Daily Beast: GOP Abortion Bill Redefines Rape

[Fred Jones]

I agree, rape is rape.

I don't understand why this is an issue. To me this is a purely political move to pander to the specific group of voting republicans that are anti abortion in a time when the country has far bigger problems to confront. Don't deny these victims this right.

Perhaps if the Republicans, and for that matter Congress in general, spent more time on bigger issues like the deficit, the entire country would be better off.

But, that is just me. Abortion is wrong, but it is not for people to judge and deny a woman's right to have one. If you don't like, don't have unprotected sex or sex at all. Wow, what a concept. Perhaps people could focus on the education part instead of the judgment part. But, now I am just rambling.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I love how the GOP slammed the democrats for not doing enough on jobs, and they've spend their first month in office talking about health care and abortion. No jobs bills that I know of have even been offered yet. Yay for politics! :thumbsup:

[twa]

Fred once you make me financially liable for your choices I get a say.

This bill has no effect on women's right to choose,but rather our right to determine funding.

[#98QBKiller]

I love how the GOP slammed the democrats for not doing enough on jobs, and they've spend their first month in office talking about health care and abortion. No jobs bills that I know of have even been offered yet. Yay for politics! :thumbsup:

Nothing will change under the Republican congress then people will get fed up and replace them with Democrats and nothing will change under them, then people will get fed up and replace them with Repubs then nothing will change....rinse repeat.

[Major Harris]

I agree, rape is rape.

I don't understand why this is an issue. To me this is a purely political move to pander to the specific group of voting republicans that are anti abortion in a time when the country has far bigger problems to confront. Don't deny these victims this right.

great rant, but no one is saying rape isn't rape, just what should taxpayers fund?

If you don't like, don't have unprotected sex or sex at all. Wow, what a concept.

if you don't see the obvious flaw in your logic there, i don't know what to say.

if you don't want to have a child, don't have unprotected sex or at all. wow, what a concept.

[twa]

I love how the GOP slammed the democrats for not doing enough on jobs, and they've spend their first month in office talking about health care and abortion. No jobs bills that I know of have even been offered yet. Yay for politics! :thumbsup:

With O and co. focused like a laser on job creation for so long is there still a need?

[TimmySmith]

With O and co. focused like a laser on job creation for so long is there still a need?

If you haven't noticed, the "jobs" talking point is a brand new strategy (by brand new, I mean this week) from the Democrats. Reid, Pelosi, and TSF are all on board. As if controlling 1 part of the legislature makes the republicans "job czars". Fact is the GOP will unveil a jobs bill in the next few weeks and Reid will promise never to vote on it. Business as usual.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

If you haven't noticed, the "jobs" talking point is a brand new strategy (by brand new, I mean this week) from the Democrats. Reid, Pelosi, and TSF are all on board. As if controlling 1 part of the legislature makes the republicans "job czars". Fact is the GOP will unveil a jobs bill in the next few weeks and Reid will promise never to vote on it. Business as usual.

I'm not on board with anyone. But, for 2 years it was a GOP talking point that the president wasn't focused on jobs. Was it not? Explain to me how this creates jobs?

[TimmySmith]

I'm not on board with anyone. But, for 2 years it was a GOP talking point that the president wasn't focused on jobs. Was it not? Explain to me how this creates jobs?

We'll just call the timing of your comment an amazing coincidence. The GOP campaigned on 3 things. Health care reform, and they have sent a bill to the Senate (which will not be voted on). Cutting the budget, and they have sent a bill to the senate (which will not be voted on). And jobs, which they have not unveiled yet. I'd say they have been pretty busy.

[Larry]

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?

The article certainly doesn't say that the GOP wants to make raping children legal.

Just that they want to make them carry the child.

---------- Post added February-2nd-2011 at 10:25 AM ----------

Really. Perhaps you can quote that passage for me, I can't seem to find it.

The law changes existing law from "rape" to "forcible rape". The law does not define the latter term.

Now, do you seriously want to try to argue that the GOP is changing an existing law for no reason?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

We'll just call the timing of your comment an amazing coincidence. The GOP campaigned on 3 things. Health care reform, and they have sent a bill to the Senate (which will not be voted on). Cutting the budget, and they have sent a bill to the senate (which will not be voted on). And jobs, which they have not unveiled yet. I'd say they have been pretty busy.

Well, they don't hvae a health care reform bill in the Senate. They have a replace bill to go back to the way health care was before. And whether you like the new health care law or not, the old way of health care sucked too. Rand Paul's senate bill wouldn't get to the floor if the GOP were running Congress. I kind of admire him for his stance, but that's not a bill that would ever be voted on, and its true that you don't "get things done by getting everything you want and nothing you don't." So, I applaud his principles, but its an unrealistic bill.

My real beef though is just playing this abortion game again. They know its going nowhere, so stop wasting time.

[Larry]

Or they gave the states the ability to make their own decisions. One thing they did not do is redefine rape.

Correct.

They merely redefined which kinds of rape count as rape enough to want an abortion.

----------

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

Oh, I think you and I agree. I'd be amazed if this bill even comes up for a vote in the House, let alone passes. There aren't that many idiots, even in Congress.

This is a "make the base feel good" bill. (Which, frankly, says a lot of scary things about the base.) Maybe a "Gee, base, we tried to do what you want, but we just don't have enough power. But keep voting Republican!" bill.

[Burgold]

great rant, but no one is saying rape isn't rape, just what should taxpayers fund?

