House GOP bill redifines rape in cases of abortion

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Sheldon, Jan 29, 2011.

  1. Sheldon
    Offline

    Sheldon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,215
    Thanks Received:
    1,328
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,330
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2011
  2. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,957
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,962
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Sheldon
    Offline

    Sheldon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,215
    Thanks Received:
    1,328
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,330

    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. :confused:
     
  4. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756

    dunces.
     
  5. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,957
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,962
    It's because there is no logic with this bill. The entire bill itself is illogical.
     
  6. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,957
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,962
    And it has 186 co-sponsors.
     
  7. Valerie
    Offline

    Valerie Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    24,624
    Thanks Received:
    5,980
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +10,295
    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.
     
  8. Father Time
    Offline

    Father Time I'll be Still Alive

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,130
    Thanks Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +438
    So secretly giving someone a drug that knocks them out and then having sex with them isn't rape?

    Oh those crazy idiots.
     
  9. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,957
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,962
    I'm surprised they just didn't go ahead and add a provision that says if you yell surprise first, it's not rape.
     
  10. Father Time
    Offline

    Father Time I'll be Still Alive

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,130
    Thanks Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +438
    Wait you mean there isn't one all ready? Aw 4chan lied to me.
     

Share This Page