House GOP bill redifines rape in cases of abortion

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Do any of you partisan hacks even know that "forcible rape" is legally rape, and it includes any non consensual sex act even if no actual force is used? Do any of you feel stupid yet, or is your hatred of Republicans too strong for you to admit you were wrong?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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*

Even better:

if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or

That makes everything OP a lie. Are you going to answer my other point about fear mongering?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

So, the fact that the entire OP is a lie is nothing but a strawman? Nice to know.

 

[strollingbones]

mother jones is more valid a source than fox news

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Dumb waste of time and money.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Maybe...but it seems more to me that the GOP just doesn't like women.

 

[goldcatt]

What is wrong with these people? No, public money should not pay for elective abortion any more than it should pay for butt implants. But rape?

It's not even up to the Feds to determine what is and is not "Forcible rape". That is a state power, and theirs alone. Rape is a state level crime. Back door power grab. Nice going, "small government" peeps.

I doubt it will go anywhere, but if it does....seeya in court. Assholes.

 

[editec]

The GOP's stance is basically anti-sex.

That's been obvious for decades.

Why?

They found this issue that divides the people and so they pander to the anti-sex crowd.

And since they don't really care about that issue, they're more than willing to pander to that crowd since they know that by doing so they win votes of people who aren't much paying attention to the issues that really matter.

Face it, folks, the anti-sex crowd isn't known for their ability to do much in the way of deep analysis on the issues that truly matter to all of us.

The GOP plays the anti-sexuality card in mych the way that the DEMS play the pro-Gay issues and for pretty the same reason.

They are contentious issues that are important to many voters but NOT important at all to the masters that control both parties.

 

[code1211]

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.

What other medical procedures are paid for by the government? Why is this procedure paid for by the government? What makes a procedure qualify to be paid for by the government?

I do not oppose the availability of abortions so that they may be safe, legal and rare. I do oppose paying for them out of the public treasury.

Why are these funded by public funds?

 

[Cuyo]

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...

I don't think there's a crime called "Statutory rape..." It is a sex crime, but if I'm not mistaken "Statutory rape" is just a blanket term that describes the offense as non-forcible. Each state has their own criteria and name for the crime, so the perp is charged with that State's crime as defined - Sometimes just "Rape" and sometimes "Sexual assault."

 

[Cuyo]

What is wrong with these people? No, public money should not pay for elective abortion any more than it should pay for butt implants. But rape?

It's not even up to the Feds to determine what is and is not "Forcible rape". That is a state power, and theirs alone. Rape is a state level crime. Back door power grab. Nice going, "small government" peeps.

I doubt it will go anywhere, but if it does....seeya in court. Assholes.

Oh GC, you always know the right thing to say.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is wrong with these people? No, public money should not pay for elective abortion any more than it should pay for butt implants. But rape?

It's not even up to the Feds to determine what is and is not "Forcible rape". That is a state power, and theirs alone. Rape is a state level crime. Back door power grab. Nice going, "small government" peeps.

I doubt it will go anywhere, but if it does....seeya in court. Assholes.

Does anyone ever bother to read? The bill does not define rape, it prohibits federal funding of abortions except in the case of forcible rape, incest, or sex with a minor, or various other exceptions that include the actual health of the mother. this si nothing but fear mongering, which most people on this forum claim is exclusively the province of the GOP.