AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 GOP Abortion Bill Redefines Rape http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-31/gop-abortion-bill-redefines-rape/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsC4 Full article at link Since 1976, under the Hyde Amendment, there’s been a ban on federal funding for abortion, which applies to Medicaid recipients as well as federal employees and military families. In 1993, though, Congress legislated an exemption for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. Such pregnancies are not uncommon—according to the Guttmacher Institute, at least 9,100 women seek abortions after forced sexual intercourse each year. H.R. 3 would prevent many of these women from using their health insurance to pay for abortions, whether their plan is public or private. Under H.R. 3, the only victims of “forcible rape" would qualify for federally funded abortions. Victims of statutory rape—say, a 13-year-old girl impregnated by a 30-year-old man—would be on their own. So would victims of incest if they’re over 18. And while “forcible rape” isn’t defined in the criminal code, the addition of the adjective seems certain to exclude acts of rape that don’t involve overt violence—say, cases where a woman is drugged or has a limited mental capacity. “It’s basically putting more restrictions on what was defined historically as rape,” says Keenan. Beyond that, says Keenan, the bill would give states the option of refusing Medicaid coverage for all abortions, even in the most brutal of rape cases, or when a medical complication leaves a woman’s life at risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Exactly how does this change the definition of rape? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Exactly how does this change the definition of rape? Well, they seem to be claiming that stauatory rape is not rape and that rape through the use of date-rape drugs is not rape for starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 From a legal standpoint, it differentiates between the woman held down or threatened with a gun and the one drugged or under age. Which lady do you think was not raped? The law allowing for abortion after one and not the other pretty clearly states one is worse than the other. I know victems of both. edit- wierd when I read my post on the board it has "was" two times, but every time i go to correct, it is only there one time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endzone_dave Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 How much money does the typical abortion cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 depends on the stage and provider and complications 1st trimester is cheapest,generally increases by a factor of 2-3 each trimester lowball start is a few hundred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Well, they seem to be claiming that stauatory rape is not rape and that rape through the use of date-rape drugs is not rape for starters. are they saying that it's not rape or that we're not to use taxpayer money to fund the abortion resulting from that rape? are they saying that the perpetrator can't be charged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Well, they seem to be claiming that stauatory rape is not rape and that rape through the use of date-rape drugs is not rape for starters.Really. Perhaps you can quote that passage for me, I can't seem to find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Why should federal funding be used for any abortion for any reason? Where is that power enumerated? On a side note, What A fairly stupid move on an almost non issue by the GOP. Abortions from rape or incest are less than half of one percent of all abortions. Wasted energy in my opjnion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spec138 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Really. Perhaps you can quote that passage for me, I can't seem to find it. While it doesn't legally redefine rape it creates a hierarchy of rape, as if all rapes aren't equal. I'm not sure which reality would be more disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 While it doesn't legally redefine rape it creates a hierarchy of rape, as if all rapes aren't equal. I'm not sure which reality would be more disturbing. serious question. are all rapes equal? do you have the same sympathy for the plastered girl in the bar as you do the innocent girl on the subway, or in her own home? now, i understand that acknowledging that hierarchy creates a can of worms, but i'm asking.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 serious question. are all rapes equal? do you have the same sympathy for the plastered girl in the bar as you do the innocent girl on the subway, or in her own home? now, i understand that acknowledging that hierarchy creates a can of worms, but i'm asking.... Rape is rape is rape. Just because a women is drunk at the bar doesn't mean it's less disturbing if she is raped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Same bill was introduced last yr and seeks clarity in govt funded abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spec138 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 serious question. are all rapes equal? do you have the same sympathy for the plastered girl in the bar as you do the innocent girl on the subway, or in her own home? now, i understand that acknowledging that hierarchy creates a can of worms, but i'm asking.... You are correct in assuming I don't really feel as much sympathy for a woman getting plastered at the bar and getting raped as I do a woman in her own home. In both situations a woman's rights are violated so from an ethical standpoint I consider them equal. Fortunately our laws are written on the basis of logic and reason (for the most part) and not the petty emotions of us humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Rape is rape is rape. Just