"This bill takes us back to a time when just saying 'no' wasn't enough to qualify as rape,"

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Fafnir**

Nevermind what I said about Canada's government being able to outstupid everyone else. I was wrong.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion

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.

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: 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.

There used to be a quasi-truce between the pro- and anti-choice forces on the issue of federal funding for abortion. Since 1976, federal law has prohibited the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman. But since last year, the anti-abortion side has become far more aggressive in challenging this compromise. They have been pushing to outlaw tax deductions for insurance plans that cover abortion, even if the abortion coverage is never used. The Smith bill represents a frontal attack on these long-standing exceptions.

"This bill takes us backwards to a time when just saying no wasn't enough to qualify as rape."
"This bill takes us back to a time when just saying 'no' wasn't enough to qualify as rape," says Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser to the National Women's Law Center. Laurie Levenson, a former assistant US attorney and expert on criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, notes that the new bill's authors are "using language that's not particularly clear, and some people are going to lose protection." 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. "There are a lot of aspects of rape that are not included," Levenson says.

As for the incest exception, the bill would only allow federally funded abortions if the woman is under 18.

The bill hasn't been carefully constructed, Levenson notes. The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill's authors don't offer their own definition. In some states, there is no legal definition of "forcible rape," making it unclear whether any abortions would be covered by the rape exemption in those jurisdictions.

The main abortion-rights groups despise the Smith bill as a whole, but they are particularly outraged by its rape provisions. Tait Sye, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, calls the proposed changes "unacceptable." Donna Crane, the policy director of NARAL Pro-Choice America, says that making the "already narrow exceptions for public funding of abortion care for rape and incest survivors even more restrictive" is "unbelievably cruel and heartless."

"This bill goes far beyond current law," says Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), a co-chair of the congressional pro-choice caucus. The "re-definition" of the rape exception "is only one element" of an "extreme" bill, she adds, citing other provisions in the law that pro-abortion rights groups believe would lead to the end of private health insurance coverage for abortion.

"Somebody needs to look closely at this," Levenson says. "This is a bill that could have a dramatic effect on women, and language is important. It sure sounds like somebody didn't want [the exception to cover] all the different types of rape that are recognized under the law."

...But let me highlight the scariest part...

The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill's authors don't offer their own definition. In some states, there is no legal definition of "forcible rape," making it unclear whether any abortions would be covered by the rape exemption in those jurisdictions.

The (more) unfortunate side effect would end up requiring a rebranding of the meaning of the word 'rape.' It's like giving every non-pedophile rapist in the US a retrial. In fact, that'd probably happen if this passes (I swear, if this were actually made to pass, I don't know if I'd have enough faith in humanity left).

**Chibi Bodge-Battle**

I'm moving to Canada with a ton of Rohipknoll or however it is spelt.
Stop with the Krazy Kanuk stories please Fafnir.
You are scaring me.

**SagesStone**

It's like they're in some sort of competition to who is the stupidest. >_>

**Mannahnin**

It's not Canada, Chibi. This piece of filth is from my country.

**Albatross**

Fafnir wrote:Basically, the goal is to rebrand the meaning of the word 'rape.'

Actually, I would suggest the goal is to make it more difficult to get an abortion.

Nevertheless, this is disgusting. 'Rape Panels', anyone?

Suddenly the NHS doesn't seem quite so bad.

**Chibi Bodge-Battle**

Thanks Mannahnin
Given what Fafnir said I should have figured out it wasn't Canada

**Chrysaor686**

Basically, the goal is to rebrand the meaning of the word 'rape.' It's like giving every non-pedophile rapist in the US a retrial. In fact, that'd probably happen if this passes (I swear, if this were actually made to pass, I don't know if I'd have enough faith in humanity left).

No, the goal is to create a loophole to allow the government to slip out of their fiscal responsibility with ease. There's a marked difference between the two. Rapists will still be charged accordingly, but abortions will hardly ever be paid for by the state again. While it's a little messed up, it's fairly par for the course, as the U.S. government definitely isn't above cutting some questionable corners in order to save itself some money.

This is hardly a reason to 'lose your faith in humanity'. It's simply another reason to get irked at the government. They're cutting spending where it shouldn't be cut, not 'redefining rape'.

**Mannahnin**

It's not about saving money for the government.

It's an attack on any form of coverage for abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest.

There are elements of the bill which attack even people's ability to pay privately for abortion coverage with their own money.

**Chrysaor686**

Mannahnin wrote:It's not about saving money for the government.

It's an attack on any form of coverage for abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest.

There are elements of the bill which attack even people's ability to pay privately for abortion coverage with their own money.

By 'Attacking coverage for abortion', they're saving themselves money. That's the only reason that they have to do so.

If private funding is to be affected, I'd be willing to bet that a few insurance companies had their hands in the bill, but from what I read, the article specifically discussed state funding for abortion.

**Kilkrazy**

Albatross wrote:
Fafnir wrote:Basically, the goal is to rebrand the meaning of the word 'rape.'

Actually, I would suggest the goal is to make it more difficult to get an abortion.

