According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her

[Vekseid]

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.

...

[Xenophile]

Oh what the fuck.

How the hell are they supposed to fight the stereotype that Republicans are intellectual retarded, when their Senators does this kind of shit?

[Oniya]

Everyone should write in and remind that particular Republican that 'No means no!'  Flood his mailbox with more paper and e-mail than his interns have ever seen in their lives.

[Shjade]

@Xenophile: when have they ever made a concerted effort to fight that stereotype when they're quite successful simply ignoring it? Not that Democrats are the pinnacle of intelligence as a rule either.

I dunno. I can debate theory about the nature and existence of God, writing philosophies and concepts and all manner of abstract ideas, but things like this?

I just don't get it.

[Jude]

The title of this post and that article is incredibly unfair.  For starters, lets take a look at the part of this law that is actually being discussed here:

The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--
(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or
(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

As far as I can tell all of the outrage is based entirely on the text of this bill.  I have not been able to find any Republican comments clarifying this or discussing what they mean by "forcible rape," but I don't think it is at all fair to assume that "forcible rape" excludes coercive behavior that doesn't include physical violence.  All of the pontification on this issue and the extrapolation based on that wording should have occurred only after Republicans were reached for comment and actually stated that the unclear language means what liberals seem to want it to mean (in as much as they want Republicans to be guilty of horrendous things so that they can fetch their pitchforks).

It is entirely possible, and even likely, that the wording is simply poor and the use of "forcible" was added redundantly, not a hint that physical violence is a necessary condition to receive federal funding for abortions.  However, even if this were not true (and forcible was a hint at physical violence being a key criteria for having these restrictions waved), that would not mean Republicans are looking to redefine rape.  This would simply mean that Republicans are looking to strengthen the Hyde amendment by excluding date rape and a slew of other things from the exemption.

"It's only rape if you hit her" is an incredibly scummy, dishonest, and unfair characterization of this entire situation.  I'm quite frankly appalled by the title of this topic.  That is an insanely uncivil interpretation of H.R. 3 based on the evidence I've seen.  Maybe someone can correct me by showing me a Republican quote to the contrary of what I've said here, but I've looked, and I couldn't find any.  This is yet another example of partisans refusing to give others the benefit of the doubt, and instead jumping down the other side's throat as opposed to asking questions to clarify their opponent's position being launching an assault.

[Xenophile]

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time to even treat people fairly that would even propose that -any- kind of rape victim shouldn't have an easier time to have an abortion than otherwise., and that isn't just implied or hinted at.

[Jude]

I'm sorry, but you're factually incorrect.  Without clarification we can't know if forcible rape excludes any cases of rape because there is currently no codified definition of "forcible rape" in the federal legal code.  Assuming that "forcible rape" discludes certain cases is jumping to a conclusion.

Another dishonest thing about this post?  There hasn't been a floor vote yet (to implicate the Republican House in it) and it was cosponsored by a Democrat.

EDIT:  And it's official, cosponsor came out and said this today:

"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."

In other words, "forcible rape" basically means rape.  This interpretation that it was intended to exclude certain kinds of rape was not their intention.  So all of this outrage?  Predicated on a misunderstanding gone rabid.

[Xenophile]

Then I apologize. My general distaste for US medical insurance policies and political discourse made me biased and spiteful. More-so than usual.

[Jude]

I don't blame you, I totally understand how you came to that conclusion (Republicans don't have the best track record on being sane about abortion).  The initial article in particular was garbage too, and the stronger parts of my reaction were aimed at that, not you.

Everyone's a victim of misinformation from time to time, myself included.

[Oniya]

I have to say, though - if the term 'forcible rape' was not meant to exclude anything already covered by 'rape' - why include the modifier?  A 24-year-old could convince a 16-year-old to have sex and get her pregnant without using any force whatsoever.  It's still rape, as she would be below the age of consent.

[Jude]

Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity. (at least in your estimations, this maxim holds some value)

[Oniya]

Maliciousness or stupidity doesn't matter.  I expect law makers to read the laws they propose carefully, if only to make sure it says what they want it to say, and doesn't say what they don't want it to say.

