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.

[TheVillain]

And you still don't address my point. If it's just an incest requirement change, why use the term "forcible rape"? Why even bring up rape at all?

Look, to put it an even simpler way. If a complete stranger wanted to cook you dinner and he said "And there is absolutely no canned liver-flavored wet dog food in my lasagna", do you blindly dig in? Or do you check his trash for aluminum cans in response to his oddly specific denial?

[Jude]

Because they have to bring up rape in order to give women who were raped the exemption from the law.  If they did not bring up rape, no woman would be able to receive Federal funds in any circumstances at all (violent or not) for their abortions.  They brought up rape to keep the current framework of exemptions when it comes to rape.

I'm starting to feel like you don't know anything about the Hyde amendment...  I really suggest you go read the full text of this proposed law and educate yourself before weighing in on this subject.

[TheVillain]

No, they didn't have to bring it up. Law doesn't work that way. Precedence is assumed in the event that changes to the law don't specifically address new points. If they had not mentioned rape at all, it really would just be a tweek to the incest requirements.

I'm starting to think you don't know anything about a little thing called "Legal Precedence"- or at least ignore it when it suits your argument.

[Jude]

The Hyde amendment is not law.  It is a rider that barely qualifies as enforcible policy.  The purpose of HR3 is to fix that by passing a proper law through more respectable channels instead of circumventing typical processes and sneaking it in via appropriations.  This is also intended to be a law that will allay concerns of conservatives that the recently passed Healthcare provisions will destroy the Hyde Amendment due to its already weak standing.

[TheVillain]

Which such a distinction has no bearing here, since I was talking Law in the broad, philosophical sense of the mechanisms by which a government works to manage society. All you've really done is insist that Crest toothpaste isn't a proper representative of the Colgate brand. You would be right, but I was taking about toothpaste in general.

Though the mistake upon further review is understandable so I'm not going to go after that point that hard.

But do you at least see my point here? The House GOP has given us the legal equivalent of a Suspiciously Specific Denial.

Edited to add linky.

[Jude]

I don't understand how we were speaking philosophically.  You asked why the rape stuff was included, I explained that if it was not that there would be no exemptions for ANY raped women.  You claimed I was wrong.  I explained that isn't the case because the Hyde amendment isn't an actual law, it's a rider passed by appropriations and does not follow normal legislative rules.  I have explained to you why it was necessary to mention rape, thus met the challenge you proposed -- I fail to see how any of what I've discussed relates to philosophical concepts, not practical realities.

EDIT:  As far as the tropes thing goes, is it possible that they were being too specific purposely because they wanted to disclude non-violent types of rape?  Yes.  It is entirely possible, I will not deny that.  I simply don't understand why you jump to that conclusion when it would require dismissing public statements made to the contrary and ascribing malicious intent to people involved unfairly.  That is certainly not "presumed innocent until proven guilty" thinking.

[TheVillain]

You asked why the rape stuff was included, I explained that if it was not that there would be no exemptions for ANY raped women. *snip* I have explained to you why it was necessary to mention rape, thus met the challenge you proposed -- I fail to see how any of what I've discussed relates to philosophical concepts and practical realities.

No, you didn't. You just insisted that it's necessary thanks to the Hyde Amendment when thanks to how Law works in it's most fundamental levels it most certainly was not needed. See last post, I edited it while you were writing it.

[Jude]

I appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue, but I think we've reached the point that it's most constructive to agree to disagree.  Have a good Sunday!

[Vekseid]

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.

Most of the rape victims I know were drugged.

One of them was twelve.

I find even the suggestion that they deserves less recompense for what happened to them, just because they do not suffer physical injury, to be vile in the extreme.

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.

And when a twelve year old girl gets drugged and violated, she deserves fewer protections, yet that's okay because it's not modifying the status of rape, according to you.

No.

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.

As if your bolded part is any more morally sound.

Given the fact that
1) Republicans do often bash the rape exemption and
2) This is not the first time the rape exemption has faced a threat

I'm not convinced that the insertion of the word 'forcible' was innocuous, no.

[Jude]

Most of the rape victims I know were drugged.

One of them was twelve.

I find even the suggestion that they deserves less recompense for what happened to them, just because they do not suffer physical injury, to be vile in the extreme.

So do I.

And when a twelve year old girl gets drugged and violated, she deserves fewer protections, yet that's okay because it's not modifying the status of rape, according to you.

I feel like you're twisting the meaning of the word "protections" to suit your needs, as well as straw-manning me personally.  I would be pretty outraged too if I thought they were seriously trying to narrow the exemption to only include rape with physical violence involved.

No.

Could you please not debate like this?  Whenever you type one-word denials of people's points of view it's very condescending and uncivil from my perspective.  That may not be your intent, but it always makes discussing things with you very grating and stressful.  It doesn't seem very conducive to constructive dialog.

As if your bolded part is any more morally sound.

I'm not sure that it is, but spreading misinformation about this issue is not morally sound either.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  I'm still think you should edit the title of the post to take out the blatantly incorrect information present therein given that this is a bill cosponsored by a Democrat and a Republican that has yet to reach the house floor to be endorsed by House Republicans as your title implies.

Given the fact that
1) Republicans do often bash the rape exemption and
2) This is not the first time the rape exemption has faced a threat

I'm not convinced that the insertion of the word 'forcible' was innocuous, no.

You can choose to believe that the Democrat who claims it was incidental is a liar, and that's fine.  I can't convince you otherwise and I won't even try -- my attempts at doing so thus far with other people have been incredibly fruitless.  But please, follow this issue and if it turns out that the Republicans in the House reword the law (or otherwise explain why the term forcible rape would include acts of rape which do not involve physical violence) remember your presumption here in the context of assuming the worst of political opponents and where it leads you.

EDIT:  Edited to be more concise and make sure I don't come off as snippy.

[Vekseid]

I feel like you're twisting the meaning of the word "protections" to suit your needs, as well as straw-manning me personally.  I would be pretty outraged too if I thought they were seriously trying to narrow the exemption to only include rape with physical violence involved.

Could you please not debate like this?  Whenever you type one-word denials of people's points of view it's very condescending and uncivil from my perspective.  That may not be your intent, but it always makes discussing things with you very grating and stressful.

I am sorry, but this does strike a personal chord for me, because it strikes a chord for many of my friends.

Maybe it's because I know women who have been yelled at for not fighting back. Maybe it's because I know women who were scolded for going outside at the wrong time, to the wrong bar, accepting a drink from the wrong person.

Maybe it's because I know women who have had to face that choice. The thought of seeing their rapist's face in their own child. Each day, every day, for decades.

If someone wants to remove protections from a majority of rape victims based on an ill thought standard, yes, it's redefining it. For that particular issue, those women would not be able to claim rape. It is not like pregnancy is some trivial consequence to be brushed off.

It doesn't seem very conducive to constructive dialog.I'm not sure that it is, but spreading misinformation about this issue is not morally sound either.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  I'm still think you should edit the title of the post to take out the blatantly incorrect information present therein given that this is a bill cosponsored by a Democrat and a Republican that has yet to reach the house floor to be endorsed by House Republicans as your title implies.You can choose to believe that the Democrat who claims it was incidental is a liar, and that's fine.  I can't convince you otherwise and I won't even try -- my attempts at doing so thus far with other people have been incredibly fruitless.  But please, follow this issue and if it turns out that the Republicans in the House reword the law (or otherwise explain why the term forcible rape would include acts of rape which do not involve physical violence) remember your presumption here in the context of assuming the worst of political opponents and where it leads you.

