House GOP bill redifines rape in cases of abortion

[Sheldon]

House Republicans Are Already Redefining 'Rape'

But for years, there have been exceptions for abortions that are eligible for federal funding: In case of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the mother's life. The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" would make some changes to trifecta! Mother Jones' Nick Baumann reports:

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.)
[...]
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.
​

The fact that "forcible rape" has no real meaning as a federal legal term makes this all the more obnoxious.

Oh, and what about the incest exception? "As for the incest exception, the bill would only allow federally funded abortions if the woman is under 18."
​

H.R.5939: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress
edit--

H.R.3: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

What are your thoughts on this bill?

To me it seems like more GOP pandering to the religious right. My money's on it dying in the Senate.

 

[Modbert]

What are your thoughts on this bill?

To me it seems like more GOP pandering to the religious right. My money's on it dying in the Senate.

It's definitely pandering to the religious right while certainly is showing the lack of thought and or lack of concern on the part of the people backing such a bill. The end goal of the GOP is a Big Government move to make all abortions not covered by any sort of insurance.

 

[Sheldon]

What are your thoughts on this bill?

To me it seems like more GOP pandering to the religious right. My money's on it dying in the Senate.

It's definitely pandering to the religious right while certainly is showing the lack of thought and or lack of concern on the part of the people backing such a bill. The end goal of the GOP is a Big Government move to make all abortions not covered by any sort of insurance.

I'm not getting the logic to why incest of a legal minor can be covered by Medicaid but incest of a legal adult can't. That part is just... strange.

 

[Trajan]

House Republicans Are Already Redefining 'Rape'

But for years, there have been exceptions for abortions that are eligible for federal funding: In case of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the mother's life. The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" would make some changes to trifecta! Mother Jones' Nick Baumann reports:

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.)
[...]
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.
​

The fact that "forcible rape" has no real meaning as a federal legal term makes this all the more obnoxious.

Oh, and what about the incest exception? "As for the incest exception, the bill would only allow federally funded abortions if the woman is under 18."
​

H.R.5939: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress


What are your thoughts on this bill?

To me it seems like more GOP pandering to the religious right. My money's on it dying in the Senate.

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.

dunces.

 

[Modbert]

I'm not getting the logic to why incest of a legal minor can be covered by Medicaid but incest of a legal adult can't. That part is just... strange.

It's because there is no logic with this bill. The entire bill itself is illogical.

 

[Modbert]

dunces.

And it has 186 co-sponsors.

 

[Valerie]

They want to legislate standards of medical care...?


Health insurance coverage for your private medical care, the legality of which is not at issue, should be based on a professional medical standard of care, not subject to moral cherry picking and manipulation at the hands of the federal government.

 

[Father Time]

So secretly giving someone a drug that knocks them out and then having sex with them isn't rape?

Oh those crazy idiots.

 

[Modbert]

So secretly giving someone a drug that knocks them out and then having sex with them isn't rape?

Oh those crazy idiots.

I'm surprised they just didn't go ahead and add a provision that says if you yell surprise first, it's not rape.

 

[Father Time]

So secretly giving someone a drug that knocks them out and then having sex with them isn't rape?

Oh those crazy idiots.

I'm surprised they just didn't go ahead and add a provision that says if you yell surprise first, it's not rape.

Wait you mean there isn't one all ready? Aw 4chan lied to me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

House Republicans Are Already Redefining 'Rape'

But for years, there have been exceptions for abortions that are eligible for federal funding: In case of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the mother's life. The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" would make some changes to trifecta! Mother Jones' Nick Baumann reports:

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.)
[...]
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.
​

The fact that "forcible rape" has no real meaning as a federal legal term makes this all the more obnoxious.

Oh, and what about the incest exception? "As for the incest exception, the bill would only allow federally funded abortions if the woman is under 18."
​

H.R.5939: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress


What are your thoughts on this bill?