because a women is drunk at the bar doesn't mean it's less disturbing if she is raped. i don't have the same sympathy for her. i just don't. murder is murder, but i don't have the same feelings about a guy who is wasted drunk and puts himself in a bad spot as i would a guy chilling on his couch. edit: but i do agree with spec's point about laws not being based off of emotions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Major Harris, The hard part in answering that question is not the physical act. One has to recognize the taking of control something very personal, one's self control over one's own body. There is an emotional and psychological chain which typically results. It's actually that chain which in my mind determines the damage from the assaults. Is a 14 year old who has sex with a 45 year old going to go through the same process as the next assaulted in a dark alley? Parts of it probably will be the same. The self blame, the loss of self worth, the physical trauma of dealing with aftermath...who knows as many of those vary from person to person and situation to situation, but many will follow similar tracks. I will say of my friends who have confided in me, the one whose assault was the most brutal and the result most public, has dealt with the after effects the best. I don't think any who know her and what happened would say hers was a "minor" deal. So how does one make a law and base punishments on the amount of mental damage inflicted? No. It is far easier to simply say all assaults of this nature are rape and subject to harsh reprocussions. Of course this is why I have a hard time with those who use the term "rape" casually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Same bill was introduced last yr and seeks clarity in govt funded abortion.Really? Do tell. When they added the word "forcible" did they define what that meant? Saying "no"? Visible bruises? If not, they simply gave more justification for not covering abortions without adding additional clarity. And, of course, they opened the door for states to not cover under any circumstances. I guess that indeed would be a form of "clarity". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 So how does one make a law and base punishments on the amount of mental damage inflicted? No. It is far easier to simply say all assaults of this nature are rape and subject to harsh reprocussions. Of course this is why I have a hard time with those who use the term "rape" casually. i agree, though i don't see where they're trying to change any repercussions. they're making a statement about how we'll use taxpayer money. though it's not a wise statement to make, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 And, of course, they opened the door for states to not cover under any circumstances. Or they gave the states the ability to make their own decisions. One thing they did not do is redefine rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Same bill was introduced last yr and seeks clarity in govt funded abortion. Yep just affects the Federal funding of aborts not the access to. The funding will be there and just come from another source IMO. The author of this piece is an alarmist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Why are Republicans/conservatives against abortion in the case of rape or incest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Why are Republicans/conservatives against abortion in the case of rape or incest? though i'd say not all of them are, i don't really know the answer to your question. it's a good one. my parents are extremely conservative, they say it's because it's not the fault of the child. i counter with it's not the fault of the mother who has to live thru it either. we get nowhere. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I think a easier way to do it would be a requirement for the rape to be reported to the police. If you expect the public to fund your abortion then we certainly should expect you to at least report the crime.(pressing charges not required) All instances where there is a clear risk to the life of the mother are covered now and under the proposed bill. added Hersh, some of us believe the innocent should not pay with their lives for others actions,that is after all one of the basic concepts of our country.. You then get into whether forcing a victim to carry a rapists child is cruel and unusual of course,problem there is in my view their are now two victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilandil Tasardur Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I think (and hope I'm wrong) that this is partly a way to combat the drunken "cry wolf" girls. Crasy side note, single case study story. When I was in college I knew a girl who had a very legal, consensual, one night stand with a guy after lots of drinking at a party. When she woke up, she really regretted it and thought both her actions, and the guy, were disgusting. Instead of telling her firends she made a mistake, she told them he "put something in her drink." It wasn't a very well kept secret that she wasn't being honest, but it still cut at his reputation in some circles. She never pressed charges or reported it, which I guess is good. But this is my problem with date rape. Sometimes girls say Yes when their drunk, and later regret not saying no. This is why guys have to be real careful. I think this bill redefiens the abortions so that you must be forcibly raped, not just to wasted to say no. If FYI, if he DID put something in her drink, I hope his penis falls off and he rots in hell. I am not excusing date rape, I am trying to differentiate between what I call the "morning after" rape and the date rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 ^^^ That is the number one reason that I would not do anything with a drunk girl besides call her a cab, or her friends. Screw that mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.