EDIT:  Edited to be more concise and make sure I don't come off as snippy.

The bill has 173 cosponsors, not one. Only nine are democrats.

And while Lipinski might be telling the truth, it says nothing about what the other 172 think. It does not address the fact that women who actually have been raped face enough of an uphill battle as is.

Ill-written laws need to be called out fast and hard.

[Jude]

I didn't know there were 173 consponsors, so you're point is very well taken on that, as for the rest... Isn't when we feel emotional about something that civility in discussion is most important?  When people aren't emotion about things it isn't even an issue.

[Noelle]

I'm almost positive nobody here is arguing in favor of making different levels of "acceptable" rape, so that insinuation should probably stop. I think we're all cognizant of the fact that rape is an abhorrent act and that the law should be doing what it can to protect the victims instead of trying to use strange and unnecessary wording like "forcible rape" (since it is redundant). So let's please move past the emotional responses and actually talk about the bill.

I think what Jude is trying to say is that even if they were trying to delineate different "types" of rape, it's in the context of getting federally-funded abortions. It is speaking nothing of availability of abortions to them except for access to federal funding. It's speaking nothing about how rape is charged in a court of law. They can still get an abortion with private funds, they can still go to the police and file a report and get their rapist convicted as of this bill -- and that's even if you're taking it cynically. If there is a part of this bill that compromises any of that, please do point it out to me and I will gladly retract this statement.

This doesn't mean I'd defend the bill if it really is as the most cynical views make it out to be and it doesn't mean I'd defend it now -- because I wouldn't, and I don't. I think they need to re-examine the language they're using and its severely negative implication and make the necessary corrections to ensure there are no misunderstandings or abuses. What it does mean is that defining it as something you're not even certain it is, no matter how much you disagree with it, is unfair and misleading.

[Sandman02]

I think what Jude is trying to say is that even if they were trying to delineate different "types" of rape, it's in the context of getting federally-funded abortions. It is speaking nothing of availability of abortions to them except for access to federal funding. It's speaking nothing about how rape is charged in a court of law.

  I am inclined to agree with Noelle on this - this is the best way to interpret the issue given the information. Is this not still abominable, though? Rape is rape - a situation in which consent was not given for a sexual act. To deny women access to an abortion for a pregnancy that came about entirely against their will is just wrong.

  I do get it - a human life should be celebrated. In a perfect world that is always the case. But becoming a mother is a transformative process, a lifelong commitment, and a HUGE strain on your resources (physically and emotionally) no matter how you spin it. To force this upon women who did not and could not consent to it is just monstrous. I am sorry for my strong, somewhat deriding language here, but like Vekseid the issue also strikes an emotion chord.

[Wolfy]

Oi, we already had Sarah Palin trying to make it so rape victims had to PAY for rape kits, and now this?

..Seriously, what the fuck Republicans.

[Noelle]

There is no proof here that they are trying to redefine rape.  This law has absolutely nothing to do with the way rapes are tried and convicted. It may not even be about rape in general, it was very likely just a stupid choice of words by the people writing/presenting it that very sorely needs to be retracted and apologized for. It was already pointed out that there were even a few Democrats on board, so although Republicans are notoriously idiotic about handling women's issues, stupidity knows no boundaries.

And Sandman, I couldn't agree more that if in fact they are somehow trying to finagle the word 'rape', it is horrifying even in the context of whether or not you have access to federal funding -- rape victims need to given the right resources to adequately deal with their trauma in the way they need to, be it physically or emotionally, without the interference of others trying to marginalize that experience. But again, we don't know if that's what the intent of this whole 'forcible rape' gaffe is. I'm not unaware that rape is an emotional topic, but that's not really an excuse to ignore everything and zoom in only on the word rape while completely missing the context and ignoring the possible intent.

[Zeitgeist]

Kudos to Jude for calling out the hysteria on this, and pointing out the facts.

All the same, this was an unforced error by the Republicans. It was stupid of them to get their hands into this like they have. Surely stand up for the right to life, but this? This was asking for hell. They need to stay focused on the economy, employment and the national debt.

Are there any statistics on the number of rapes that result in a pregnancy? I'm guessing not, and if there were they'd likely be ambiguous considering the number of rapes that go unreported. My point is, is all this hysteria about some fraction of a fractional percentage of pregnancies?

Though I am pretty much pro-life, I certainly cannot see myself standing in the way of a rape victim who would desire an abortion.

[elone]

I wasn't even aware of this. Am I living under a rock? Anyway, did some quick research. First I looked up the Hyde amendment. Apparently it was a response to Roe v. Wade to prohibit federal funding for abortions. Had an impact on low income and Medicaid people. (Republicans like to hit those least able to defend themselves). Anyway, it is not a law, but a rider attached to appropriations bills and has I think been done every year to keep it in effect. It has some exceptions, one of which is rape.  The new bill (I just read it) excepts forcible rape, minors, cases where mother's life is in danger.  The main thing is the term "forcible". Apparently, there is no legal definition for forcible rape, so such a thing doesn't exist. So if there is no such thing as forcible rape, then there is no rape, therefore no exemption. At least that is some peoples technical argument.

To me this is a knee jerk reaction to the new Health Care bill. I also, think they are trying to pass an actual law so they will not have to continually pass the Hyde amendment year after year. Apparently there are changes to the wording of the Hyde amendment year-to-year.

Personality, I think this country has a lot more pressing problems than to worry about this picky crap. It is a woman's right to choose, that is the law, get over it and move on. Better to spend taxpayer dollars to help the those in need to obtain an abortion than to spend it on earmarks, defense overruns, and the rest of government waste. If our lawmakers don't clean up their act, maybe the people in this country will take a lesson from the Egyptians. I am old enough to remember the millions protesting Viet Nam, wish we had the fire to do the same over our gridlock and nonsense in congress. Like multi-millionaires need a tax break!  Sorry. I digress. Anyway, it boils down to right to life lobby being happy to stop even one abortion, no matter who suffers the consequences. Their intent is to chip away at freedom intil we have none.

[Noelle]

The main thing is the term "forcible". Apparently, there is no legal definition for forcible rape, so such a thing doesn't exist. So if there is no such thing as forcible rape, then there is no rape, therefore no exemption. At least that is some peoples technical argument.

Well...except for 'forcible' is the very definition of what makes rape...rape. There is no consenting rape. It's just a redundancy, but as it's been pointed out by Jude earlier, force is almost synonymous with rape. Which is why it's so confusing as to why they needed to qualify it that way.

[Oniya]

There's rape under duress (I say 'yes' to avoid the use of force in the first place), and rape under the influence (I am in no condition to say either 'yes' or 'no' - see CA v. Luster).

[DudelRok]

Well...except for 'forcible' is the very definition of what makes rape...rape. There is no consenting rape. It's just a redundancy, but as it's been pointed out by Jude earlier, force is almost synonymous with rape. Which is why it's so confusing as to why they needed to qualify it that way.