To me it seems like more GOP pandering to the religious right. My money's on it dying in the Senate.

Let me see if I understand your position.

We have a bunch of pro abortion groups and politicians who are trying to scare people about abortion funding because some Republicans want to eliminate all federal funding for abortion, which up to this year, was already illegal, and is currently barred by executive order. In order to frighten their base and raise money they claim that the Republicans want to make it legal to have non forcible rape, and you guys all fall for this, even though you have no evidence to support it because the only link to the bill only has a summary of the bill, and no proposed text.

I bet most of the people here also claim that the Republicans are fear mongers who lie to their base to raise money.

 

[syrenn]

What part of rape don't they understand? I was unaware that there was a thing called NON forcible rape.

Does not rape in and of itself imply force?

 

[snjmom]

I bet most of the people here also claim that the Republicans are fear mongers who lie to their base to raise money.

By doing things like proposing anti-abortion legislation that will go nowhere?

 

[dilloduck]

What part of rape don't they understand? I was unaware that there was a thing called NON forcible rape.

Does not rape in and of itself imply force?

Statutory ?

 

[strollingbones]

republican compassion....how much can you stand?

 

[Sheldon]

House Republicans Are Already Redefining 'Rape'

But for years, there have been exceptions for abortions that are eligible for federal funding: In case of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the mother's life. The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" would make some changes to trifecta! Mother Jones' Nick Baumann reports:

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.)
[...]
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.
​

The fact that "forcible rape" has no real meaning as a federal legal term makes this all the more obnoxious.

Oh, and what about the incest exception? "As for the incest exception, the bill would only allow federally funded abortions if the woman is under 18."
​

H.R.5939: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress


What are your thoughts on this bill?

To me it seems like more GOP pandering to the religious right. My money's on it dying in the Senate.

Let me see if I understand your position.

We have a bunch of pro abortion groups and politicians who are trying to scare people about abortion funding because some Republicans want to eliminate all federal funding for abortion, which up to this year, was already illegal, and is currently barred by executive order. In order to frighten their base and raise money they claim that the Republicans want to make it legal to have non forcible rape, and you guys all fall for this, even though you have no evidence to support it because the only link to the bill only has a summary of the bill, and no proposed text.

I bet most of the people here also claim that the Republicans are fear mongers who lie to their base to raise money.

The link to the full text of the bill is on the right hand side of the page, where it says "Official Bill Text, Comment on About 9 Pages", right under the orange "Donate Now" button.

 

[Modbert]

The link to the full text of the bill is on the right hand side of the page, where it says "Official Bill Text, Comment on About 9 Pages", right under the orange "Donate Now" button.

Why are you hiding the bill?!

 

[Sheldon]

The link to the full text of the bill is on the right hand side of the page, where it says "Official Bill Text, Comment on About 9 Pages", right under the orange "Donate Now" button.

Why are you hiding the bill?!

It's the websites fault. You just have to be a licensed pro-abortionist to see the link.

 

[jillian]

House Republicans Are Already Redefining 'Rape'

But for years, there have been exceptions for abortions that are eligible for federal funding: In case of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the mother's life. The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" would make some changes to trifecta! Mother Jones' Nick Baumann reports:

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.)
[...]
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.
​

The fact that "forcible rape" has no real meaning as a federal legal term makes this all the more obnoxious.

Oh, and what about the incest exception? "As for the incest exception, the bill would only allow federally funded abortions if the woman is under 18."
​

H.R.5939: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress


What are your thoughts on this bill?

To me it seems like more GOP pandering to the religious right. My money's on it dying in the Senate.

i'm so glad they're focusing like a laser beam on the economy.

isn't the definition of insanity voting for the same losers over and over and expecting something different?

pathetic loons.

but they're into small government except when it concerns women's bodies... your morality... and anything else they don't like.

 

[Modbert]

It's the websites fault. You just have to be a licensed pro-abortionist to see the link.

But that has a 30 day waiting period!