...
... .

Totally.

**Fafnir**

The problem comes with the idea of how they word it. There's nothing that defines what forcible rape is uniformly throughout the country. In fact, the term itself doesn't exist in legal documents.

This would mean that the government would have to end up defining what actually counts as 'forcible rape' for this to make any sense.

Although I chose the wrong word in 'goal.'

'(more) unfortunate side effect' makes more sense.

**Kilkrazy**

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:It's not about saving money for the government.

It's an attack on any form of coverage for abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest.

There are elements of the bill which attack even people's ability to pay privately for abortion coverage with their own money.

By 'Attacking coverage for abortion', they're saving themselves money. That's the only reason that they have to do so.

If private funding is to be affected, I'd be willing to bet that a few insurance companies had their hands in the bill, but from what I read, the article specifically discussed state funding for abortion.

Right wing, religiously inspired Republicans are against abortion on any grounds.

There isn't an insanely high rate of rape in the USA. They don't all result in pregnancy. The morning after pill can be used.

The objective is to stop abortions, not save any realistic amounts of money, and the motive is religious inspiration.

**Emperors Faithful**

Fafnir wrote:
...But let me highlight the scariest part...

The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill's authors don't offer their own definition. In some states, there is no legal definition of "forcible rape," making it unclear whether any abortions would be covered by the rape exemption in those jurisdictions.

The (more) unfortunate side effect would end up requiring a rebranding of the meaning of the word 'rape.' It's like giving every non-pedophile rapist in the US a retrial. In fact, that'd probably happen if this passes (I swear, if this were actually made to pass, I don't know if I'd have enough faith in humanity left).

I think you've come to the wrong conclusion here. This bill, as scary as it is, isn't trying to redifine the criminal definition of rape, and it certainly wouldn't get every rapist currently in jail a chance at a re-trial.

**Chrysaor686**

Fafnir wrote:The problem comes with the idea of how they word it. There's nothing that defines what forcible rape is uniformly throughout the country. In fact, the term itself doesn't exist in legal documents.

This would mean that the government would have to end up defining what actually counts as 'forcible rape' for this to make any sense.

Although I chose the wrong word in 'goal.'

'poorly thought out side effect' makes more sense.

Because there isn't a charge for 'Forcible rape' (Generally, other charges can be tacked on to serve this purpose, such as battery or kidnapping). There are a few distinctions, but not very many. Honestly, I'd prefer that a rapist get as many charges as they can, so their sentence stacks and there aren't many options for a plea deal.

I don't think they want it to make any sense, as that's the nature of a loophole. If you leave something open to interpretation, it's fairly easy to worm your way out of anything.

Kilkrazy wrote:Right wing, religiously inspired Republicans are against abortion on any grounds.

There isn't an insanely high rate of rape in the USA. They don't all result in pregnancy. The morning after pill can be used.

The objective is to stop abortions, not save any realistic amounts of money, and the motive is religious inspiration.

Oh right, I forgot that not everyone uses common sense.

**sebster**

THing is, if force is required then statutory rape no longer qualifies. Guess those 12 year old girls need to learn some restraint.

Chrysaor686 wrote:By 'Attacking coverage for abortion', they're saving themselves money. That's the only reason that they have to do so.

If private funding is to be affected, I'd be willing to bet that a few insurance companies had their hands in the bill, but from what I read, the article specifically discussed state funding for abortion.

Since Roe v Wade there's been a constant stream of legislation aimed at denying every possible abortion they can. The money given to abortion at a Federal level is utterly trivial (there's serious debate whether there's actually any money given). It won't pass, and it wouldn't do anything if it did, but that's not the point. That it's a terribly written law with incredibly vague language and horrible implications doesn't matter.

Because this bill isn't supposed to do anything but score votes among the single issue, anti-abortion voting block. That it's an ugly, hateful law which could only reduce the protection of minors is a feature, not a bug, because that's the mindset of this voting block.

**Chrysaor686**

sebster wrote:Since Roe v Wade there's been a constant stream of legislation aimed at denying every possible abortion they can. The money given to abortion at a Federal level is utterly trivial (there's serious debate whether there's actually any money given). It won't pass, and it wouldn't do anything if it did, but that's not the point. That it's a terribly written law with incredibly vague language and horrible implications doesn't matter.

Because this bill isn't supposed to do anything but score votes among the single issue, anti-abortion voting block. That it's an ugly, hateful law which could only reduce the protection of minors is a feature, not a bug, because that's the mindset of this voting block.

Wouldn't that kill your chances with every other potential voter, though? How big of a block of citizens can that really be? How many religious nuts are really that blind?

Even the people who I know that are adamantly against abortion are still willing to let it slide if the pregnancy is the result of rape.

**Mannahnin**

Some of those folks really, genuinely don't care.

Other hardcore anti-abortion voters simply won't pay attention to the actual wording of the bill; it'll just be more stuff on the resume of the politicians who support it to convince those voters that the politician is their kind of guy, and that any opposing politician who voted against it wants to kill babies.

**Slarg232**

Ok, I can see paying for rape victims, but incest? Seriously?