The argument, though, is rather simple: "Law doesn't work on assumptions, it works literals and technicalities."

Adding in "force" implies that some forms of rape aren't technically rape, and sets a precedent in other cases which lowers not only women's rights but also the safety of women and children. It's rather subtle and ignorable to most people, but the law is VERY particular about such things... as that's how loopholes.

Few, very few, rapes of minors is forced or done by force.... while that seems tangent to the issue at hand, the wording of this can be used elsewhere to justify behavior that was once punishable.

Basically we're setting BACK human safety and rights by making a clear distinction between X-rape =/= Y-rape (at least in legal terms where X and Y still both equal 1) to state rape =/= rape. In reality, it isn't even something that can be argued.

There's rape under duress (I say 'yes' to avoid the use of force in the first place), and rape under the influence (I am in no condition to say either 'yes' or 'no' - see CA v. Luster).

Side: The duress one always bothered me. Are there psychological tests for such a thing to prevent the claim after actually consensual sex or is it still er... vague and scary. In my lifetime of only 24 years (the first 10 of which I will ignore for this example) I've seen two guy's lives messed up over some heavy handed lies (which were proven to be lies but the accusation still hangs in the air).

[Oniya]

I think if it goes to trial, 'duress' falls under the same sort of criteria as you would have for self-defense.  The question is whether 'the average person' would feel that they were in danger of severe bodily harm or death.

[Moonhare]

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 confused how being 18+ matters in a context of incest? Incest usual involves child abuse, which is farther reaching than an age restriction. You don't turn 18 and suddenly have the ability to say no where as a day ago, you would have been protected by the law, if they knew. It just doesn't make sense to me. Rape is rape, whether there is a gun to your head, someone holding you down, someone using a drug to make you unable to give consent, or someone holding the value of a roof, and food over your head as a threat. If you can't say no doesn't mean that you consent, no more than no means yes. Incest of this type, regardless of age, should be covered. Most women of incest have been abused for years, and don't feel that the threats of being out on the streets or cut off from all they have known are idle threats in the least.

[Jude]

I agree with you about the incest change.  My other complaint about that is merely a practical one:  how many incest-babies are going to be aborted by women over the age of 18?  Incest is quite rare in and of itself, happening with a woman who is over eighteen where she actually gets pregnant is probably astronomically rare -- why are they concerned about a little federal funding going towards the rarest of rarities?  I honestly don't think part is going to get through the amendment process, and the term "forcible rape" is definitely going to get replaced by rape early on.

What will actually be voted on is a literal restatement of the Hyde amendment, and whether or not it passes will hinge on the Senate's attitude towards it (and I think it probably will realistically, given how centrist a lot of the Democrats in the Senate are).

I don't really have a problem with the Hyde amendment though.  The majority of Americans are morally against abortion except in the case of rape, incest, and the health of the mother.  All the Hyde amendment does is, is make sure that the majority of the country won't be forced to economically support actions which they find reprehensible.

As far as the concerns that this is somehow taking the right to choose away from low income women goes, I have to say I think that's ridiculous.  Abortions don't cost thousands of dollars unless you wait a very long time to get one (which is either a function of personal irresponsibility or finding out that there's a health issue for the mother involved -- the latter the Hyde amendment does not block Federal funds from assisting you with).  Almost every abortion occurs within the first thirteen weeks, at which point abortions cost, on average, roughly the same amount that every low-income, childless taxpayer is given for free when they file their tax returns via the EIC (and that's at minimum).

You can't completely eliminate personal responsibility from the picture.  Women are allowed to have abortions so that they won't have to be responsible for the child that would've resulted from their pregnancy, and I think that's a good thing.  But why should the public have to ensure that everyone can afford to exercise that right as well?  That's shifting the responsibility on society, not the individual, to bare the potential burden of preventing your accidental reproduction.

From a purely practical point of view, it would be good to offer free abortions to low-income women.  If a woman can't afford an abortion there's all sorts of public funding that goes towards helping her carry that child to term (because she has to).  We'd save money overall if we simply funded that abortion.  However, as long as the abortion topic remains controversial and the majority of the country is opposed to taking such an obvious, practical step that benefits us all economically, I don't see why we should force them to.

[Noelle]

The argument, though, is rather simple: "Law doesn't work on assumptions, it works literals and technicalities."

Adding in "force" implies that some forms of rape aren't technically rape, and sets a precedent in other cases which lowers not only women's rights but also the safety of women and children. It's rather subtle and ignorable to most people, but the law is VERY particular about such things... as that's how loopholes.

That's if that's what they're trying to do. I keep stressing that we don't know this, and there have even been accounts by lawmakers that that's not what they're trying to do. It could've been a very stupid mistake, but we don't really disagree here on the fundamental 'next step' that needs to happen. In either case, mine or yours, it needs to be rescinded and reworded correctly to avoid that confusion.

Few, very few, rapes of minors is forced or done by force.... while that seems tangent to the issue at hand, the wording of this can be used elsewhere to justify behavior that was once punishable.

Except this bill has nothing to do with the way rapes are convicted. I don't understand where you're getting this. This law deals with access to federal funding for abortions, not the way rape cases are tried for those accused for the crime in the first place.

And on your tangent, it's possible to consider things like statutory rape as 'forced' in that force doesn't always just mean physical violence -- mental force such as coercion (in the "I said yes to avoid more trouble" instance) and abuse of authority (such as the case of an older person taking advantage of a younger person's naivety or lower position, the teacher/student scenario, etc.) and their kin are just as valid in that sense, as well.

But again: all of this is presuming that they are, in fact, trying to redefine rape. Which thusfar, there has been no evidence anywhere to point in that direction except for personal assumptions based on party bias. Which is understandable, but being understandable doesn't make it real.

[Trieste]

They had better not be trying to change the definition of rape. That's pretty much my stance on the matter - and I don't think it's a particularly unpopular one.

A comment on abortion in general: I deeply resent attempts to continue to narrow down the abortions funded by federal dollars. Funding abortion more freely would, I'm pretty sure, save taxpayer money in the long run. I also deeply resent seeing men, especially rich men, trying to legislate my uterus. In this particular area, the only man who should be able to have a say (maybe) is the one whose genetic material contributed to the embryo. I don't really care if it's sexist; when human males gain the ability to spontaneously become pregnant, then and only then can they be invited into the legislative arena where abortion is concerned. Until then, they can seriously go fuck themselves. There is only so much empathy one can have for a situation that it is physically impossible for one to experience.

[Sure]

And I deeply resent your sexism, Trieste, and your own lack of care at your own sexism. Seriously, it's deeply unacceptable to me on any number of levels I will not go into here because it would be a tangent, and makes you a hypocrite if you ever complain about sexism against women.

You also, seriously, do not want to go down the road of separating out or silencing people in relation to a specific issue. I mean, if men don't get a say in abortion because it's a 'female' issue, should men then get to be the only ones who can legislate about child support? Maybe men should get a disproportionate say in how government money is spent since men pay the majority of taxes?

Oh, and just for funsies, there are female are cosponsors.

