Skip to comments.(UNREAL, INSANE BIAS) House Republicans Plan to Redefine Rape
Posted on 01/31/2011 6:27:05 AM PST by Lazamataz
Drugged, Raped, and Pregnant? Too bad -- Republicans are Pushing to Limit Rape and Incest Cases Eligible for Government Abortion Funding
Rape is only really rape if it involves force, according to 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, with another exemption covering pregnancies that could endanger the life of the mother.
But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to drastically limit the definition of rape and incest in these cases. The bill, with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors, has been dubbed a top priority in the new Congress by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Maybe it was too much, even for THEM.
I was hopin’ to read the comments section,,, if they were allowing comments.
The article is still there.
Someone actually said something like, "Of all the networks, ABC is the only fair one. We need to shut off all conservative news and radio by law!"
Ok it’s back then.
No, it’s not.
I just read it like 2 seconds ago.
And now it’s unavailable. Huh. I still have it up in another browser.
That, at least, is not news.
And I see ABC neglected to mention that the bill is co-sponsored by a Democrat.
Tait Sye (suit & tie on end), a spokesman for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, calls the proposed changes "unacceptable."
Tait Sye, a spokesman for Democrat-supporting America Coming Together.
America Coming Together (ACT) was a liberal, political action, 527 group dedicated to get-out-the-vote activities.
The group was primarily funded by Peter Lewis, George Soros, and labor unions, especially the Service Employees International Union, and was led by Steve Rosenthal, a former political director of the AFL-CIO.
Well, that is the definition of the term "statutory". Even if the act does not explicitly qualify as a crime, we still hold it as a crime because of whatever factors might be involved. In the case of statutory rape, the child's age means that we ignore virtually every fact at issue.
For example, a 15 yr old girl and her parents could all tell a 24 yr old that she is 19, she shows a (fake) ID, and she instigates all of the "action". There is no "mens rea" (guilty mind), and no forcible act... but the 21 yr old can still be easily convicted of rape. (And yes, this has happened in my state, Indiana.)
Again, for all "statutory" laws, we basically ignore the facts, and call it a crime, just because of XYZ.
...which counts as a vegetable, by the way.
:) Thanks! I forgot to add that.
An adult commits a crime and the resulting baby gets the death sentance?
Page is unavailable.... lol...
no, I don’t think so. Insurance companies don’t have to cover abortions, and states can keep policies that cover abortions off their exchanges. Louisiana did that right after the bill was passed.
I think the bill allows people to buy insurance policies that cover abortions on the exchanges as long as the state still allows insurance companies that provide that service on their exchange.
DailyKos is filled this week with “outrage” diaries (”Was This Rape ‘Forceful’ Enough, Mr Boehner”, etc) about this bill from slutty chicks, including one who did 10 shots and passed out at a frat party, waking up to a guy dismounting, and calling it “rape”. Ridiculous. A larger point: just ban money for ANY abortion, and don’t worry about HOW the pregnancy came about. That shouldn’t be the government’s concern.
I call that rape, though. If you pull a Laz Quote "I'd hit it." and act on it, when your 'partner' is drugged (and alcohol is a drug) to the point of unconsciousness, then that, is rape.
From the left: I'd hit it, I'd hit it, I MIGHT hit it, It's a guy, I'd hit it, I'd pass, It's a guy, It's a guy.
Of course it’s rape.
No trial either. Just on the sayso of the gal.
What gets me is the people who abort a child because prenatal tests show the baby has "defects."
Anyone who chooses to take the risk of begetting a child, should be prepared to accept that child, no matter what illness or "defects" the child may have.
Who knows, even a child who is born "perfect" might someday be involved in an accident that results in disability. Say, a brain injury. Does that make it ok to kill that born child, now that he is no longer "perfect"?
(Actually I have witnessed a case where the elitist parents did exactly that.)
Also astonishing to me is the number of people who happily say "I don't care if our new baby will be a boy or a girl -- as long as it's healthy."
As long as it's healthy?
To me a baby is a gift from God, to be greeted with love, whether healthy or not.
ABC re-posted the column from Mother Jones:
Or as Republicans.
You do realize that you are totally ruining your bad reputation don’t you?
No, they eat them alive.
Drugged, Raped, and Pregnant? Too bad...Thanks Lazamataz.
rape happens even to women with strong morals and strong legs...try again.....
Amen that sister!
I didn’t mean that.
My meaning regarding rape is all this open sexualization in our regular high-profile society tends to lead to more rape.
Most cost-effective solution. Quick results. Easy turn over. Prevents furure costs. Is entirely logical in a cost-analysis sense...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.