Well, this just made my faith in the people running this country even lower. Between trying to pass bills that hurts the victims, or passing bills that no one wants.......

We need a complete overhaul of the government, don't we?

**Frazzled**

Its designed to avoid limit govenrment payment for abortions. Abortions can still be had. Why the hell I am paying for it in the first place? This is not a federal issue.

**inquisitor_bob**

Agree with Frazzled.

**MeanGreenStompa**

Frazzled wrote:Its designed to avoid limit govenrment payment for abortions. Abortions can still be had. Why the hell I am paying for it in the first place? This is not a federal issue.

Who should pay for it then?

Should the rape victim also pay for their counselling?

Perhaps we should privatise the police as well and the rape victim should only be able to press charges if they have the fiscal capacity...

How dare the state offer support for people who've been abused...

**Frazzled**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Its designed to avoid limit govenrment payment for abortions. Abortions can still be had. Why the hell I am paying for it in the first place? This is not a federal issue.

Who should pay for it then?

Should the rape victim also pay for their counselling?

Perhaps we should privatise the police as well and the rape victim should only be able to press charges if they have the fiscal capacity...

How dare the state offer support for people who've been abused...

Duh its a state issue. If the people of the state support such expenditures, more power to them. Frankly its unconstitutional.

**MeanGreenStompa**

Frazzled wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Its designed to avoid limit govenrment payment for abortions. Abortions can still be had. Why the hell I am paying for it in the first place? This is not a federal issue.

Who should pay for it then?

Should the rape victim also pay for their counselling?

Perhaps we should privatise the police as well and the rape victim should only be able to press charges if they have the fiscal capacity...

How dare the state offer support for people who've been abused...

Duh its a state issue. If the people of the state support such expenditures, more power to them. Frankly its unconstitutional.

Your states, even sainted Texas, belong to one nation.

What your suggesting would leave women bereft of support in red states.

**Monster Rain**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Who should pay for it then?

Health Insurance?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Should the rape victim also pay for their counselling?

See above.

This issue is so emotionally charged that there's no way it will be discussed reasonably. Abortions aren't going anywhere, people. Let's all calm down whether you think that's good or bad. Dubyuh was president for 8 years with the "rubber stamp" congress and Roe V. Wade is still alive and kicking.

And speaking of rape, how about that latest GW price increase? Am I right fellows? Am I right?

**Melissia**

Great, now I want to strangle my representative even MORE.

**Frazzled**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Its designed to avoid limit govenrment payment for abortions. Abortions can still be had. Why the hell I am paying for it in the first place? This is not a federal issue.

Who should pay for it then?

Should the rape victim also pay for their counselling?

Perhaps we should privatise the police as well and the rape victim should only be able to press charges if they have the fiscal capacity...

How dare the state offer support for people who've been abused...

Duh its a state issue. If the people of the state support such expenditures, more power to them. Frankly its unconstitutional.

Your states, even sainted Texas, belong to one nation.

What your suggesting would leave women bereft of support in red states.

No.
In the US, powers are separated to the Federal government and state government. The federal government has certain enumerated powers, all others reserved to the states. The courts are reminding Obama of that currently.
If its a worthy expenditure - and I am not arguing the merits of that herein- then it should be funded at the state level, where the people and have the closest tie to their politicians.

**Billinator**

Monster Rain wrote:
This issue is so emotionally charged that there's no way it will be discussed reasonably. Abortions aren't going anywhere, people. Let's all calm down whether you think that's good or bad. Dubyuh was president for 8 years with the "rubber stamp" congress and Roe V. Wade is still alive and kicking.

And speaking of rape, how about that latest GW price increase? Am I right fellows? Am I right?

Darn it, Raines... I'm trying to build up some rage here... Don't ruin it!

---

But seriously, how can a country call itself United, and yet, care so less?
- Saying "well, it ain't my problem" or "i don't wanna pay for this s**t" is just, well... It escapes my undestanding, that you're even capable of thinking like that.

Well.. Maybe it's just our free health care that screws my mind.

**Frazzled**

Billinator wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
This issue is so emotionally charged that there's no way it will be discussed reasonably. Abortions aren't going anywhere, people. Let's all calm down whether you think that's good or bad. Dubyuh was president for 8 years with the "rubber stamp" congress and Roe V. Wade is still alive and kicking.

And speaking of rape, how about that latest GW price increase? Am I right fellows? Am I right?

Darn it, Raines... I'm trying to build up some rage here... Don't ruin it!

---

But seriously, how can a country call itself United, and yet, care so less?
- Saying "well, it ain't my problem" or "i don't wanna pay for this s**t" is just, well... It escapes my undestanding, that you're even capable of thinking like that.

Well.. Maybe it's just our free health care that screws my mind.

Its called the US Constitution.

**Melissia**

Which is amusing for you to say, considering repugs couldn't care less about the constitution unless it suits their needs just like every other political party.

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:Which is amusing for you to say, considering repugs couldn't care less about the constitution unless it suits their needs just like every other political party.

Please don't insult me by calling me a Republican.