Anyway, the government legislates what anyone can do with their bodies. Not just women. Not to mention that there are plenty of people that would argue that abortion concerns two bodies, the fetus being separate, and no matter what your argument is on the matter the fact is that enough people disagree with you as to be heavily represented in Congress. Regardless, this is about what is done with Federal money specifically, and you are basically positing the belief that the government ought to tax people and put that money towards causes you believe in even if the people taxed find them morally repugnant. That isn't even covered under the idea of government non-interference.

Or, to extend it further and to make you seem like more of a sexist, you seem to think that men should have to pay taxes for a service that only benefits females without a say in how or even whether that service is provided.

Now, on the bill itself, it doesn't seem to be changing much. Or rather, anything at all. It reinforces a standard already in place. To be honest, this story just seems to be another attempt by one political party to jump down the other's throat. Politics as usual and all that. What I'd be curious to see is if the Democrats are actually going to try and seriously oppose the measure.

[Trieste]

Try not to lecture. :)

I quite genuinely disagree; there is no way that a man can get pregnant unexpectedly, or have a pregnancy go wrong, or otherwise have to face the choice of an abortion. There is no manner in which we can equate a male experience with the female experience of pregnancy, or the risk of pregnancy. On rape legislation, males at least have a way in which they can relate. Male rapes happen, so there is room for empathy there.

There is no comparison for men on abortion, however. It's like trying to get Prince William to understand, genuinely understand, what it's like to be homeless. Or something similar, anyway.

[Alika Luminos]

Without even getting in to the inherent flaws in the US political system, I'll simply say that it's a sad state of affairs in general when something as heinous and unequivocally evil as rape is subjected to a matter of semantics. Boo humans.

[Xenophile]

Without even getting in to the inherent flaws in the US political system, I'll simply say that it's a sad state of affairs in general when something as heinous and unequivocally evil as rape is subjected to a matter of semantics. Boo humans.

Hell, it's even more sad when other countries ironed out the exact same issues decades ago, and even went past the "is abortion moral or not" debates.

[Zeitgeist]

You also, seriously, do not want to go down the road of separating out or silencing people in relation to a specific issue. I mean, if men don't get a say in abortion because it's a 'female' issue, should men then get to be the only ones who can legislate about child support? Maybe men should get a disproportionate say in how government money is spent since men pay the majority of taxes?

Hell of a good point I thought. Keep your mitts out of my wallet until you know what it feels like to work 40 hours a week and have 30% of it taken away, having no say in how it's used.

Men, married or otherwise, have no say in the woman's choice to have or not have an abortion. Men have no choice to pay, or not pay child support.

Such is life, I don't suggest it must or even could be done any differently. But it is why I school my son in being cautious with whom he chooses a life partner with, for he has essentially no rights and little legal recourse.

[elone]

Hell, it's even more sad when other countries ironed out the exact same issues decades ago, and even went past the "is abortion moral or not" debates.

Isn't that the truth! This country is so morally repressive and conservative.

Back on topic, no one has the ability to direct their income tax uses. I have yet to see a box on the 1040 that says,"do not use my taxes for abortions" or any other purpose for that matter. This whole debate is hypocritical to me. If you oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds, than you ban all abortions, period, no exceptions. Don't act like some are OK and others are not. If you think abortions should be allowed, fine as well. Please, just stop trying to legislate a personal and difficult decision.

Just a note, many, many, rape victims never come forward to report it because they do not want to go through the trauma of reporting. I guess those people are out of luck for funding. Speaking of funding, how insensitive it is to suggest that abortions are affordable and people should just pay up. We are talking about people on Medicaid. They are not exactly the top income tier of society.

[kylie]

Men, married or otherwise, have no say in the woman's choice to have or not have an abortion. Men have no choice to pay, or not pay child support.

          Sounds to me like an argument that no one should have to pay for anything that anyone else immediately chooses.  Under that logic, no one has a whole lot of good reason to pay for any health system or even any kind of insurance (to the extent that some or all of those funds may go to that alien "other" sex), nor for infrastructure, education or national defense (to the extent that people of some other group or faction may be perceived as having more control and reaping more immediate benefits).

        I can agree that there are some things one may feel outraged that others choose and we are expected to pay for.  However, claiming that no one should ever have to pay simply because another group has more control or profit of a certain kind is bizarre.  That's akin to arguing that in fact, those are non-persons over there or we are not connected in any way, not a nation, etc.  In that case, maybe the South should not have to pay for affirmative action or perhaps for taxes at all.  Perhaps New Yorkers should not have to pay for the FBI policing gun-related federal crimes in states like Arizona.   No meaningful relationship between any of these people, right?   

        Argue some view of cost/benefit, sure...  At the very least, before claiming some common ground to talk about "choice" and to speak of the sexes as living in different worlds:  Install policies toward a society where women as a group are rarely attacked, nor pressured to have a baby or to care for it "just because it's their nature."

[Zeitgeist]

        I can agree that there are some things one may feel outraged that others choose and we are expected to pay for.  However, claiming that no one should ever have to pay simply because another group has more control or profit of a certain kind is bizarre.  That's akin to arguing that in fact, those are non-persons over there or we are not connected in any way, not a nation, etc.  In that case, maybe the South should not have to pay for affirmative action or perhaps for taxes at all.  Perhaps New Yorkers should not have to pay for the FBI policing gun-related federal crimes in states like Arizona.   No meaningful relationship between any of these people, right?   

You're putting words into my mouth I didn't say.

What did I say? Oh yeah...

Such is life, I don't suggest it must or even could be done any differently.

[Noelle]

Elone, how exactly would something like this even work if nobody comes forward about it? If they were raped, they would fall under the category of people eligible for public funding, but that's not really something you show up for one random day at Planned Parenthood's and file a claim for. There are legal procedures that have to take place, it's not like we can read their mind. I understand it's a traumatic experience, but so is watching someone get murdered or having your car stolen -- if you don't come forward about it, how is anybody supposed to know when or how to help you? The law isn't going to reach out to you necessarily before you go after it.

I would be fine with using a sliding scale to help low-income women have access to abortions (much as Planned Parenthood already does with their services -- many women get their exams and birth control for little to nothing), but I can at least understand (even if I'm not sure I agree with) public trepidation about using tax dollars to pay for abortions in non-life threatening, non-rape, non-incest cases. The reasoning behind why people choose not to support abortion is not as black and white as you so assert -- painting a group with such broad strokes is hardly the way you'd want to be generalized in return, I'm sure, as you don't seem to be the sadistic baby-eating soulless liberal that wants to abort every baby everywhere.

However, I do want to point out that there are a lot of insinuations flying around that make it sound like not being eligible for public funding for your abortion means you're banned from having one all together -- you're not. In fact, they're not even trying to ban it at all, which seems to be a new revelation for Republican legislature on the subject. Again, I don't even really agree with this bill, but it's being very sorely misrepresented here.

[kylie]

You're putting words into my mouth I didn't say.

       Granted, you may have been trying to express individual frustration rather than to prescribe any particular policy.  However, you also said something that seems rather prescriptive:

Keep your mitts out of my wallet until you know what it feels like to work 40 hours a week and have 30% of it taken away, having no say in how it's used.

[DudelRok]

That's if that's what they're trying to do. I keep stressing that we don't know this, and there have even been accounts by lawmakers that that's not what they're trying to do. It could've been a very stupid mistake, but we don't really disagree here on the fundamental 'next step' that needs to happen. In either case, mine or yours, it needs to be rescinded and reworded correctly to avoid that confusion.

