Redefine Rape? The house GOP is trying.

[SirNitram]

Link

Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.

For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)

Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense.

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

"This bill takes us back to a time when just saying 'no' wasn't enough to qualify as rape," says Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser to the National Women's Law Center. Laurie Levenson, a former assistant US attorney and expert on criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, notes that the new bill's authors are "using language that's not particularly clear, and some people are going to lose protection." Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes. "There are a lot of aspects of rape that are not included," Levenson says.

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

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

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

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

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

Pure rage. That's the only thing I can think of. In the quest to control women, they will redefine rape.

[General Zod]

The fact that these assholes don't consider using roofies or date-rape drugs to be forceful is pretty outrageous. I wonder why nobody is calling for their resignation? Oh right, it's abortion related.

[dragon]

what the hell, I mean yes the way rape is treated needs to be fixed, but not like this. And by fixed I mean in cases where the slightly underaged girl be it 16 in a place where AOC is 17 for example sneeks into a bar sleeps with a guy and the guy gets into trouble for picking up the girl at a club.

And before some one says he should have know, I know a alot of teens that can pose as adults

[eion]

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

Well there's the opposition talking point right there, "Republicans are in favor of incest!"

This is sickening. The Culture Wars are back. The Republicans are saying all they want to focus on is, "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs", but what are the two major pieces of legislation they craft and pass in the House first? A bill repealing health care reform that will bloat the deficit and cost people jobs, and a bill that revisits already settled law (except for the exceptions noted above there is no taxpayer funding for abortion) in an effort to confuse people.

The Abortion bill would also force many private healthcare plans to drop abortion coverage to ensure they qualify for federal subsidies.

Of course, this bill, and the healthcare bill, have next to no chance of passing in the Senate, and even if they did they would both be vetoed by the President so it is all just a message to the Republicans crazy-base and a way to get democrats to vote to fund abortion for 13 year old girls. Mark it, that will show up in Republican ads for the next election.

[Gullible Jones]

Remind me again how these pigs can consistently claim the moral high ground?

[Samuel]

Remind me again how these pigs can consistently claim the moral high ground?

Because they don't define morality as helping people, but following rules. The fact these rules hurt people is irrelevant to them.

[JME2]

Remind me again how these pigs can consistently claim the moral high ground?

Because they don't define morality as helping people, but following rules. The fact these rules hurt people is irrelevant to them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Fuck the fucking fuckers.

[UnderAGreySky]

I ask this as a serious question: Is there any country in the world that is considered developed/of the first world where such bills are introduced even as a one off, let alone routinely? Because the way I see it - and this could be thanks to excessive media coverage - is that only the US turns out politicians at the national level who revel in ignorance, demonstrate it and DON'T get beaten with a big stick. I've been in the UK for more than two years, and I just don't see this shit happening here. Am I just missing out on the idiocy of other countries?

[Samuel]

I ask this as a serious question: Is there any country in the world that is considered developed/of the first world where such bills are introduced even as a one off, let alone routinely? Because the way I see it - and this could be thanks to excessive media coverage - is that only the US turns out politicians at the national level who revel in ignorance, demonstrate it and DON'T get beaten with a big stick. I've been in the UK for more than two years, and I just don't see this shit happening here. Am I just missing out on the idiocy of other countries?

Abortion is illegal in Ireland, South Korea and Poland except in very specific circumstances. Germany has it only legal in the first trimester. Aside from that it is legal in the rest of the civilized world.

The US is odd because we got the right through the courts so it wasn't connected to the culture of the entire country at the time. It was legal on request in 4 states (ironically Alaska and Hawaii were 2 of the 4) and legal in 13 for health, incest and fetus problems.

[Serafina]

Interesting legal tidbit: Abortion is not technically legal in Germany, it's just a crime that will never be pursued in any wayas long as it is within some boundaries (generally ony in the first trimester, medical indications being the major exception). That pretty much works out into "it's legal" for all practical purposes, it was just crafted that way to keep our religious right happy.


That being said:
I am frankly more shocked that they view rape as not being rape unless force is involved, not so much about the abortion-part of this. The latter is just too obvious from them to shock me anymore.
But seriously, there are a TON of examples where it is obviously rape when no force is used at all:
- There are tons of ways you can force a woman into sex without using physical force, using blackmail and the like.
- This applies more so to younger girls, where an adult can do that more easily.
- Date-rape drugs do not technically involved force either. This also applies to other drugs, even basic alcohol is enough.
- The same goes for many cases of rape in relationships.

The proper definition of rape should really be (and is in practically every first-world nation): "sex without consent".
You can really compare it to property in legal terms: If you take someones property without their explicit consent, it's theft. It get's worse when force is involved, but that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal when it isn't involved. This also applies if the consent was given under false pretenses (fraud/deceit) or while the person giving it was intoxicated etc.
I fail to see why someones property should be more protected than someones body and psyche (because rapes harms at least the latter and often the former as well).


