previously not worth arguing over.

That is precisely why this is a bad thing. It is hypocritical.

If a man can be arrested, imprisoned, have his life turned upside down, be put on a sex offenders register, lose his job, be villified in public, be called a rapist, etc, etc, etc because it is "rape" ... but then the woman can't have an abortion because it is "the wrong type of rape" ... then that is ridiculous.

I'd have more sympathy if they were redefining rape. If they were arguing that a 17/19 yo relationship is not rape, oh by the way that means no abortion, then that would be fair enough. But that's not the case.

They aren't preventing anyone from going and getting an abortion. They are simply saying the federal government shouldn't reimburse someone for that.

[Khendraja'aro]

Aren't the overwhelming majority of senators male?

Well, I actually do wonder what happened to such bills if the sex of senators was actually evenly distributed.

Using date rape drugs and coercive drugs is forcible rape or sexual assault. [...]
But please read the article and my post again.

From the effin' article:

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.

Seems to me as if someone else hasn't read the article.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

They aren't preventing anyone from going and getting an abortion. They are simply saying the federal government shouldn't reimburse someone for that.

You know well enough that this will indeed prevent a number of people from having an abortion, mainly those who can't afford one (Assuming individual states don't take up the burden. Assuming the bill passes of course)

Assuming the bill passes and people die because they couldn't get a decent abortion and got a backalley one instead: the blood is on the republitards' hands.
but i doubt they'd care.

[Dreadnaught]

*Typical Khend hostility*

Yes, that's the same part that I quoted in my first post in this thread. Please read more carefully.

It's a vagary within a vagary. It also very explicitly doesn't "redefine" rape, per the headline.

You know well enough that this will indeed prevent a number of people from having an abortion, mainly those who can't afford one (Assuming individual states don't take up the burden. Assuming the bill passes of course)

Assuming the bill passes and people die because they couldn't get a decent abortion and got a backalley one instead: the blood is on the republitards' hands.
but i doubt they'd care.

And as I've said, this is part of the problem with this whole issue of giving federal funding towards controversial medical procedures. It politicizes a private decision and gets politicians to waste time focusing on issues that should remain personal to whomever is making this very hard choice.

Also it's $300 - $1000 US for most procedures, it's not exorbitantly expensive. I had a series of leg x-rays and examinations last year from a bad fall down the stairs catching a Subway that cost my insurer more than that.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Yes, that's the same part that I quoted in my first post in this thread. Please read more carefully.

It's a vagary within a vagary. It also very explicitly doesn't "redefine" rape, per the headline.



And as I've said, this is part of the problem with this whole issue of giving federal funding towards controversial medical procedures. It politicizes a private decision and gets politicians to waste time focusing on issues that should remain personal to whomever is making this very hard choice.

Also it's $300 - $1000 US for most procedures, it's not exorbitantly expensive. I had a series of leg x-rays and examinations last year from a bad fall down the stairs catching a Subway that cost my insurer more than that.

And for some people 300-1000 dollars is a lotof money, even an exorbitantly lot money. That is the problem. That and and the american stance on abortion being total bollocks of course.

[Khendraja'aro]

Yes, that's the same part that I quoted in my first post in this thread. Please read more carefully.

And obviously, despite actually quoting the part, you didn't understand the content. Here, let me explain it to you:

1. Bill says: No pay for abortions except for those from forcible rapes
2. The term "forcible" is poorly defined in some states or not at all
3. Which means that whether a rape is forcible or not is down to the individual judges.
4. And we all know how eager those elected judges of yours will be to define a rape as "forcible" in a Biblethumper country (or anywhere else with equally moronic views).

If you don't see the problem yet, then I don't know how else to help you.

[Dreadnaught]

The government can't fund everything. People don't want their tax dollars funding procedures they don't support. This is a pretty basic tenet of democracy.

I generally support federal funding most because there is a high likelihood the unwanted child will end up needed federal support anyway. But that doesn't mean I will dismiss the motivations of those who don't support abortion and don't want their tax dollars paying for it.

EDIT: This was towards Crazy_Ivan80, not Khend. Who when I'm done taking some babies to a museum, I will address separately.

[Aimless]

How long does it take to convince the govt. that you were raped and need your abortion paid for?

PS. I think it's clear that if people didn't spend all their cash on booze and cigarettes and pretty shoes they could afford the $300 - $1000 it takes to get an abortion in the US

I wonder if the best way to empower women to make an important decision such as this is to further challenge them financially

[LittleFuzzy]

Welp. How much does the American public value their tax dollars? Enough to rape drunken or date-drugged people? The future will tell. Vote for the Pubbies, vote for rape!