To be blunt, that's not how the law works. What they are trying to do is remove as many abortion options as possible, what the law's affect could be is much higher... that's the issue.

The law, itself, wont even see the light of day and is probably one of those tactics to get people to focus on one subject while another slinks itself by.

Except this bill has nothing to do with the way rapes are convicted. I don't understand where you're getting this. This law deals with access to federal funding for abortions, not the way rape cases are tried for those accused for the crime in the first place.

You are right.... except, again, the law doesn't work that way. It works on technicalities, word semantics and other bull.

See Here

Without even getting in to the inherent flaws in the US political system, I'll simply say that it's a sad state of affairs in general when something as heinous and unequivocally evil as rape is subjected to a matter of semantics. Boo humans.

And on your tangent, it's possible to consider things like statutory rape as 'forced' in that force doesn't always just mean physical violence -- mental force such as coercion (in the "I said yes to avoid more trouble" instance) and abuse of authority (such as the case of an older person taking advantage of a younger person's naivety or lower position, the teacher/student scenario, etc.) and their kin are just as valid in that sense, as well.

Except that what the LAW defines as "force" doesn't actually include statutory and coercion rape.

Duress, as I was paranoid about with Onyia, is the closest "vague one" that still falls under a LEGAL concept of force. What you, and I, define as "force" is an irrelevancy.

But again: all of this is presuming that they are, in fact, trying to redefine rape. Which thusfar, there has been no evidence anywhere to point in that direction except for personal assumptions based on party bias. Which is understandable, but being understandable doesn't make it real.

Well, at the very least the law needs rewritten.. but it shouldn't even be passed (really).

Some General Catch All

1) When a female becomes pregnant it is as much the males issue as it is the females. The child being aborted is easier on the male than the female, no matter how you stretch it, but a responsible male takes such an issue upon himself as much as possible (if only to relieve stress from the female). So it's not really a "female only" kind of deal. It is certainly a "more female than male deal" but not female only.

2) Women can pay child support, it does tend to happen; the current trend is, however, males tend to pay this.... and the creation/intention was for "dead beat dads" to help pay for their kids. (See Also: Spousal Support)

@Elone: Because, capitalism. (Insert argument for public health care here)


What I miss? Taxation.... well taxation is one of those necessary evils, and no one EVER agrees about how their tax dollars are spent so lets just ignore this personal biased on all levels. THEN AGAIN, you can donate your money to causes you actually believe in, then get your taxes back. :O OH SNAP! Seriously, this isn't even a usable argument. XD

[Zeitgeist]

       Granted, you may have been trying to express individual frustration rather than to prescribe any particular policy.  However, you also said something that seems rather prescriptive:

Keep your mitts out of my wallet until you know what it feels like to work 40 hours a week and have 30% of it taken away, having no say in how it's used.

I was referring to child support, and not taxpayer money going towards funding low income abortions. I italicized what I was saying, to illustrate I was thinking out loud, and also juxtaposing the concept that men should stay out of woman's uterus'. Fine. I'll stay out of your uterus if you stay out of my wallet. Yes, I'm being a bit glib. But I stand behind what I said that followed that. I don't suggest there is or can be a better way.

I'm sorry if this doesn't satisfy your sensibilities or fully explain for your purposes what I am saying, but I'm off topic and should let it drop.

[elone]

I can at least understand (even if I'm not sure I agree with) public trepidation about using tax dollars to pay for abortions in non-life threatening, non-rape, non-incest cases. The reasoning behind why people choose not to support abortion is not as black and white as you so assert -- painting a group with such broad strokes is hardly the way you'd want to be generalized in return, I'm sure, as you don't seem to be the sadistic baby-eating soulless liberal that wants to abort every baby everywhere.

I was only trying to point out that for many people on both sides it is black and white. Is this a question of morality or tax savings? Why do we fund an abortion for incest, but not failed birth control? An abortion is an abortion. To me it is black and white and the in between is hypocritical. I won't comment on the cannibalism, that's another discussion.

Just curious. does anyone know, with respect to incest, has Congress come up with a list of which incestuous relationships qualify? Is it forced incest,  consenting incest, does age matter?

[Jude]

Except that what the LAW defines as "force" doesn't actually include statutory and coercion rape.

It's been repeated over and over again that there is no legal definition of "forcible rape."  That means that even if this law were to be passed exactly as it is now, none of us can predict how it would be enforced.  That would be decided by the legal precedent associated with it or a signing statement issued by President Obama.

Duress, as I was paranoid about with Onyia, is the closest "vague one" that still falls under a LEGAL concept of force. What you, and I, define as "force" is an irrelevancy.

Noelle's argument on including all rapes within the context of forcible rape is clearly one I agree with, as I think the term "forcible" is inherent to all rapes.  What has been said on this subject by the lawmakers who proposed it is consistent with this view as well.  However, I accept that these are merely opinions.  Furthermore the definition of words and symbolic force versus actual force is not a clearly articulated or defined concept.  This is what the courts will have to decide if this law were passed (as I mentioned above).

Well, at the very least the law needs rewritten.. but it shouldn't even be passed (really).

I totally agree, and I think Noelle agrees with you as well.  There is the potential that if passed it could lead to a change in the policy of Federal funding for Abortion.

However, there has not been a single argument put forth on this thread that shows an actual, intelligible casual link that could potentially arise from the passage of this bill towards redefining the use of the word rape.  I do not object to the majority opinion in this thread because I disagree with the idea that this bill should not pass, I object because that disagreement has been overly cynical, dishonest, and blatantly partisan in nature to an unreasonable degree.

Some General Catch All

1) When a female becomes pregnant it is as much the males issue as it is the females. The child being aborted is easier on the male than the female, no matter how you stretch it, but a responsible male takes such an issue upon himself as much as possible (if only to relieve stress from the female). So it's not really a "female only" kind of deal. It is certainly a "more female than male deal" but not female only.

2) Women can pay child support, it does tend to happen; the current trend is, however, males tend to pay this.... and the creation/intention was for "dead beat dads" to help pay for their kids. (See Also: Spousal Support)

I'm sure in the majority of circumstances that the child being aborted takes a bigger toll on the female, but in every?  Imagine how it would feel to be a man who is very deeply pro-life that lost his potential progeny to a decision made against his will by a woman he loves.  That sense of powerlessness coupled with the idea that the mother of your child opted to terminate the potential existence of your son or daughter is pretty damaging.  There are people like this in the more radical wing of the pro-life community, I've met a few, and though I can't speak to their numbers, I think this is a serious problem.  It may not be one that can be solved, I don't believe women should lose their right to choose to avoid that potential outcome, but women could certainly be more sensitive about it.  From knowing someone like this personally, I find Trieste's position on this absolutely abhorrent.

[Oniya]

I'm sure in the majority of circumstances that the child being aborted takes a bigger toll on the female, but in every?  Imagine how it would feel to be a man who is very deeply pro-life that lost his potential progeny to a decision made against his will by a woman he loves.  That sense of powerlessness coupled with the idea that the mother of your child opted to terminate the potential existence of your son or daughter is pretty damaging. 

This is why knowing whether your partner is open to the idea of having children is one of the key discussions that has to be had early in any potentially long-term relationship.