[itsbeenfun2000]

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time to even treat people fairly that would even propose that -any- kind of rape victim shouldn't have an easier time to have an abortion than otherwise., and that isn't just implied or hinted at.

Correct me if I am wrong but the purpose of this forum is to debate and be fair. It is OK to disagree but let us disagree agreeably. That being said, does this law now branch rape into two categories when only one existed before?

[Vekseid]

...

It is entirely possible, and even likely, that the wording is simply poor and the use of "forcible" was added redundantly, not a hint that physical violence is a necessary condition to receive federal funding for abortions.  However, even if this were not true (and forcible was a hint at physical violence being a key criteria for having these restrictions waved), that would not mean Republicans are looking to redefine rape.  This would simply mean that Republicans are looking to strengthen the Hyde amendment by excluding date rape and a slew of other things from the exemption.

...

"Simply looking to exclude date rape." ...

I've routinely heard Republicans berate women who 'used the rape excuse'. I don't particularly by the ignorance line, either. This isn't the first time these exemptions have been attacked. That trust has already been broken once.

And if the law isn't written to make it more difficult for women to obtain abortions when they need one - by making sure it's excluded from insurance coverage, and from any sort of practice that ever touched federal dollars - then what, exactly, is the point of this law?

[Sandman02]

  In trying to speak outside the realm of partisan quarrels, I just have to say that this move to redefine rape is hypocritical and contradictory. Statutory rape is still on the books, which means that people below a certain age cannot consent to sex. Which I do think is important in protecting children.

  So right now I need to have someone who supports this move for redefinition - either Republican or Democrat - explain to me why a child must be forced into parenthood stemming from an act that the law says they cannot consent to in the first place? Frankly, it's maddening... I suppose you can accuse me of sticking my head in the sand but I do not foresee any potential argument that could reconcile this proposed inconsistency in the law.

  I do not understand how a politician on either side of the aisle can support this. It's ok to stand for "family values," but this is more like forcing them on somebody at gunpoint...

[Callie Del Noire]

Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity. (at least in your estimations, this maxim holds some value)

+1

(I also think if most of the republican lawmakers were female that some issues would be different but hey..they aren't. (sadly common sense isn't a requirement for office))

[kylie]

         Sandman, as far as I understand, the modern Republican Party -- or at a portion of it capable of bringing forward whole platforms as the official ones -- has generally leaned toward restricting abortion.  Sometimes this leads into a logic where a live birth under just about any context is represented as better than almost any sort of abortion.

         At a quick read, it sounds to me as if someone here is brushing away unsavory causes of pregnancy and perhaps particularly, causes that are not physically traumatizing in a reproductive sense.  If so, that would be consistent with the broader claims of a party that officially tends to prefer more babies in the country, regardless of the surrounding situation.  (At least if they are not babies of illegal immigrants, that is.)

         I don't agree with it...  But it's understandable in this light.

[TheVillain]

I just wanted to say that I am giving the GOP the benefit of the doubt in that they don't want to change the legal definition of rape to make the use of force by the rapist a requirement, which you can definitely make the argument that they're trying to do exactly that given the wording, I still think this is one of the most fucked up laws I've heard of from Washington in a long time.

@GOP- you got voted in because you promised to help with the jobs. Attacking abortions, and doing so in a manner so downright repugnant, was NOT WHY YOU GOT YOUR SEATS BACK. But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that as a group your leadership is just pants-on-head-retarded instead of downright Evil.

[Jude]

Everyone seems to be missing that this law could not change the definition of rape even if they were trying to tighten the Hyde amendment to only include rape based on physical violence.  If you took the maximally cynical position on this issue you would only be able to conclude that Republicans want to tighten abortion restrictions so that people who suffer date rape and such cannot get a partially (or totally) Federally funded abortion.  All of that stuff about "changing the definition of rape" is pure baseless nonsense that has nothing to do with this whatsoever.  It's misinformation predicated on paranoid extrapolation at best, and an outright cynical lie for political gain by liberals at worse.