I find the economic argument by far the least compelling. After all, what is more expensive to the tax payer an abortion or an unwanted child? Think about the costs of educating that child, possible welfare, medical costs, and all the assundry costs of raising a kid which may be paid by the parent or may be covered by the government or likely some mix thereof. Afterall, there's not a single child in America whom the taxpayer does not pay for in one manner or another.

I can understand the moral/ethical arguments, but not the economic.

[Jeeb]

Oh, I think you and I agree. I'd be amazed if this bill even comes up for a vote in the House, let alone passes. There aren't that many idiots, even in Congress.

This is a "make the base feel good" bill. (Which, frankly, says a lot of scary things about the base.) Maybe a "Gee, base, we tried to do what you want, but we just don't have enough power. But keep voting Republican!" bill.

Like their repeal of the Health Care bill?

[Major Harris]

I find the economic argument by far the least compelling. After all, what is more expensive to the tax payer an abortion or an unwanted child? Think about the costs of educating that child, possible welfare, medical costs, and all the assundry costs of raising a kid which may be paid by the parent or may be covered by the government or likely some mix thereof. Afterall, there's not a single child in America whom the taxpayer does not pay for in one manner or another.

I can understand the moral/ethical arguments, but not the economic.

which is why i said it's a dumb statement to make.

[aREDSKIN]

The article certainly doesn't say that the GOP wants to make raping children legal.

Just that they want to make them carry the child.

Or how about letting those in need pay for it by some other means than say you & me. A novel approach i know but fiscally sound. It's a funding issue not access issue.

[TimmySmith]

The law changes existing law from "rape" to "forcible rape". The law does not define the latter term.

Now, do you seriously want to try to argue that the GOP is changing an existing law for no reason?

Meh, the term "forcible rape" sounds redundant to me. I am pretty sure that is a low hurdle. Just write "forcible" on the sheet at the clinic and you get your government abortion. Not defining the term could actually make things easier, not harder.

[Major Harris]

The article certainly doesn't say that the GOP wants to make raping children legal.

Just that they want to make them carry the child

no, they don't want to force them to carry the child. they just don't want taxpayers to fund the abortion. i think in the grand scheme, i agree with burgold, it's a stupid statement to make. but it's still not the statement you and others are claiming it to be.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Or how about letting those in need pay for it by some other means than say you & me. A novel approach i know but fiscally sound. It's a funding issue not access issue.

So you're going to doubly punish someone who is a victim of rape, by not only suffering through the rape but then making them pay the price for the abortion that they would have NEVER needed had they not been raped to begin with? Nice. I guess this is Compassionate Conservatism.

IMO, this ranks up there with Palin's move as governor to make rape victims pay for their own rape kits. Bravo GOP!

[Larry]

Or how about letting those in need pay for it by some other means than say you & me. A novel approach i know but fiscally sound. It's a funding issue not access issue.

no, they don't want to force them to carry the child. they just don't want taxpayers to fund the abortion. i think in the grand scheme, i agree with burgold, it's a stupid statement to make. but it's still not the statement you and others are claiming it to be.

Yeah, it's about the money.

Say, are y'all still selling that bridge? I've almost got the money together.

[Major Harris]

Yeah, it's about the money.

Say, are y'all still selling that bridge? I've almost got the money together.

are they forcing them to carry the child by banning the abortion? yes or no will do, i don't need the larry run around.

[twa]

That's a good point Larry...it is not about the money,but rather how cavalierly we end life.

[TimmySmith]

So you're going to doubly punish someone who is a victim of rape, by not only suffering through the rape but then making them pay the price for the abortion that they would have NEVER needed had they not been raped to begin with? Nice. I guess this is Compassionate Conservatism.

IMO, this ranks up there with Palin's move as governor to make rape victims pay for their own rape kits. Bravo GOP!

So the government has the absolute responsibility to right this wrong and anything less than full payment for an optional procedure is not compassionate. Should they pay the medical bills for gunshot victims also. How about victims of drunk driving accidents? Stabbings? Alot of chances for "double punishment" out there.

[aREDSKIN]

So you're going to doubly punish someone who is a victim of rape, by not only suffering through the rape but then making them pay the price for the abortion that they would have NEVER needed had they not been raped to begin with? Nice. I guess this is Compassionate Conservatism.

IMO, this ranks up there with Palin's move as governor to make rape victims pay for their own rape kits. Bravo GOP!

Well what other crimes are you prepared to force the taxpayers to fund for the victims?? Murder??, Assault? Libel?Jaywalking? That's a red herring. As I said earlier the victims of rape will get funding from another source.

[Larry]

are they forcing them to carry the child by banning the abortion? yes or no will do, i don't need the larry run around.

That's a good point Larry...it is not about the money,but rather how cavalierly we end life.

You two need to get your justifications straight. Is it "Oh, we're morally justified to yank a support structure out from under a rape victim, because we're not banning it, it's just about the money"? Or is it "We're protecting innocent life by making people pay for it themselves"?

---------- Post added February-2nd-2011 at 11:02 AM ----------

So the government has the absolute responsibility to right this wrong and anything less than full payment for an optional procedure is not compassionate. Should they pay the medical bills for gunshot victims also. How about victims of drunk driving accidents? Stabbings? Alot of chances for "double punishment" out there.

Valid point. If a drunk driver runs into my parked car, I don't expect the government to pay to fix my car.