DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16808 posts, RR: 57 Posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1827 times:
Quote: Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.
For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.
This makes no sense. If you believe that all abortion is murder, then ALL ABORTION should be illegal (I can buy a "save the life of the mother" exception). If you believe that rape should be a mitigating circumcstance, then that's also fine.
But to narrowly define rape as involving physical force and yet if a woman is drugged and then raped she can't get an abortion? That makes NO sense.
This is the sort of thing that the GOP does that makes me crazy.
cws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1167 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1822 times:
I thought the House majority promised to focus on jobs and the economy.....
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19687 posts, RR: 56 Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1818 times:
Quoting cws818 (Reply 1): I thought the House majority promised to focus on jobs and the economy.....
Fool me once....
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
OA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4978 posts, RR: 25 Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1803 times:
I'm sorry, but I just don't believe any story that comes out of a socialist rag like Mother Jones.
Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter): the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress
So screw the unemployed, screw the economy, abortion is a top priority.
Quoting Mir (Reply 2): Quoting cws818 (Reply 1):I thought the House majority promised to focus on jobs and the economy.....
Fool me once....
Goblin211 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1209 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1667 times:
Quoting OA412 (Reply 3): What are we up to now? Fool me for a tenth time?
Oh brother is right! Methinks some people can't build a bridge and get over it!!!
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7440 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1568 times:
Quoting cws818 (Reply 1): I thought the House majority promised to focus on jobs and the economy.....
The GOP will take care of the economic conditions of corporations and the top wealthy 10%.
Jobs? Well, maybe the rich will need some new maids.
thegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2273 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1539 times:
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7756 posts, RR: 22 Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1529 times:
Dems are involved as well, and the law is not in its final form.
Quote: Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) is going on the record about the controversial abortion bill he co-sponsored in the House that would only allow pregnant women to obtain insurance coverage for an abortion if they were the victims of a so-called "forcible rape," rather than other criminal sexual act.
In a statement sent to TPM, Lipinski says the intent of the abortion law -- known in the House as H.R. 3, or the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act -- was to make permanent the existing limits on abortion in the federal code, including the existing exemptions for women who were raped. Lipinski suggests he will reexamine the issue as the bill moves forward.
"The language of H.R. 3 was not intended to change existing law regarding taxpayer funding for abortion in cases of rape, nor is it expected that it would do so," Lipinski said in the statement. "Nonetheless, the legislative process will provide an opportunity to clarify this should such a need exist."
OA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4978 posts, RR: 25 Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1511 times:
Of course they are, the link provided by the OP says as much. The vast majority of legislation in this country garners at least some bipartisan support. My issue with the bill, as explained in my reply above, is that Boehner has dubbed it "a top priority". Our country has far bigger fish to fry right now than abortion.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16808 posts, RR: 57 Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1484 times:
I dunno. Rampant financial irresponsibility, political discourse out of control, nationalism to the point of xenophobia and country-worship, religious extremism...
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12329 posts, RR: 12 Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1467 times:
Many politicans love to play up 'moral' issues like abortion as it is a very cheap way to get those very narrow minded voters who regard banning access to all abortions to be their moral duty over and above supporting them even if they otherwise support policies that are very much against their economic and personal interest.
Rape should not mean some woman is beaten up by some stranger in a dark alley, but if they are compromised in any way to give consent, from being drugged or drunk, but also if psychologically or economically forced to have sex.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19687 posts, RR: 56 Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1440 times:
Quoting OA412 (Reply 8): My issue with the bill, as explained in my reply above, is that Boehner has dubbed it "a top priority". Our country has far bigger fish to fry right now than abortion.
It's been almost a month since the GOP took over the house. And all we've seen is a lot of the same time-wasting, feel-good, ultimately meaningless stuff that's contributed to getting us into this mess in the first place.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16808 posts, RR: 57 Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1425 times:
Quoting OA412 (Reply 8): My issue with the bill, as explained in my reply above, is that Boehner has dubbed it "a top priority". Our country has far bigger fish to fry right now than abortion.
To be fair, that was an argument against repealing DADT. Of course, I would argue that the difference is that denying a woman an abortion because she wasn't raped the "right way" is just morally corrupt, while extending the right to serve to all qualified Americans is the right thing to do.
But then again, the religious right (whatever religion) is usually intolerant of others, morally bankrupt, and cruel. The irony is that they claim to have the moral upper hand.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19687 posts, RR: 56 Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1364 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12): To be fair, that was an argument against repealing DADT.
To be fair again, that was an issue that was on its way through the courts, and if Congress had taken no action, it's possible, perhaps even likely, that there would have been a judgment that would have resulted in an abrupt end to the policy, which would have been potentially messy. Congress stepping in and setting in motion a smooth transition to post-DADT was the smart thing to do.
So far as I know, there is not a growing swell of abortion cases in the court system.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
bhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 841 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1186 times:
And where is the Constitutional justification for this legislation?
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16808 posts, RR: 57 Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1152 times:
Quoting bhill (Reply 14): And where is the Constitutional justification for this legislation?
Probably the commerce clause. That same one that those same rightists hate when it goes against their agenda.
I'm not going to argue whether it's constitutional. That's for the courts to figure out.
I'm arguing that it's immoral, cruel, unnecessary, and mean-spirited. AND it's a serious sign that priorities are screwed up in Washington.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7756 posts, RR: 22 Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1114 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15): Quoting bhill (Reply 14):
And where is the Constitutional justification for this legislation?
Probably the commerce clause. That same one that those same rightists hate when it goes against their agenda.
The bill is designed to restrict the use of federal funds - absolutely nothing unconstitutional about it, as Congress controls such expenditures.
The bigger question is whether the original authorization to use federal funds for abortion is constitutional or not.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16808 posts, 
What are we up to now? Fool me for a tenth time?
Printer friendly format 