If you define rape as just being a crime if it involves force, then you are redefining why it is a crime. It would be like saying "oh, theft is okay, but robbery is bad because of the violence". Having sex with someone without their consent would no longer be a bad thing legally - only violece would be the criminal action in rape. Essentially, rape would cease to exist as a crime and would be replaced by a special form of assault.

[Duckie]

Trivialising Rape is pretty much common in the US. The Supreme Court ruled against the Death Penalty in the case of Rape (a good idea), for the reason that Rape causes no serious harm, so the punishment was not merited (!?).

[Shroom Man 777]

As long as the conservative party is, I dunno, strong on fucking over foreigners and other countries, then I guess it's preferable to have them in power (and fuck over people in your country)?

God Bless America.

[mingo]

Harry Ried needs to get smart, they have the majority in the Senate and the President's veto. When the House passes silly shit like this don't just filibuster it so it never gets discussed, make them debate this madness on the floor. I want to see the Republitards arguing for this on the evening news, let people see how NUTS these people are.

[Sea Skimmer]

I didn’t know that exemption even existed myself, I thought the law blocked all funding for abortions period. Learn something everyday. As for redefining rape, its fucked up at this point in history, but it actually wasn’t that long ago in the US history that rape did have to involve force for legal prosecution to occur. I'm sure more then one of our glorious legislature members can remember those times.

[Simon_Jester]

I ask this as a serious question: Is there any country in the world that is considered developed/of the first world where such bills are introduced even as a one off, let alone routinely? Because the way I see it - and this could be thanks to excessive media coverage - is that only the US turns out politicians at the national level who revel in ignorance, demonstrate it and DON'T get beaten with a big stick. I've been in the UK for more than two years, and I just don't see this shit happening here. Am I just missing out on the idiocy of other countries?

To an extent, probably, but... you're right.

The US, for reasons I'm not entirely clear on, doesn't favor anyone calling out national-level politicians on actively malevolent policy. Once in a while someone gets skewered for saying the wrong thing, but you could pretty much get away with writing the "Throw Orphans Into a Furnace Act of 2011" as far as I can tell, and neither the media nor (if you are a Republican) the opposing party will bother to call you out on it.

[JME2]

Remind me again how these pigs can consistently claim the moral high ground?

Because they don't define morality as helping people, but following rules. The fact these rules hurt people is irrelevant to them.

This also what bemuses me about the hypocrisy of the right-wing opposition to abortion. Your religion is about peace and free will -- and yet, anyone who disagrees with you and chooses pro-choice over the life of a potential baby Christian is dammed.

[Elheru Aran]

The US, for reasons I'm not entirely clear on, doesn't favor anyone calling out national-level politicians on actively malevolent policy.

This.

There just is not enough public awareness of what's going on in Congress. In part this is understandable. The majority of Congress is "I move to pass this bill, the text of which is blah blah blah do something about something blah blah blah", a dude goes "I second that", another dude goes "Move to vote", show of hands, head count, move on. Boooooooring. Not news, just a legislative body in action.

But the part that matters is what's in the *text* of those bills and laws that they're bringing up for voting into the Federal law. That's where the morals and/or lack thereof of Congressmen really shows. "Bill HR 537.a" doesn't mean anything to anybody; but when you point out that *this* subsection says that rape shall be defined as so and so, but NOT as so and so plus so, that's where people need to be paying attention. But who points this out? The Mother Jones website, apparently. Not the AP, not CNN, not News Corp... because the Constitution is the LAAAAAAW and the LAAAAAW says that Congress shall pass laws for the GOOD of the Nation, hence Don't Point Fingers at the Congressmen, they're being good to you!

[PainRack]

That being said:
I am frankly more shocked that they view rape as not being rape unless force is involved, not so much about the abortion-part of this. The latter is just too obvious from them to shock me anymore.
But seriously, there are a TON of examples where it is obviously rape when no force is used at all:
- There are tons of ways you can force a woman into sex without using physical force, using blackmail and the like.
- This applies more so to younger girls, where an adult can do that more easily.
- Date-rape drugs do not technically involved force either. This also applies to other drugs, even basic alcohol is enough.
- The same goes for many cases of rape in relationships.

The proper definition of rape should really be (and is in practically every first-world nation): "sex without consent".
You can really compare it to property in legal terms: If you take someones property without their explicit consent, it's theft. It get's worse when force is involved, but that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal when it isn't involved. This also applies if the consent was given under false pretenses (fraud/deceit) or while the person giving it was intoxicated etc.
I fail to see why someones property should be more protected than someones body and psyche (because rapes harms at least the latter and often the former as well).

Just to play devil advocate, this isn' t unique to the US.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/ ... ld_4282997

In 1999, the same court overturned a different rape conviction, saying it is impossible to forcibly remove a woman's jeans if she resists. The case, which drew condemnation from across Italy's political spectrum, had involved a driving instructor and an 18-year-old.


Of course, we note that in 2008, the reverse happened....