from Washington Monthly:
THE ODIOUS GOP PLAN TO REDEFINE RAPE.... Last week, after a rather pointless vote to repeal the entirety of the Affordable Care Act, House Republicans announced their second major initiative: the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act."
It was additional evidence that the new House GOP majority isn't exactly focused on the economy and job creation, and it seemed like another gesture to the party's far-right base. After all, existing law already restricts public funds for abortions.
Today, Nick Baumann takes a closer look at the proposal, and highlights an odious provision that proponents would use to redefine rape.
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.
I'm going to say this again:
THEY ARE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE.
Plain and Simple.
What the Republicans are clearly saying here is that it is okay to force a mother to carry her rapist's child to term in all cases except where clear physical force is used. Implied force wouldn't be enough. The use of drugs of alcohol to stupify a women into submission would not qualify. Statutory rape that didn't involve physical force would not qualify. Blackmail wouldn't qualify. Mental retardation or diminished capacity wouldn't qualify.
Look at what won't qualify.
Stop pretending that they aren't what they are. They are misogynists. They want to control women. They want to control what a woman does with her own body. Let's be clear. Let's be honest about this.
This is who they are. They get into power, and look at what's important to them. It's not jobs. It's not putting people to work. It's taking away rights from women.
Date rape isn't rape...tell that to the young women that I worked with in college as a volunteer, whose lives were shattered and they had to put their lives back together after they were raped. Talk to a young woman who wakes up, knowing that she was drugged, and not knowing what the hell happened to her the night before. Take that young woman, and her being brave enough to actually come in and ask for help. Ask any woman who has had to undergo the invasive and humiliating process of doing a rape kit. Sit with her as she sits there and waits at the six month and year mark of getting the HIV test, because she doesn't know who sexually assaulted her, and if they were infected.
Don't tell me those women weren't violated and raped.
Their hatred and misogyny against females is plain to see. Stop pretending that it isn't what it is. You don't have the right to tell me, or any other woman, what she can and cannot do with her body. And, you certainly don't get to 'redefine' sexual assault to suit your RELIGIOUS PURPOSES.