House GOP bill redifines rape in cases of abortion

[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?

Statutory ?

Then they need to redefine that to statutory sex...

 

[Modbert]

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?

If a woman was drugged with say a combination of pills into her drink at a club by some guy, was taken back to his place, and coerced into having sex, would you not consider that rape?

 

[gekaap]

I see no problem with removing the exception for statutory rape at certain ages, nor partially the "drunken" rape scenario (if a woman is unconscious then the exception should remain, but if she's conscious and it's only "rape" because her judgment was compromised, then I'm okay with removing that exception). Even though there's never any excuse for someone taking advantage of another's inability to resist, a grown adult must also bear some responsibility for the decisions they make while intoxicated.

But in a scenario where a woman, after a night of drinking, passes out, or where she's drugged, or where she has a mental illness that compromises her ability to consent, or when an 8 year old girl is molested by a 40 year old man, I simply cannot understand the RATIONAL/FUNCTIONAL reason for this.

 

[Modbert]

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 ?

Then they need to redefine that to statutory sex...

The reason why it's called rape is because anyone under the age of consent cannot legally give consent to sexual activities. It's so men or women who have sexual activities with say a ten year old cannot get out of the charges because they supposedly got permission from the ten year old. Not only that, but statutory carries different penalties then non-statutory rape.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My God, you people will fly off the handle and run around, foaming at the mouth, for just about anything, won't you? Mother Jones? Really? I wouldn't let my kid line his mouse cage with that rag, let alone use it as a source for news.

Look at his other link, geniuses. This "hot news story" of theirs is from July of 2010. The 111th Congress, which we are no longer in. This bill died in committee, but NOW we're having a story screeching about the "new GOP bill"?

I haven't found a single site, reliable or otherwise, to substantiate the idea that this bill has been or will be reintroduced, so why don't the rest of you pull the panty-knot out of your ass cracks, settle the fuck down, and try using your Internet connection for something other than porn?

Call me when this is actually news.

 

[gekaap]

The idea is that it's impossible for children of certain ages to consent to sex with adults, because the power dynamic that exists between a child and adult inescapably taints any "voluntary" act the child may undertake.

 

[Sheldon]

My God, you people will fly off the handle and run around, foaming at the mouth, for just about anything, won't you? Mother Jones? Really? I wouldn't let my kid line his mouse cage with that rag, let alone use it as a source for news.

Look at his other link, geniuses. This "hot news story" of theirs is from July of 2010. The 111th Congress, which we are no longer in. This bill died in committee, but NOW we're having a story screeching about the "new GOP bill"?

I haven't found a single site, reliable or otherwise, to substantiate the idea that this bill has been or will be reintroduced, so why don't the rest of you pull the panty-knot out of your ass cracks, settle the fuck down, and try using your Internet connection for something other than porn?

Call me when this is actually news.

*calls Cesspit*

*phone rings to voicemail*

Hey Cesspit, it's Sheldon. I just wanted to let you know that I linked to the old bill in the OP. My mistake. I'm just calling to let you know that I've got some actual news for you. The same bill, HR 3, was introduced on January 20, and is in the Ways and Means Committee right now. Here's the link to HR3.

*click*

 

[Bass v 2.0]

The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape | Mother Jones


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.)

 

[uscitizen]

A pretty low life thing to do. Forcing some victims of rape to bear the child of their rapist?

If there is a hell....

 

[Modbert]

Threads merged.

 

[whitehall]

GOP BILL REDIFINES HOW FEDERAL TAXPAYER MONEY IS USED. Relax lefties, you still can hire someone to kill an unborn baby but don't expect me to pay for it.

 

[Flopper]

Proposed legislation such as this just helps the Democrats.

 

[whitehall]

Democrats show how desperate they are and how well the Soros sponsored spin network is working when they analyze bills before they are even finalized. Americans didn't even get a chance to look at the title page of the gigantic health care bill and yet the spin network is hard at work with op-eds nit-picking bills before republicans get a single bill into the system.

 

[jillian]

I see no problem with removing the exception for statutory rape at certain ages, nor partially the "drunken" rape scenario (if a woman is unconscious then the exception should remain, but if she's conscious and it's only "rape" because her judgment was compromised, then I'm okay with removing that exception). Even though there's never any excuse for someone taking advantage of another's inability to resist, a grown adult must also bear some responsibility for the decisions they make while intoxicated.

But in a scenario where a woman, after a night of drinking, passes out, or where she's drugged, or where she has a mental illness that compromises her ability to consent, or when an 8 year old girl is molested by a 40 year old man, I simply cannot understand the RATIONAL/FUNCTIONAL reason for this.

the victim should NEVER bear any responsibility for being raped. only the rapist is responsible.

this is disgusting.

 

[mdn2000]

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.

Sounds like you have described a lot more than mere "statuatory rape".

Bad premise. A 24 year old rapes a 13 year old, he gets charged as a pedophile and that type of rape does qualify for federal assistance.

 

[Valerie]

My God, you people will fly off the handle and run around, foaming at the mouth, for just about anything, won't you? Mother Jones? Really? I wouldn't let my kid line his mouse cage with that rag, let alone use it as a source for news.

Look at his other link, geniuses. This "hot news story" of theirs is from July of 2010. The 111th Congress, which we are no longer in. This bill died in committee, but NOW we're having a story screeching about the "new GOP bill"?

I haven't found a single site, reliable or otherwise, to substantiate the idea that this bill has been or will be reintroduced, so why don't the rest of you pull the panty-knot out of your ass cracks, settle the fuck down, and try using your Internet connection for something other than porn?

Call me when this is actually news.

*calls Cesspit*

*phone rings to voicemail*

Hey Cesspit, it's Sheldon. I just wanted to let you know that I linked to the old bill in the OP. My mistake. I'm just calling to let you know that I've got some actual news for you. The same bill, HR 3, was introduced on January 20, and is in the Ways and Means Committee right now. Here's the link to HR3.

*click*

Well done!

 

[Father Time]

In order to frighten their base and raise money they claim that the Republicans want to make it legal to have non forcible rape,

 

[uscitizen]

In order to frighten their base and raise money they claim that the Republicans want to make it legal to have non forcible rape,

You mean the left is picking up some of the right's tricks?

Ohh my they are gonna take our guns away!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

If it goes no where then don't worry about it. On the other hand, the fact is that the people that are trying to scare you right now are Democrats.

 

[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.

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.

Are you talking about where it says

if the pregnancy is the result of an act of forcible rape, or incest with a minor; or

Which actually totally negates every claim in the OP.

Thanks for making my point for me.