In a whole lot of jurisdictions *it's been a while since I looked at all the states, so I can't definitively claim it's true for a large majority, even if I think that's the case* those would be considered 'forcible rape' situations. Drugs certainly, alcohol sees somewhat less consistency.

Que Lewkowski and his slut-hating. It's always the woman's fault, rape cannot exist as a concept, and this is how some Pubbie representatives present themselves!

Can a woman be raped? If she can, do not vote Pubbie.

I don't like the provision for not allowing tax benefits, and as the article notes, the bill is just poorly written. I have no strong objections to not providing federal assistance for abortions arising in statutory rape cases though. The substantial majority of those would not be considered rape cases of any kind in a fair number of jurisdictions, i.e. they involve teens between ages 15, 16, and 17. It actually brings about a greater degree of consistency in the treatment of people before the law, which is something I generally consider a positive. It will damage efforts to combat teen pregnancy, of course, which is a substantial negative.

[LittleFuzzy]

From the effin' article:



Seems to me as if someone else hasn't read the article.

Seems to me someone is replacing the barest bit of research for an article which is itself poorly written, editorially-slanted, and in areas just plain wrong. Dread is right, with the semi-exception of alcohol the examples people have raised so far are ones which do not fall under statutory rape statutes. The sex isn't consensual.

2. The term "forcible" is poorly defined in some states or not at all
3. Which means that whether a rape is forcible or not is down to the individual judges.

False. In those jurisdictions where "forcible rape" isn't strictly defined, a lesser offense, like statutory, is strictly defined and all other cases fall under the general statute. Which means all rape is forcible rape there.

[Steely Glint]

Calm down and please read what I'm saying carefully.

Yeah, reading what you're saying is pretty much the problem in the first place. The GoP could propose the "Torture Infants to Death With Heated Implements Act 2011" and you'd be happily sat there telling everyone they're overreacting because it only applies to infants in orphanages run by the federal government, and anyway, being burned with an iron bar doesn't hurt as much as other things that can happen and the real problem here is that the federal government runs orphanages in the first place, when it should be left up to private corporations.

In many jurisdictions, none of what you listed is considered "consensual rape". Using date rape drugs and coercive drugs is forcible rape or sexual assault. Abortions stemming from those instances would theoretically still be covered by federal funding, depending on the specific state where it happened.

Nice collection of weasel words. "Theoretically", abortions stemming from the instances I describe would qualify for funding in "many jurisdictions"? Thank god for that, my mind is completely set at ease.

You could make a strong argument that use of date rape drugs actually counts as forcible rape, though you could equally argue that the term "forcible" actually only means use of violence. What about the other ones, though? For example, a policeman tells a women he'll arrest her for possession of drugs if she doesn't have sex with him, or the landlord that threatens to evict a women if she won't sleep with him etc etc. Still rape. Very difficult to actually call it "forcible", though.

But please read the article and my post again.

I'm not reading your post again. I'd made me physically ill last time.

This is about funding. This isn't about being prevented from obtaining an abortion, it's about whether the government will reimburse someone for it.

This isn't about abortions, it's about the trivialization of rapes which don't involve violence as not "serious" enough to merit federally funded abortions

This is also exactly what I was afraid of with our health care bill. When you make every medical procedure eligible for funding, it opens up an unending political debate about funding medical procedures (like abortion) that were previously not worth arguing over.

Just fuck off. I have nothing but contempt for you at this point.

[LittleFuzzy]

You could make a strong argument that use of date rape drugs actually counts as forcible rape, though you could equally argue that the term "forcible" actually only means use of violence. What about the other ones, though? For example, a policeman tells a women he'll arrest her for possession of drugs if she doesn't have sex with him, or the landlord that threatens to evict a women if she won't sleep with him etc etc. Still rape. Very difficult to actually call it "forcible", though.

In most *I suspect all, but again, don't have the data at hand* coercion is also non-consensual and is lumped with things like violence and roofies under rape and sexual assault statutes. The two states whose statutes I can recall in detail offhand, California and Colorado, both treat it that way.

This isn't about abortions, it's about the trivialization of rapes which don't involve violence as not "serious" enough to merit federally funded abortions

But that's not happening, and you only think it is because you're not even passingly familiar with the legal situation re rape in the US. This is about abortions.

[Steely Glint]

You're just assuming that "forcible" is meant to mean and will be taken to mean the the same thing as "non-consensual".

Is this going to be like that shooting thread where you just assume my objection is based on my non-familiarity with the US, even though there are a bunch of Americans making the same arguments as me? If you have some counter knowledge why don't you share it with the class instead of just cryptically alluding to it?