Also if you believe what the cosponsor said, it was never their intent to tighten abortion legislation in as much as it relates to rape.  The only difference between this law and the Hyde amendment (which is currently law) if you exclude the word 'forcible' (which is fair to do on the words of the congressmen) is the fact that abortion in the case of incest will now be exempt from federal funding if the person involved is not a minor.  That is to say if this law is passed someone who is 18+ that is pregnant with a child that is the product of incest will no longer be able to receive any Federal funding for their abortion.  That is the only thing this would change.

[TheVillain]

That is to say if this law is passed someone who is 18+ that is pregnant with a child that is the product of incest will no longer be able to receive any Federal funding for their abortion.  That is the only thing this would change.

I'm sorry, this is just downright wrong. The way the law is worded has got more then enough ambiguity that they could certainly make a push to redefine what qualifies as rape in US Law. Will they? I doubt it, like I said- I'm assuming the law's writers are just stupid and not evil. But they made a point of including the word "forcible", why do you think that is? Do you honestly believe that not one of them means to restrict the rape condition further when they went out of their way to reword it to include "forcibly". These people really could apply it to mean only cases of rape when force was used.

[Jude]

Please explain how.  Show me where the law goes into what rape is defined as.  Where exactly is the definition of rape discussed in that law?

EDIT:  For a little clarification on why saying this has something to do with the definition of rape is ridiculous, consider this.  If I operate a nightclub and I let women in for free on Thursday nights, then I change that policy to let single women in for free on Thursday nights (and not all women), I am not trying to redefine the definition of woman.  To assume that is a complete non-sequitor.  This is the same thing.  Changing the criteria to match an exemption is not changing the definition of the words in the criteria, that is absurd.

[TheVillain]

How about you first explain how it's reasonable to go out of your way to use the term "forcible rape" instead of just "rape" if the law is only meant to change the incest requirements?

[Jude]

Either you believe it was done incompetently or you believe it was done purposely.  To believe it was done purposely you have to refuse to take the Democratic congressman at his word when he says it was not.  If you're going to start ignoring people because it's convenient to the argument you're making, I don't think I can really debate this point rationally with you.

[TheVillain]

Interesting on how you're insisting I can't debate rationally when you refuse to even consider my point. And I am amused at your insistence that the Dems are anywhere near as effective at voting as a bloc as the GOP is.

My Point is- If the law is only meant to change the incest requirements, why did they go out of their way to purposely use the term "forcible rape" instead of just "rape"? Until you answer this question, you really come off as someone who is incredibly naive.

[Jude]

Consider the two possibilities we are apparently in dispute over:

1)  The co-sponsors of this law brought it up intending to change the restrictions on rape so that only people who suffered physical violence while being raped could receive federal funding for their subsequent abortion.  For some unknown reason they decided to lie about their intentions after the fact (keep in mind the text of every law is released to the public when it is proposed so they had to be fully aware people would read the document) and in the initial characterizations they gave of the law (where it was described as an attempt to codify the Hyde amendment).

2)  The co-sponsors of this law used an unnecessary, redundant adjective to describe rape in writing their legislation.  Everything they've said is true.

Personally I'm gonna go with the second, it's a hell of a lot more rational and less cynical.  Look at the first definition of rape from Dictionary.com:

an act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

Doesn't that fit every instance of sex where a person did not consent?  A minor cannot consent, so naturally statutory rape would apply to this definition if you took a legalistic stance on it.  I don't see why you think the use of the term "forceful" is so nefarious; all rape is predicated on forcing an action upon another person who did not agree to it (in the case of statutory because they cannot legally agree to it).  So I really don't get why you're assuming these cosponsors are liars when you have zero evidence to back it up.

But disagree with me all you like, that's fine, all I ask is that you follow the proceedings on this subject so that you can see how it turns out.  If these people are guilty of what you accuse them of, the term "forcible" will not be edited out during House proceedings and your cynicism will be vindicated.  If, however, your concerns are allayed, please keep that in mind and learn something from this.