It wasn’t too long ago that Congressional Republicans who desperately wanted to win a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives said they’d focus on jobs as their number one priority, but if H.R. 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” is any indication, House Republicans aren’t really too concerned about jobs:
The broad anti-abortion measure would restrict federally-assisted abortion coverage to cases of “forcible rape,” excluding in that definition instances where women are drugged and raped, where women say “no” but do not physically fight off the perpetrator, and various cases of date rape. It also excludes instances of statutory rape in which minors are impregnated by adults. The victim in all cases would be denied abortion coverage under Medicaid and forbidden from seeking health care tax benefits.
While House Republicans seem to be wholeheartedly supporting the “No Taxpayer for Abortion Act,” at least one Democrat, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, is making it clear she considers the bill to be a direct attack on women.
“It is absolutely outrageous,” Wasserman Schultz said in an exclusive interview late Monday afternoon. “I consider the proposal of this bill a violent act against women.”
The fact that House Republicans consider forcing underage victims of sexual assault to bear the children borne of their sexual assaults is simply mind boggling, not to mention disturbing.
Zach…I should preface this comment by saying I’m pro-life…but I’m also pro-choice.
Reading the little bit of the bill you have in your blog post it doesn’t sound to me like anyone is “forcing” women to have babies. They can still have an abortion…it just won’t be funded by taxpayers. Am I reading this right?
“I should preface this comment by saying I’m pro-life…but I’m also pro-choice.”
Heh…and I thought I was crazy for telling folks the same thing about myself. Glad to see there are others with a nuanced view on that particular issue.
Zach…it does not surprise me that you are pro-life…but also pro-choice.
Anon You read it correctly. But never fear Debbie Wasserman Shultz will ALWAYS distort any topic and make up “facts” to support her point of view. The Truth be damned! She’s becoming one of the most oft interviewed Dem Congresswoman because of her ability to just make stuff up while being interviewed.
To be honest I don’t even know who Wasserman Shultz is…but for her to say this is a “violent act against women” is ridiculous and insulting/offensive. Perhaps she needs to spend some time in Haiti or South Africa to get a true sense of what violent acts against women are…
And raping a woman isn’t a violent forceful act then sort of pushing them into a situation they have to give birth to a kid they might have issues with because of the said rape? Look, I’d love it if maybe some private organizations would step up and take this task and do it humanely, but chances are this is never going to happen.
I don’t see any good natured conservatives stepping up to the plate and adopting these children when they’re being tossed aside like rag dolls. Most these people refer them as ‘welfare queens’.
I’m not pro-abortion, under most circumstances I’m pro-life — but if they’re just going to exist through the hell I had to go through orand the many times I’ve been near death and nobody gave a damn because I was just a child of some ‘welfare queen’? Or even worse – are killed anyway?
Fuck. That.
Rape in any country is a violent act against women, children, and sometimes men…but the mere “proposal” of this bill is not.
This is NOT about the budget or cost savings. The republicans are re-defining what rape is. Ify ou dont fight back hard enough, tehy are considering that not rape and thus you keep the baby. As long as he beats the hell out of you when he is raping you then they will concede it might be rape.
It’s disgusting – no free pass for them on this one. yet the LIBURAL media appears to be giving them one.
So Anon I just want to clarify.
a radio host making fun of one woman – Bad
the republican party re-defining rape and saying it really isn’t if you dont fight hard enough against – ok
PP…I’m going to try to remain respectful towards you because as far as I’m concerned you are a flame thrower and a sexist…but out of respect for Zach I will temper my remarks.
The republicans were not “…re-defining rape and saying it really isn’t if you dont fight hard enough against…”. Based on what I read on this blog…they were proposing a bill on what should and should not be paid for by federal monies. I did not state my position on their proposal…so don’t assume to know how I feel about it.
Anon….think what you will of me, the truth is they were trying to redefine rape and its disgusting. Look at all of the things they wanted to EXCLUDE:
“The broad anti-abortion measure would restrict federally-assisted abortion coverage to cases of “forcible rape,” excluding in that definition instances where women are drugged and raped, where women say “no” but do not physically fight off the perpetrator, and various cases of date rape. It also excludes instances of statutory rape in which minors are impregnated by adults. The victim in all cases would be denied abortion coverage under Medicaid and forbidden from seeking health care tax benefits.”
Here Emily Mills has more:
http://www.thedailypage.com/emilyspost/article.php?article=32084
It gets worse, too. According to legal scholars, who take issue with the bill’s hazy wording, “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.”
Because none of those cases are necessarily “forcible” — i.e. violent.
But they’re definitely still rape, no matter what the GOP or other supports of this bill (including a few Democrats) might like us to believe.
Nice to see that the new “jobs-and-economy focused” majority’s first priority is stripping rights away from rape survivors. Tiger Beatdown has more:
If your rapist drugged you, intoxicated you, or raped you while you were unconscious, you don’t get coverage. If your rapist used coercion, you don’t get coverage. If this is a case of statutory rape — that is, if you are a thirteen-year-old child, raped by someone outside of your family — you don’t get coverage. If you’re an incest survivor over the age of eighteen — if, say, years of abuse only culminated in a pregnancy after your nineteenth birthday — you just don’t get coverage. And if you live in a state that doesn’t distinguish “forcible rape” from “rape,” you might not qualify, meaning that no matter what the circumstances of your assault were, well, sorry: You might not get coverage.
…It’s not a coincidence that rape involving “force” — and remember that proving “force” often means proving an overwhelming and potentially deadly amount of violence; other sorts of force often get swept under the rug — is less common than other methods. This bill would deny coverage to most survivors. That’s what it’s about. That’s what it’s intended to do.
Over at Mother jones:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion
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.)
Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old’s parents wouldn’t be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn’t be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense.
Sounds like a redefinition of rape and that THEY think some rape is not as bad as others. And I’m the sexist?
I get this is a gift to people like you…but the truth of the matter is this is about money/funding. I’m curious…do you have issues with the sexual assault statutes? Probably not…you probably don’t even get why I would ask.
And, yes, you are a sexist and a flame thrower who mimics Sly…much like those on the right who worship Rush.
The power of the people have actually had an effect!
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/report-republicans-give-up-on-forcible-rape.php
Although I hope the opponents of anyone who signed up for this bill, use it against them in the next election.