[Jude]

And even if that discussion were to happen before sex, that doesn't mean the woman involved couldn't change her mind, lie, or even not know herself well enough to know how she'd react in that circumstance (the last of which I think is quite common).  Some men will always get screwed so long as we give the power solely to women when it comes to deciding what happens to fetuses that men are responsible for creating too.

Again, that doesn't mean I want this to change.  No system is perfect and I think the status quo is far better than overturning Woe v Wade (or modifying the system so that women's partners can force them to carry the child to term).

[Noelle]

Yes, but I wonder how many women who considered themselves pro-life before they got an unexpected pregnancy suddenly began to reconsider when the time actually came and they figured out they weren't ready or capable. Or the inverse -- how many women thought they would have an abortion but decided they couldn't bear to do it?

I agree that the discussion is important, but it certainly isn't one that is static. I would venture to say that sometimes it's a total crapshoot when the situation actually arises.

I was only trying to point out that for many people on both sides it is black and white. Is this a question of morality or tax savings? Why do we fund an abortion for incest, but not failed birth control? An abortion is an abortion. To me it is black and white and the in between is hypocritical. I won't comment on the cannibalism, that's another discussion.

Generally speaking, I think we can agree on most points. I am pro-choice and would not make any motion to reduce a woman's ability to have an abortion, but unfortunately, extremist thinking usually leads to both sides at a stalemate because both sides think they're completely in the right. I don't think I would fight too hard if they reduced federal funding for abortions to women in distressed situations -- rape, incest, and my own addition, a sliding scale for those with low income. I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical -- after all, we have a system of determining who's eligible for food stamps (however imperfect it is) for the sheer fact that not everybody needs assistance and not everybody is in a dire situation. It's not just a tax issue or a moral one, it's both.

As I said earlier, they're not even looking to outlaw abortion in general, which seems to me a totally new development for Republicans. If a compromise like this is what it would take for them to back the hell off of the issue and stop trying to ban it all together, well, I would be willing to make it. Baby steps.

[Trieste]

From knowing someone like this personally, I find Trieste's position on this absolutely abhorrent.

In this particular area, the only man who should be able to have a say (maybe) is the one whose genetic material contributed to the embryo.

Read more better good.

[Jude]

In this particular area, the only man who should be able to have a say (maybe) is the one whose genetic material contributed to the embryo. I don't really care if it's sexist; when human males gain the ability to spontaneously become pregnant, then and only then can they be invited into the legislative arena where abortion is concerned. Until then, they can seriously go fuck themselves. There is only so much empathy one can have for a situation that it is physically impossible for one to experience.

Which part should I read, because I'm seeing a lot there that doesn't really give the same impression, especially the end... "Maybe" gives me pause, "they can go fuck themselves" seemingly in reference to men who want to enter the legislative arena in regards to abortion kind of annihilates any positive message, no?  Not very civil, especially considering that there are pro-life men on this thread (at least one, Zamdrist that I know of).

[Zakharra]

Generally speaking, I think we can agree on most points. I am pro-choice and would not make any motion to reduce a woman's ability to have an abortion, but unfortunately, extremist thinking usually leads to both sides at a stalemate because both sides think they're completely in the right. I don't think I would fight too hard if they reduced federal funding for abortions to women in distressed situations -- rape, incest, and my own addition, a sliding scale for those with low income. I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical -- after all, we have a system of determining who's eligible for food stamps (however imperfect it is) for the sheer fact that not everybody needs assistance and not everybody is in a dire situation. It's not just a tax issue or a moral one, it's both.

As I said earlier, they're not even looking to outlaw abortion in general, which seems to me a totally new development for Republicans. If a compromise like this is what it would take for them to back the hell off of the issue and stop trying to ban it all together, well, I would be willing to make it. Baby steps.

  The italiced part is something I disagree with. How isn't that hypocritical when you say you would not fight to stop them from reducing funding for the women that need it? If a woman can pay for the procedure herself without beggering herself, she probably can, but there are situations that that isn't possible or even feasible. Many anti-abortion activists look at cutting funding of abortion as one way of  making it harder for women to get access.

[Trieste]

Which part should I read, because I'm seeing a lot there that doesn't really give the same impression, especially the end... "Maybe" gives me pause, "they can go fuck themselves" seemingly in reference to men who want to enter the legislative arena in regards to abortion kind of annihilates any positive message, no?  Not very civil, especially considering that there are pro-life men on this thread (at least one, Zamdrist that I know of).

Well, there is the legislative arena - which, in case it isn't obvious, refers to the apparatus in place to write legislation and update it when needed, etc. By necessity, they work with the majority. There is really no 'case by case basis' with legislation. The best you can do is write legislation with exceptions, and give people like social workers or doctors or lawyers or judges or other in-the-field professionals leeway to apply your legislation only when appropriate (or whatever; difficult to speak in the general case, here). I don't really believe that rich males have any business legislating the uteruses (uteri?) of poor women. Of any women, but since this case is talking about funding, it largely affects poor women. I explained this - and yes, as far as I'm concerned, legislators who want to force other people to endure the physical effects of unwanted pregnancy can pretty much go fuck themselves. Especially those who are conveniently insulated from ever feeling the effects of their legislation by dint of having a penis and no uterus. So sorry if you felt that wasn't civil, but it is the height of arrogance to stand at the pulpit of Congress and moralize about a situation you physically, biologically cannot ever find yourself in.

Don't even get me started on the fact that anti-choice folks tend to also be anti morning-after pill, anti Planned Parenthood, anti sex ed, and anti make-condoms-available-for-free. Just sit down, shut up, and pump out babies - that is the message. I reject that, fundamentally and without reservation.

However, there is also the individual case. My 'maybe' referred to the fact that the circumstances around impregnation can vary wildly. You have a boyfriend, he's a decent guy, you've been together for years - he absolutely should have a say in what happens. That is the decent thing to do. However, you have this guy, you've kinda been living with him, he's been sleeping around on you, maybe he goes off and gets high for days and you never see him unless he wants money, and he knocks you up by mistake? Why should he have a say? Why should he have any kind of effect on what happens to his girl's body?

The thing is that you cannot legislate decency; you can try, but you usually end up hurting decent people in the long run. So let's say we start requiring paternal permission slips for abortions to happen. What if she doesn't know who the father was? What if she can't find the father? What if the father just won't sign it out of spite, but has no intentions of helping to raise the kid, either? But she only has so much time before she passes the cut-off for an abortion, and some people would make it 12 weeks or so. Is that enough time for her to get a lawyer and sue to have this guy's parental rights terminated? What if he changes his mind afterward; does he have the right to sue mommy for getting an abortion anyway? It's a mess. Our current system of child support is a mess, not to mention the adoption system.

If somebody wants to step up and be a father, great. Otherwise, it's none of his business. Not even if he's a lawmaker.

Edit: I hate it when you edit your posts while I'm trying to respond to them, Jude. Zamdrist is hardly a pro-life lawmaker, and is clearly a conscientious father. Stop trying to make my posts personal attacks on other members; they are not, and you know that.

