Women have to PROVE they were raped

[Inthemiddle]

Well, as it stands.... they are not forced to have said babies.


so this is all faux rage luddy.

The OP's BS aside, this is still a disturbing proposition. I can't help but note the part that requires a woman to not only prove she reported the assault (which is easy enough to do, if you did report it), but that she reported the attacker's identity to the police also. That is way too much. What if she doesn't know the attacker's ID? I don't like laws that can place unreasonable demands on people, with their only saving grace being the "honest" intentions of those wielding the power of law. Especially when we're talking about laws that are ideologically bent.

Not to mention, what if she didn't report the attack? Many women refrain from reporting rapes out of shame, or fear, or for some other reason. While I would always encourage a woman to report a rape, it's her right to not do so and I cannot tolerate anything that interferes with her own freely determined decision in that regards.

Finally, shouldn't we have a goal to promote reasonable alternatives to abortion as a means of dealing with unintended pregnancies? If a woman is raped, becomes pregnant, and is otherwise prepared to see the pregnancy to term, I don't think it serves anyone's interests or ideology to compound things for her such as to make abortion a more preferrable alternative.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The bill is designed to remove the incentive of low income women who are on assistance to have more children they cant afford.

That is not a bad thing.

No, not a bad goal. But a very bad way of going about it.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Stop making excuses for lazy ass women and men

There's your problem right there. Demonization of the poor is en vogue. Truth is, the "lazy" welfare queen is a myth. But some people just gotta have someone to hate.

 

[The Professor]

The title of the thread is misleading.

As background, the State of Pennsylvania did not want to provide additional financial support for a woman who had additional children AFTER she was already on the welfare rolls. However, the woman could ask for en exception if she made a claim that the pregnancy was the result of rape. To receive the exception, the woman did not have to PROVE the rape itself, but only that she REPORTED the rape. Here is the relevant portion of the legislation according to the link posted by OP.


“Elimination of benefits under subsection (d) shall not apply to any child conceived as a result of rape or incest if the department: (1) receives a non-notarized, signed statement from the pregnant woman stating that she was a victim of rape or incest, as the case may be, and that she reported the crime, including the identity of the offender, if known, to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction or, in the case of incest where a pregnant minor is the victim, to the county child protective service agency and stating the name of the law enforcement agency or child protective service agency to which the report was made and the date such report was made.”

The article went on to say that the woman was required to sign a statement affirming she understands that “false reports to law enforcement authorities are punishable by law.”

There is a difference between a woman having to prove she was raped and a woman having only to prove she reported the rape. At this point, I will reserve expressing an opinion on whether or not it is proper to require a woman to report the rape to get additional benefits. I merely wanted to set the record straight.

 

[Chris]

Stop making excuses for lazy ass women and men

There's your problem right there. Demonization of the poor is en vogue. Truth is, the "lazy" welfare queen is a myth. But some people just gotta have someone to hate.

Republicans want the middle class to hate the poor, so they won't notice the rich walking away with all the money.

 

[rightwinger]

You know you can't trust women to say if they were raped

Only Republicans can decide such things

Liberals are nuts......anyone can say they were raped..it doesnt mean it's true......two words.....Duke Lacross

Yes

One woman lied so ALL women lie

Republican binary thought process

 

[Inthemiddle]

You know you can't trust women to say if they were raped

Only Republicans can decide such things

Liberals are nuts......anyone can say they were raped..it doesnt mean it's true......two words.....Duke Lacross

Yes

One woman lied so ALL women lie

Republican binary thought process

You mean they see only 10 sides to every issue?

 

[Listening]

If there were a way for a woman to register her uterus as a corporation, the Republicans would not have the slighest interest in regulating it.

Can you ever say anything intelligent ?

 

[AmyNation]

by removing support for the sibling ? - justice in a "nut" shell.

Yes.

You cannot reward failure and punish success, and then wonder why more people are seeing state funds less as a temporary relief, and more like a permanent partner in funding their children.

as stated earlier

there is nothing unusual with government fostering certain societal mores. it's why there is a tax benefit to marriage.

why not remove all marriage tax deductions from people who really can afford their children without gov't assistance as well - and pay for it themselves.

I have no issues with removing the child tax credit completely.

 

[AmyNation]

The bill is designed to remove the incentive of low income women who are on assistance to have more children they cant afford.

That is not a bad thing.

Well, that "child they can't afford" might turn out to be the one who invents a cure for cancer or develops a car that defies gravity.

point?

 

[AmyNation]

Well, as it stands.... they are not forced to have said babies.


so this is all faux rage luddy.

The OP's BS aside, this is still a disturbing proposition. I can't help but note the part that requires a woman to not only prove she reported the assault (which is easy enough to do, if you did report it), but that she reported the attacker's identity to the police also. That is way too much. What if she doesn't know the attacker's ID? I don't like laws that can place unreasonable demands on people, with their only saving grace being the "honest" intentions of those wielding the power of law. Especially when we're talking about laws that are ideologically bent.

