Republicans move to redefine rape to limit taxpayer-funded abortions

I hate to say this, I really do - but I Am Not Making This Up. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/house-republicans-aim-to-redefine-rape-to-limit-abortion-coverage/

To reduce the taxpayer's expenditure on abortions, those fucking morons in the Republican Party (anyone who supported, and all those who came up with, this proposal are certainly that anyway) want to redefine rape. The article has the detail, and I won't post verbatim, but essentially they believe the rape has to include violence. As opposed to rape actually being an act of violence in itself. Under this idea, the following will no longer count as rape:

• Forced incest if the victim is over the age of 18
• Date rape
• Marital rape
• Rape of those who are incapable of understanding the concept (a mentally challenged person who says yes, not knowing what they're actually agreeing to)

This makes me angrier than almost anything else they've come up with. It's...I'm speechless. All this, to save a few measly dollars. I hope Hell exists just so those responsible for this can be sent there.

This is not about saving money, at least not primarily.

Basically, no-one's dumb enough to prevent abortions for rape victims (because that policy would get shot down so hard; Rape is one of the few circumstances even pro-life people normally give a pass for)

Instead, they're trying to redefine rape so that there fewer people are considered victims to get that pass.

It's really quite appalling, people fought for years to get marital rape acknowledged as a crime.

So glad that's not my country's government.

Yes, that's exactly it. Never mind the fact that it's a collosal violation of women's rights, and presumably has the knock-on effect of effectively legalising forced, non-consensual sex in the circumstances noted above if there's no "violence" involved! I mean, since it's no longer rape...

Unless I misread it, the thing they were doing isn't restricting regular rape, it's using Weasel Words to try and limit when they have to pay money for abortions.

Oh my. Can't believe it's serious. Ummm, it is not going it pass, right? Right?

Well it's certainly not going to pass the senate.

Seems unclear to me, the article doesn't specifically mention it, but having separate definitions of rape for purposes of abortions and everything else seems a bit dodgy.

^^You'd think so but there might be enough pro-rape pro-life Democrats in the Senate. It's not likely, but possible. Although if Reid chooses to stand up and fight, it won't be an issue at all.

edited 30th Jan '11 6:42:18 AM by Funnyguts

Well, it's not like there's not a variety of different definitions already.

This is what we're going to get with the Republicans in partial control. And you know what else? The Democrats are going to let some of those laws pass as a compromise. This one's probably not going to make it, though.

This is a disaster. Even if the bill itself only addresses abortion funding, it still sets a legal precedent for redefining rape in other contexts. It's hard enough for rape victims to be taken seriously within a law stating that it doesn't count unless they were physically beaten up in the process.

I hope the people who put this bill up have their lives ruined for it.

Agreed. Actually, this one would be glad to see their lives ruined in a very specific way.

Gods, this is just fucking hideous.

"the term "forcible rape" was left undefined" - which means there will be a lawsuit and it'll be left up to judges whether the examples of borderline cases the OP listed will count or not.

^Well, we can't have bills be too long. Long bills are bad.

Why in the hell are taxpayer dollars funding abortions at all? And, yeah, it would be more honest to just try to remove tax funding for abortions outright instead of trying to redefine rape for those purpsoses.

Because in the case of rape it is not considered "fair or just" to let a woman pay to have a child that was nothing to do with her forced upon her.

Can you really see "redefining rape" being applied only to federal funding of abortions? Really? Either it is rape or it is not. So basically it legalises certain forms of rape.

@ Josef Bugman: No, the woman shouldn't be obligated to pay for raising the child, since she didn't choose to get pregnant. That does not mean, however, that the child deserves to die. After all, they didn't choose to be conceived via rape.

@ Beholdress: Having read the linked article, it would seem that the title is (probably intentionally) misleading. The proposed change would not alter the legal definition of rape, but narrow federally-funded abortions to cases of "forcible" rape.

And just how is it possible to change one without changing the other? If rape is rape, then no narrowing-down is needed. This propose implies that not "forcible" rape is somehow less of a rape.

edited 30th Jan '11 9:33:32 AM by Beholderess

Idiots. Rape is one of the few cases in which I think abortion is ok, even morally right. These fools are giving opposition to abortion a bad name.

I can't imagine that even most republicans would support a bill like this. I don't see it even passing the House.

Why in the hell are taxpayer dollars funding abortions at all?

Because female recipients of Medicare, etc. sometimes have unwanted pregnancies.

Somewhat tangential, perhaps, but I've been wondering: why is it only the anti-abortion movement who can bitch about the specific uses of "their" tax money and have the government rush to coddle their poor injured fee-fees? I don't want "my" taxes going to fund foreign wars; I don't see any bills being proposed to redefine "war" so that only certain military actions qualify.