[Noelle]

  The italiced part is something I disagree with. How isn't that hypocritical when you say you would not fight to stop them from reducing funding for the women that need it? If a woman can pay for the procedure herself without beggering herself, she probably can, but there are situations that that isn't possible or even feasible. Many anti-abortion activists look at cutting funding of abortion as one way of  making it harder for women to get access.

...Because I thought I was clear in mentioning women I thought needed the federal funding the most? I thought "low-income" solved most of your complaints there, but do correct me if I'm wrong.

[Jude]

  The italiced part is something I disagree with. How isn't that hypocritical when you say you would not fight to stop them from reducing funding for the women that need it? If a woman can pay for the procedure herself without beggering herself, she probably can, but there are situations that that isn't possible or even feasible. Many anti-abortion activists look at cutting funding of abortion as one way of  making it harder for women to get access.

And they're right, I think.  Restricting Federal funding for abortion does make it harder to get access.  However, the Constitution only guarantees protections, not positive outcomes.  We have the right to vote, but it's still up to you to get yourself to the ballot box and straighten out your registration information.  It's the same thing with abortion:  no one can stop you from having one if you decide you want one except you (if you can't afford it).

Trieste, I actually didn't know your post wasn't a personal attack on other members.  It also didn't seem to me at all that you were narrowing your gaze to lawmakers only; I figured "the legislative arena" included anyone backing particular legislation with their personal politics.  I apologize for the misunderstanding, but I still stand behind my opinion that saying "they can go fuck themselves" is fundamentally uncivil and not appropriate for any level of polite discourse.

[Trieste]

There is nothing stopping men from having an opinion on the subject, and obviously I'm not going to say "Hey! Hey, you menfolks stop having those opinions! Right now!" (I'm being facetious, but I hope you get my point.) It's the ones that have the power to press their opinion on others that I think should go fu-uh, pick daisies in a tranquil field. >.>

[Jude]

I took your post to be muuuch more extreme than it was, sorry :(

[Trieste]

Me, too. :(

The whole subject is upset-making.

[Noelle]

SUDDENLY, CUPCAKES

[Zakharra]

...Because I thought I was clear in mentioning women I thought needed the federal funding the most? I thought "low-income" solved most of your complaints there, but do correct me if I'm wrong.

I might have taken it wrong, but this:

I don't think I would fight too hard if they reduced federal funding for abortions to women in distressed situations -- rape, incest, and my own addition, a sliding scale for those with low income. I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical

Seems to say that if they reduced federal funding, you would not fight that hard. Possibly a miscommunication issue here. No worries if I took that wrong.  :)

[Noelle]

I'm saying if they mandated federal funding for abortion go only to women in distressed situations (rape, incest, low-income), I wouldn't really be terribly upset about it, so long as it was still made available in general to all other women.

[Zakharra]

 Alright, confusion on my end then.

[Noelle]

Poor wording on my end :) GOOD TALK, TEAM.

[itsbeenfun2000]

I am glad to see people can settle down and work thru it. nice job all

[Rhys]

At the risk of reopening a rather foul can of worms, I would like to say my piece on this subject. There has been some debate here on how the law works and how changing the term 'rape' to 'forcible rape' would impact things. And in part, I agree with both sides of the argument. On one end, we don't know how this would be interpreted in the courts or even if once the law became law the term 'forcible' would still be in it. On the other, it does indeed set a very dangerous loophole.

By using the term 'forcible rape' you are, in addition to being redundant, opening the door for a judge or lawyer, who's duty it is to interpret the law, to say that this terminology shows that some rape (that which isn't what they consider 'forcible rape') can leave the victim without access to federal funding for their abortion. Do I know if any lawmaker would do this? Nope. Do I think the number of lawmakers out there who may do this in any way represent a majority or even a 'large number' of US lawmakers? No. But if you put that language on the books you open the door for someone to misuse it. And if one, single woman were to have to go to trial and argue over whether or not the manner in which she was raped was 'forcible,' then damage done.

The Republicans are well aware of this. They've argued over tiny wording issues in the law before. They have lawyers on their staffs, and many of them have at one point worked in a law-related field as well. And given their track record of attacking abortion/rape laws (See links posted by active users earlier) and fighting against giving rape victims the right to defend themselves in a fair, judicial court (Can't post links currently but a couple years ago 30 Republicans including Mitch McConnell and John McCain voted against passing a bill brought to the floor by Al Franken that would cut federal funding to any federally contracted company that made its employees sign contracts stating that if they were sexually assaulted, harassed or discriminated against, they could only seek recourse in private arbitration.), I am not exactly inclined to chalk this up to accident or ignorance.

Thankfully/Hopefully we're only ever going to have to discuss this in the theoretical what with the wording getting changed back to 'rape' and all.

[Oniya]

The Republicans are well aware of this. They've argued over tiny wording issues in the law before. They have lawyers on their staffs, and many of them have at one point worked in a law-related field as well.

I'd wager that percentage is closer to 'most' or even 'all' - they are part of the law-making branch, so I would hope that they had studied at least some law.  (My hope holds true for members of all parties.  No getting a pass on your studies just because you're an Independent.)

[Rhys]

I go with many only because it is not 'all'. It may've been closer to all at one point but with the Tea Party on the rise in recent years and the backlash against career politicians, we currently have at least a few Republican lawmakers who haven't worked in law-related fields.

If I'm not mistaken, Rand Paul is one such example. Though he founded Kentucky Taxpayers United his job outside of his activism prior to becoming a Senator was being a ophthalmologist. He has a doctorate in medicine. As far as I know, he has no law-related experience beyond whatever he picked up working with his father's campaign and whatever he has picked up on the road to becoming a senator.

That said, I'm sure they have all studied law, to some varying degree, independently. Then again, so have I. Doesn't mean I should be a Senator. ;)

[Oniya]

Oh no - I'm not saying that 'background in law' implies 'suitable for being a legislator', but more that 'suitable for being a legislator' should imply 'background in law'.  :D

[mystictiger]

Oh no - I'm not saying that 'background in law' implies 'suitable for being a legislator', but more that 'suitable for being a legislator' should imply 'background in law'.  :D

Better a background in law rather than a background in raping people. Although perhaps a background in being raped might make for the best laws. Otherwise, we can only imagine the harm. And yes, men can be raped too but are far less likely to need the abortion afterwards.

[elone]

Heard a news story today that the word "forcible" was removed from the bill. I guess we are not the only ones having this debate.  Good to know our Congressional representatives have something to keep them busy. lol.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Putting the whole issue of rape aside for just a moment...aren't these the same Republicans who castigated Obama for not focusing on the economy, for pushing "side projects" like health care reform?

I'm not exactly seeing a sharp focus from the GOP on the economy.  More like tilting at various windmills, fighting battles on side issues that they know they can't win, like repealing "Obamacare" (they don't have the votes) and eliminating abortion (don't have the votes for that either, and most of the public outside the GOP's religious base is much more concerned with the economy and foreign relations than with changing abortion laws).

But it doesn't surprise me.  I knew the GOP was long on rhetoric but short on real answers.

[Rhys]

Heard a news story today that the word "forcible" was removed from the bill. I guess we are not the only ones having this debate.  Good to know our Congressional representatives have something to keep them busy. lol.

Yes. They got hit pretty hard by Jon Stewart, much of the mainstream media and a good number of rights groups. Once they realized that this was going to be a big deal, they didn't have a whole lot of options.