Not to mention, what if she didn't report the attack? Many women refrain from reporting rapes out of shame, or fear, or for some other reason. While I would always encourage a woman to report a rape, it's her right to not do so and I cannot tolerate anything that interferes with her own freely determined decision in that regards.

Finally, shouldn't we have a goal to promote reasonable alternatives to abortion as a means of dealing with unintended pregnancies? If a woman is raped, becomes pregnant, and is otherwise prepared to see the pregnancy to term, I don't think it serves anyone's interests or ideology to compound things for her such as to make abortion a more preferrable alternative.

I agree.

I focused on the bill, and only glanced at the "exception if you're raped" issue.

I can understand the worry over this exception. If you are having a child specifically to get those extra benefits then having to declare you were raped may not be a big issue.

However I think signing a Notarized statement to the effect, should be all the proof the state asks for. Police reports, attackers names etc, that's not the states business.

 

[Article 15]

Pennsylvania Bill Would Reduce Welfare Benefits For Women Who Cannot Prove They Were Raped | ThinkProgress

or lose food stamps.

We need a section devoted to the War On Women. But, since there is none, I'm putting this article here.

Note that there was also a Dem on this little holier than thou posse -

Pennsylvania lawmakers — State Reps. RoseMarie Swanger (R), Tom Caltagirone (D), Mark Gillen (R), Keith Gillespie (R), Adam Harris (R), and Mike Tobash (R) — don’t want their state’s welfare program to provide additional benefits for that newborn. If a woman gives birth to a child who was conceived from rape, she may seek an exception to this rule so that her welfare benefits aren’t slashed, but only if she can provide proof that she reported her sexual assault and her abuser’s identity to the police...

I don't even have to ask how the rw's here feel about this. They'll just love it, I'm sure. Force women to bear babies they can't care for but then, take away assistance.

The way you are framing this is a bit misleading. They don't have to prove they were raped, they have to prove that they reported a rape.

If a woman gives birth to a child who was conceived from rape, she may seek an exception to this rule so that her welfare benefits aren’t slashed, but only if she can provide proof that she reported her sexual assault and her abuser’s identity to the police ...

Elimination of benefits under subsection (d) shall not apply to any child conceived as a result of rape or incest if the department: (1) receives a non-notarized, signed statement from the pregnant woman stating that she was a victim of rape or incest, as the case may be, and that she reported the crime, including the identity of the offender, if known, to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction or, in the case of incest where a pregnant minor is the victim, to the county child protective service agency and stating the name of the law enforcement agency or child protective service agency to which the report was made and the date such report was made.

That said, it's still outrageous, IMO.

 

[Katzndogz]

Well, as it stands.... they are not forced to have said babies.


so this is all faux rage luddy.

The OP's BS aside, this is still a disturbing proposition. I can't help but note the part that requires a woman to not only prove she reported the assault (which is easy enough to do, if you did report it), but that she reported the attacker's identity to the police also. That is way too much. What if she doesn't know the attacker's ID? I don't like laws that can place unreasonable demands on people, with their only saving grace being the "honest" intentions of those wielding the power of law. Especially when we're talking about laws that are ideologically bent.

Not to mention, what if she didn't report the attack? Many women refrain from reporting rapes out of shame, or fear, or for some other reason. While I would always encourage a woman to report a rape, it's her right to not do so and I cannot tolerate anything that interferes with her own freely determined decision in that regards.

Finally, shouldn't we have a goal to promote reasonable alternatives to abortion as a means of dealing with unintended pregnancies? If a woman is raped, becomes pregnant, and is otherwise prepared to see the pregnancy to term, I don't think it serves anyone's interests or ideology to compound things for her such as to make abortion a more preferrable alternative.

I agree.

I focused on the bill, and only glanced at the "exception if you're raped" issue.

I can understand the worry over this exception. If you are having a child specifically to get those extra benefits then having to declare you were raped may not be a big issue.

However I think signing a Notarized statement to the effect, should be all the proof the state asks for. Police reports, attackers names etc, that's not the states business.

Rape is a crime so the name of the attacker and medical records are definitely the state's business.

There are women who would well claim to have been raped five or six times to run up the their tab on the state. It is entirely reasonable for the state to have a woman prove she was raped. She is asking the state for money, therefore the state has a perfect right to set conditions on receiving that money.

 

[AmyNation]

The OP's BS aside, this is still a disturbing proposition. I can't help but note the part that requires a woman to not only prove she reported the assault (which is easy enough to do, if you did report it), but that she reported the attacker's identity to the police also. That is way too much. What if she doesn't know the attacker's ID? I don't like laws that can place unreasonable demands on people, with their only saving grace being the "honest" intentions of those wielding the power of law. Especially when we're talking about laws that are ideologically bent.

Not to mention, what if she didn't report the attack? Many women refrain from reporting rapes out of shame, or fear, or for some other reason. While I would always encourage a woman to report a rape, it's her right to not do so and I cannot tolerate anything that interferes with her own freely determined decision in that regards.

