GOP moves to redefine rape...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Iaculus

... in order to save money on abortions. No, seriously.

This is just fucking disgusting.

A majority of House Republicans are taking aim at decreasing federal funding for reproductive health by changing the definition of rape in a newly-filed bill.

Currently, the federal government denies taxpayer monies to be used to pay for abortions, except in cases when pregnancies result from rape or incest or when the pregnancy endangers the woman's life.

However, if the 173 mainly Republican co-sponsors of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" have their way, that would all change. Instead of keeping the 30-year-old definition of rape in federal law, the bill would modify it to "forcible rape," thereby severely limiting the health care choices of millions of American women and their families.

In other words, rape would not be rape unless violence were involved; however, the term "forcible rape" was left undefined, leading some to speculate its meaning since it is also not defined in the federal criminal code or in some state laws.

"This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible," Nick Baumann of Mother Jones wrote recently.

He continued, "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."

If the bill becomes law, parents of minors would also be banned from paying for pregnancy termination for their daughters with tax-exempt health savings accounts. Also, the cost of the private health insurance that covered the treatment would not be able to be deducted as a medical expense for tax purposes.

The bill introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) was the second major piece of legislation filed by the Republicans after its attempt to repeal "The Affordable Care Act." Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) hailed Smith's bill as "one of our highest legislative priorities."

“A ban on taxpayer funding of abortions is the will of the people, and it ought to be the will of the land,” Boehner said on the 38th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade last week.

The bill would also deny other exemptions for rape victims who were drugged or given alcohol, who were mentally limited, and who were date raped.

The incest exception of the bill granted federally-funded abortions only if the woman is under 18.
Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said recently that Rep. Smith's bill marked a new beginning for future attacks on women's health. She noted that "a record number" of bills against women's health and family planning are currently filed in state legislatures.

"In fact, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) plans to introduce a bill that would strip Planned Parenthood of all Title X family planning funding, which has made it possible for millions of low-income women to choose and pay for contraception and other basic preventive health care since 1970," she said.

A November 2010 Hart Research poll [PDF] indicated that a majority of American voters who voted for a Republican candidate (71 percent) opposed the Smith bill.
Click to expand...
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

Abortion should definitely be paid with taxpayer dollars. Abortion saves us money in the long run by preventing criminals from ever committing crimes and getting sent to jail and all that. If a parent wants an abortion, but cant get one because they can't afford it, I doubt that child is going to turn out well. I just wish someone would point this out rather than all the other garbage moral aspects.
 
B

Biannoshufu

So, not going to answer the question?

He deleted his remarks!

Does this mean I winz?
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

First Lady Puffinstuff said:
I'm pretty sure he's suggesting that AshburnerX's question/accusation/frothing at the mouth is worthy of a response.
Click to expand...
It's s legitimate question and your taking a stance against what has been considered one of the few exceptions even some pro-lifers are willing to make. I'd simply like to know where your coming from. There are a lot of reasons somebody might be against it and not just because they are a pro-lifer.

Oh, and I don't appreciate your insult. I asked you a question on your stance, I didn't say that you were wrong for having it. Don't be so hostile.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

First Lady Puffinstuff said:
Is abortion, in the case of rape, something that should be provided for the good of the public (like roads, libraries, etc), or does it merely provide additional quality of life for the individual involved (like prosthetics, transportation, etc)?
Click to expand...
This is a perfectly reasonable stance to take, though I'd argue that the costs saved over the lifetime of the child aborted would be in the public interest. Children of rape have a much higher chance of being abandoned, put up for adoption, or living in home that receives government benefits. That means there is a very high likelihood that the government is going to paying out a substantial sum over the lifetime of the child in government mandated benefits or social services.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
It's a legal medical procedure and as such should be paid for just like every other legal medical procedure.
 
Norris

Norris

Uh, guys? I think the story here isn't "should abortion be federally funded" as much as it is "should we redefine what qualifies as rape". The answer to the second question is "no". If abortion is federally covered for rape, then there should be no quibbling about how the rape occurred. Rape is rape.
 
phil

phil

Norris said:
Uh, guys? I think the story here isn't "should abortion be federally funded" as much as it is "should we redefine what qualifies as rape". The answer to the second question is "no". If abortion is federally covered for rape, then there should be no quibbling about how the rape occurred. Rape is rape.
Click to expand...


Uuuuhhhhh, no. The question is if we DO redefine rape, will MY taxes go down?


Which is of course yes and a perfectly reasonable reason to do so.
 
DarkAudit

DarkAudit

(Assuming it was not mod action)

You either stand by what you say or you retract. You don't just erase and hope no one notices.
 
B

Biannoshufu

First Lady Puffinstuff said:
I withdrew my posts for personal reasons. It was not my intention to expect no-one to notice.
Click to expand...
so what's up with that? I was looking forward to your replies, and not because it was an unusual position to hold, but because you usually have a reasonable point.
 
C

Chibibar

So if a person is raped but not forcible then that person can't get an abortion under the new bill? So date rape and such people have to keep the kid (if they can't afford it themselves and can't use medicaid)

Talking adding burden to the system that is already "broken" (IMO) we already have tons of kids that are not being adopted in our society, now we can add more!! yay!
 
David

David

I'm a little confused. Would this bill allow rapists to get off consequence free, or does it just prevent specific rape victims from getting federal aid for medical treatment? Either way would be horribly wrong, obviously, but the former seems worse in that it denies medical treatment to rape victims AND allows the rapist to walk away.
 
Norris

Norris

David said:
I'm a little confused. Would this bill allow rapists to get off consequence free, or does it just prevent specific rape victims from getting federal aid for medical treatment? Either way would be horribly wrong, obviously, but the former seems worse in that it denies medical treatment to rape victims AND allows the rapist to walk away.
Click to expand...
No, it would still be a crime. Victims of non-forcible rapes just wouldn't be considered raped enough to warrant federal health coverage of an abortion.

In my opinion, reasonable people can disagree about whether or not the government should be funding any abortions. What reasonable people can't do is quibble over how raped is raped enough to warrant federal coverage of an abortion.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Dave said:
Well if we want UNreasonable opposition we got that in spades! We'll just use the GasBandit Signal!
Click to expand...
Sorry, Work is on me again, and besides, I support abortion. In fact, I often wonder if we shouldn't have manditory abortions. Especially for poor, minorities, and women. And the irish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top