And you're right about the GOP's current lack of focus OldSchoolGamer. My thought on it is that we're going to see much of the same until 2012. While I won't go as far as to say they want people to suffer, I will say they want them fed up enough with the economy and other issues that they'll, theoretically, blame it on Obama and vote against him. When our economy is in the shape its in now and the unemployment rate is still hovering around 9.5% the fact that you've got members of the GOP saying their number one priority is unseating Obama in 2012, other members saying their number one priority is getting rid of Obamacare and others who are looking at slashing money that goes towards education, technology, social advancement, etc. while giving money to prisons and other pet programs that neither create jobs or promote greater innovations that allow us to better compete in the global market, its rather clear that they don't have their priorities straight.

[Jude]

If you actually read their comments they didn't remove it because they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar.  This is a direct quote from one of the chief sponsors:

Late Thursday, Smith issued this statement stating “Overwhelming majorities of Americans do not want their tax dollars used to pay for abortion. While some have misconstrued revised language in our bill the use of the term forcible was not intended to change the meaning of the time-tested protections and exceptions currently contained in the Hyde Amendment.”

Will anyone be persuaded by this?  I doubt it.  Very few, if any, publications that slandered Republicans over this will post a retraction saying "we were wrong," and even that won't really change the minds that the original story already influenced (see http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bnyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf if you want to learn about the backfire effect wherein additional information actually makes things worse in extreme political adherents).

Something can be learned by this however to those that are impartial enough to see it:  this is why political discourse is so poisonous in our country.  When vile accusations are fabricated from cynical interpretations and passed around as if they were fact, it destroys our ability to find any political common ground.  I'm not saying this is a phenomenon unique to liberals (it's not, Republicans do this too, like they did with the death panels accusations), but it is destroying our political discourse.

[OldSchoolGamer]

If you actually read their comments they didn't remove it because they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar.  This is a direct quote from one of the chief sponsors:Will anyone be persuaded by this?  I doubt it.  Very few, if any, publications that slandered Republicans over this will post a retraction saying "we were wrong," and even that won't really change the minds that the original story already influenced (see http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bnyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf if you want to learn about the backfire effect wherein additional information actually makes things worse in extreme political adherents).

Something can be learned by this however to those that are impartial enough to see it:  this is why political discourse is so poisonous in our country.  When vile accusations are fabricated from cynical interpretations and passed around as if they were fact, it destroys our ability to find any political common ground.  I'm not saying this is a phenomenon unique to liberals (it's not, Republicans do this too, like they did with the death panels accusations), but it is destroying our political discourse.

The other question, however, is why they are even pushing this at the moment.  Seems to me that when the economy is in a state of collapse (and it is--if you think this "recovery" is real, try taking away the $1.4T in fiat money and see how many months it lasts), that takes priority over tinkering with abortion laws, rape definition notwithstanding.

This just goes to show NEITHER party has a clue.

[Aludiana of the Dusk]

My personal opinion on the subject of this bill is that it was so ambiguously worded on purpose. Politicians are dumb about what happens in the reality that exists for most people (i.e. the people that have "normal" jobs; or maybe don't because they lost them) but they are very aware of what happens in their world of politicos. I highly doubt they could not know the reaction their insertion of the word "forcible" before rape would cause a stir, particularly among pro-choice women's groups. I think now that the republicans are feasibly in charge of congress they are having the same "oh shit" moment that Obama had when he took the office of president, when he got a cold bucket of reality thrown in his face. I, personally think the current congress is just as clueless as the last congress at how to approach fixing the economy, and this is a smokescreen tactic (I also acknowledge the possibility that I'm giving them more intellectual/creative credit than due here.)

It also seems to me that abortion shouldn't even be an issue to begin with; it seems to me that the practice of forbidding abortions is directly related to some ancient religions, and that if "separation of church and state" is going to be interpreted to remove religious practices, such as faculty organized prayer, from public schools; the government should at least admit that it doesn't have a place regulating such things. Instead, since the practice of abortion was restricted to the point of being illegal in many places it became a "women's lib" issue, which is something the government can control.

I've dealt with the fallout of having an abortion. I'll admit it, and no matter how much men might think they have to deal with it too, they don't to the extent a woman does. They don't become an emotional trainwreck, they don't lose lifelong friends because of the decision and they certainly don't have their names published on a list of "biggest sluts and whores of the year" in an unofficial school newspaper. I'm not saying they shouldn't have any say in the matter, because they should. Whether married or not, if you get a girl pregnant you should sit down and talk with her about your feelings. Men however should not have final say.

And women aren't all evil conservative pro-life activitsts, or baby aborting liberals, despite what the people "in charge" would seem to have you think. We are quite capable of making rational decisions and taking care of ourselves. So why don't the men just step out of the arena and leave it up to the people who are directly affected by the law?

[Trieste]

Unlocked; please remember to keep it civil. Ask for clarifications; conversely, please make attempts to clarify positions without being asked.

Thank you.

[Sandman02]

  Perhaps there is one take-away point that everybody can agree on - the Republicans were elected on the platform of reintroducing some form of fiscal responsibility back into our government. THIS and this only should be their only priority. The measly amount of money that could theoretically be saved by no longer covering abortion services to the extent that they're covered is not worth the political and social price of dividing the country over contentious issues like this. 

  And yes, now they've backed off and hopefully will take a lesson - at least until we're sure that this whole country will not be completely insolvent within the next few years.

*edited to correct a typo in order to make this post actually make sense! Sorry...

[Serephino]

Actually, I saw on the news last night that they're trying again, but this time instead of restricting federal funding, they want to take it away completely.  They're trying to get it added to the health care bill that they supposedly want to repeal so badly.  Maybe this is how they intend to do it, but still, it's an asshole thing to do.

[Aludiana of the Dusk]

Actually, I saw on the news last night that they're trying again, but this time instead of restricting federal funding, they want to take it away completely.  They're trying to get it added to the health care bill that they supposedly want to repeal so badly.  Maybe this is how they intend to do it, but still, it's an asshole thing to do.

If that is true, Serephino, then it just proves that nothing is ever as evil as politicians claim it is; at least not as long as they can manipulate it for their own agendas.

[squidsyd7]

This honestly makes me sick.

Rape is about violence, that's true, but many women are raped by people they know in a non-violent manner.  If she says no and he does it anyway, that's rape.

I've had friends who have been raped by men they know, men they went on dates with, men they believed to be upstanding and moral citizens.  When a man holds you down in the back of his truck, covers your mouth with his arm, and forces you to have sex with him, it doesn't matter if he hit you.  That's still rape, and it's still wrong.

It seems to me that some people just want to take away every basic human right we have.  There's no way to protect ourselves anymore.  Honestly just sickening.

[Jude]

Did... you read the thread, or just the headline?  I'm going to guess the latter.  Please take time to review the entirety of the comments so that you can understand the nuances of the issue before coming to a conclusion.  It is probably especially relevant to note that this was taken out of the bill without a fight and the supporters of the bill never once claimed they were trying to do what they were accused of (in fact they said quite the opposite).  So by the word and deed of the House Republicans, this was a manufactured controversy over vague wording, not a conspiracy to make it "not rape" unless there's violence involved.