Finally, shouldn't we have a goal to promote reasonable alternatives to abortion as a means of dealing with unintended pregnancies? If a woman is raped, becomes pregnant, and is otherwise prepared to see the pregnancy to term, I don't think it serves anyone's interests or ideology to compound things for her such as to make abortion a more preferrable alternative.

I agree.

I focused on the bill, and only glanced at the "exception if you're raped" issue.

I can understand the worry over this exception. If you are having a child specifically to get those extra benefits then having to declare you were raped may not be a big issue.

However I think signing a Notarized statement to the effect, should be all the proof the state asks for. Police reports, attackers names etc, that's not the states business.

Rape is a crime so the name of the attacker and medical records are definitely the state's business.

There are women who would well claim to have been raped five or six times to run up the their tab on the state. It is entirely reasonable for the state to have a woman prove she was raped. She is asking the state for money, therefore the state has a perfect right to set conditions on receiving that money.

Like I said, I can see the issue, however demanding her medial records and the name of her attacker is crossing the line into intrusive big brother government.

You also forget, that a woman who declares to the state that her child is a product of rape, cannot then declare a father on sed child's birth certificate, or seek child support.

I don't think the issue will arise often enough to justify the state treating poor women like criminals.

 

[Katzndogz]

I agree.

I focused on the bill, and only glanced at the "exception if you're raped" issue.

I can understand the worry over this exception. If you are having a child specifically to get those extra benefits then having to declare you were raped may not be a big issue.

However I think signing a Notarized statement to the effect, should be all the proof the state asks for. Police reports, attackers names etc, that's not the states business.

Rape is a crime so the name of the attacker and medical records are definitely the state's business.

There are women who would well claim to have been raped five or six times to run up the their tab on the state. It is entirely reasonable for the state to have a woman prove she was raped. She is asking the state for money, therefore the state has a perfect right to set conditions on receiving that money.

Like I said, I can see the issue, however demanding her medial records and the name of her attacker is crossing the line into intrusive big brother government.

You also forget, that a woman who declares to the state that her child is a product of rape, cannot then declare a father on sed child's birth certificate, or seek child support.

I don't think the issue will arise often enough to justify the state treating poor women like criminals.

Any time you claim to be the victim of a crime, whether it's rape, battery, or theft you are required to give the authorities all information regarding your attacker. If you know your attacker, you are required to identify him. To do otherwise is obstruction of justice. I don't know where you got the idea that a woman who claims to be raped but knows her rapist cannot put his name on the birth certificate or get child support, but it is not true. She absolutely CAN and the rapist can ask for joint custody and visitation just as well. In 31 states he will get it.


Rapist ordered to pay child support wants visitation rights | Salem MA Family Law Attorney Blog

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'm still baffled by why someone who is incapable of supporting their family would continue to have more children...

Oh, wait.... never mind.

 

[Ernie S.]

The title of the thread is misleading.

As background, the State of Pennsylvania did not want to provide additional financial support for a woman who had additional children AFTER she was already on the welfare rolls. However, the woman could ask for en exception if she made a claim that the pregnancy was the result of rape. To receive the exception, the woman did not have to PROVE the rape itself, but only that she REPORTED the rape. Here is the relevant portion of the legislation according to the link posted by OP.


“Elimination of benefits under subsection (d) shall not apply to any child conceived as a result of rape or incest if the department: (1) receives a non-notarized, signed statement from the pregnant woman stating that she was a victim of rape or incest, as the case may be, and that she reported the crime, including the identity of the offender, if known, to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction or, in the case of incest where a pregnant minor is the victim, to the county child protective service agency and stating the name of the law enforcement agency or child protective service agency to which the report was made and the date such report was made.”

The article went on to say that the woman was required to sign a statement affirming she understands that “false reports to law enforcement authorities are punishable by law.”

There is a difference between a woman having to prove she was raped and a woman having only to prove she reported the rape. At this point, I will reserve expressing an opinion on whether or not it is proper to require a woman to report the rape to get additional benefits. I merely wanted to set the record straight.

This post right here should have ended the thread. The only subsequent replies should have been those ridiculing the hackery of the OP.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm still baffled by why someone who is incapable of supporting their family would continue to have more children...

Oh, wait.... never mind.

And yet, if she gets pregnant, you would use the law to force her to have the baby.

 

[Katzndogz]

She has the baby, and since she cannot care for it, the child gets taken from her. Next time, with all the work and no benefit she will be more careful. Remove having additional children as a career move.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's strange how the abortion issue has gotten so skewed that now,

opposing all abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother is being portrayed by the Right as the moderate alternative position to the extreme position of opposing abortion in any case -except, usually, life of the mother.

Sorry, but opposing all abortion except rape, incest, and life of the mother IS the extreme position.

Opposing all abortion is the extreme version of the extreme position.

Don't let the Right frame the debate.