User avatar
DocLightning
Topic Author
Posts: 19821
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

House GOP Re-defines Rape

Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:13 am

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011...blican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion

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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
cws818
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:42 am

RE: House GOP Re-defines Rape

Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:14 am

I thought the House majority promised to focus on jobs and the economy.....
volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
 
Mir
Posts: 19108
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: House GOP Re-defines Rape

Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:16 am

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
 
User avatar
OA412
Crew
Posts: 3779
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 6:22 am

RE: House GOP Re-defines Rape

Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:33 am

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):

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....

   What are we up to now? Fool me for a tenth time?
Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
 
goblin211
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 4:30 pm

RE: House GOP Re-defines Rape

Sun Jan 30, 2011 6:38 pm

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!!!
From the airport with love
 
Ken777
Posts: 9063
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: House GOP Re-defines Rape

Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:52 pm

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
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:47 am

RE: House GOP Re-defines Rape

Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:29 pm

The GOP is joke.....seriously.....

What's this country coming to?
Our Returning Champion
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: House GOP Re-defines Rape

Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:49 pm

Dems are involved as well, and the law is not in its final form.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ens-up-on-rape-redefining-bill.php

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."
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
OA412
Crew
Posts: 3779
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 6:22 am

RE: House GOP Re-defines Rape

Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:59 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
Dems are involved as well

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.
Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Topic Author
Posts: 19821
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: House GOP Re-defines Rape

Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:31 am

Quoting thegreatRDU (Reply 6):

What's this country coming to?

I dunno. Rampant financial irresponsibility, political discourse out of control, nationalism to the point of xenophobia and country-worship, religious extremism...

...sounds like the end of many other empires.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12426
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: House GOP Re-defines Rape

Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:43 am

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
Posts: 19108
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: House GOP Re-defines Rape

Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:23 am

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
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Topic Author
Posts: 19821
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: House GOP Re-defines Rape

Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:53 am

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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Mir
Posts: 19108
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: House GOP Re-defines Rape

Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:17 am

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
Posts: 1317
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 8:28 am

RE: House GOP Re-defines Rape

Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:53 pm

And where is the Constitutional justification for this legislation?
Carpe Pices
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Topic Author
Posts: 19821
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: House GOP Re-defines Rape

Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:54 pm

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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: House GOP Re-defines Rape

Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:25 pm

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.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ken777, L410Turbolet, salttee, seb146 and 7 guests