Every time the opponents of big government, aka Republicans and Tea Party members, weigh in on issues of personal choice such as abortion or whom to marry, I marvel at how conveniently they ignore their own anti-government interference rhetoric when it suits them to do so.
Last week, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) introduced the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." The bill has 173 sponsors, most of whom are Republicans.
The proposed legislation is an attempt to further restrict taxpayer funding for abortions. Current law already restricts the use of federal funding for abortions but includes exemptions when rape or incest is involved. Smith's proposed bill, which Speaker Boehner (R-Ohio) has labeled a top priority in the new Congress, limits the rape exemption to "forcible rape."
Those of you under the age of 35 may not recall the days when simply saying "no" wasn't enough to constitute rape. This bill would turn back the clock. There is no definition in federal law for "forcible rape." Under current law, rape isn't defined in terms of force or lack of force but based on consent or lack of consent. Did the victim consent or was the victim capable of meaningful consent? This proposed legislation would rule out the exemptions that allow federal assistance for abortions when the individual was a victim of statutory rape, or drunk, drugged, or otherwise impaired because technically, such rapes aren't "forcible."
This attempt to redefine rape is ludicrous. What does forcible rape mean? Is there such a thing as "cooperative rape" or maybe "willing rape"? Rape by definition is non-consensual. The most obvious non-consent is when force is used, but having sex with someone who is unable to consent because of drug or alcohol impairment, or who is still in the caught up in the lack of judgment of youth, is still rape. The impact of this bill on current state criminal rape laws and statutory rape laws could possibly undermine existing laws to the extent that the crime of rate becomes even more difficult to prosecute. Already it's the only criminal charge where the victim is still blamed for possibly causing or inviting the crime.
If I go out to the ATM machine at 3:00 a.m. and someone robs me, whether or not I have a history of making late night trips to the bank is irrelevant to the process of determining the defendant's guilt or innocence. Despite positive changes that limit making the rape victim's character the subject of a a rape trial, there is still far too much leeway to consider the actions and behavior of the victim as a possibly contributory factor and/or evidence that there was no rape. This new nonsense by the GOP is another step down the wrong road.
If these people really are concerned about the well-being of children, why not worry about the ones already present and breathing on their own. According to data from the Census Bureau released in 2009, as of 2008, one in five children in the U.S. live in families below the official poverty level. Research from the Brookings institute predicts that number will rise to one in four by 2012.
Want to do something besides complain? MoveOn.org has a petition protesting this bill and urging Congress not to support it. Please take a moment to sign that petition.
I was livid when I read about this legislation's approach to rape in Mother Jones. Not only would this legislation restrict women's reproductive choices, but it would also do a serious disservice to rape victims.
ReplyDeleteI'm so relieved that progressive bloggers are talking about this. The more people who know about this cruel legislation, the better.
And then we have Gov. "Goodhair" Rick Perry here in Texas who wants to pass emergency (!) legislation requiring women to have a sonogram before they can have an abortion.
ReplyDeleteThis from the man who is so against government intervention in our lives that he toyed with the idea of seceding from the United States. This from the man who doesn't want universal health care for the people of his state because he says it's too costly, but who is more than willing to either require women to pay for these sonograms themselves or for the state to foot the bill. What a bunch of hypocrites.
Brilliantly obvious. But those who put forth the nonsense about forcible rape are wearing wiling blinders. To them the "No Taxpayers Paying for Abortion Act" is a way to pander to their conservative non-thinkers who go for the feel good fix. It sounds right. Just like Mom and Apple Pie. It will sound right until their daughter or wife or sister or friend is raped.
ReplyDeleteHere's an update on the bill from Politico:
ReplyDeletehttp://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=9F0FD52B-3632-42B6-ABA4-212A7CD6F996
I posted this on Facebook and several of my Conservative cousins were appalled.. so there are areas where we can agree. I also had several people point out the stupidity of forcing women to give birth, whether it was rape or not.
ReplyDeleteI refuse to give the nuts the respect of using their preferred name. From now on "ProBirthers" is the only term I will use, not to be confused with the "Birther Movement!"
They want to force women to give birth & then expect them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. MAKES ME SO ANGRY!
"forcible rape" is a RIDICULOUS TERM. It's redundant. Rape is by its very nature FORCED, whether you are talking physical force or emotional force, or anything else. Rape is rape. The people are evil morons.
ReplyDeleteIt's also ridiculous to say it's okay for women who are raped to have an abortion, but not other women. Either you consider that fetus a life worth saving or you don't. You can't pick and choose which fetuses you save; that's hypocrisy. And STOOPID. (I am pro-choice, by the way. I just think it's ridiculous for those who are anti-choice to be so inconsistent in their arguments.)
ReplyDeleteThere is something so Arthur Dimmesdale in Smith's persona--indeed, in the characters of all the self-righteous and pontificating paleocons who claim to know the mind of their god, who seek to make condemnation of victims the law, whether those are victims of poverty or rape or our warped and venal medical insurance industry.
ReplyDeleteI read that there were 10,000 girls being taken to Dallas for the Superbowl. Apparently sex with an underage girl is part of the fun. (That number, incidentally, is based on figures from the Miami Superbowl.) Heard any Congressional outcry about that?
ReplyDeleteIn December, Republicans blocked the Child Marriage Prevention Act. Why? It would cost too much and might cause more abortions.
Let's face it... Republicans are interested only in vaginas. Once that baby is born, they have no interest. Health care? Early childhood education? Bah, humbug!