Are the things they are doing things You approve of? Check Amherst County Virginia Democratic News on a regular basis and I will keep you up to date on what Your vote stands for and means. I will give you the nasty lowdown facts on what Republicans stand for, the kind of real truth the newspapers and tv stations ignore. Today we look at how right wing conservative Republicans are trying to redefine rape. How the people You elected are representing You.
Lets look at the Republicans' bill to limit access to abortions, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and finds an especially odious provision:
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.
“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.
Let’s take a look at the legislative text. Sec. 309 contains the new stipulation:
‘SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.
‘The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion–
‘(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or
‘(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
This bill is titled "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" and is "H.R. 3". We will track its progress
As Attorney Sterling notes, this isn’t clear at all. What in the world is non-forcible rape? When a women is drugged? When she has had too much to drink and is unable to defend herself? When she doesn’t fight back hard enough because she is in shock?
On the incest exception, note the inclusion of the language, “if a minor.” That means that a woman who is 18 and the victim of incest would no longer be eligible for abortion services under Medicare. In fact, under the bill she wouldn’t be able to use any health plan bought on the soon-to-be-created insurance exchange, even if she were paying for the abortion section of the coverage with her own funds. That’s how the bill works.
Slick Eric
The bill already has 173 co-sponsors, including Majority Leader
Rep. Eric Cantor [R, VA-7], and Speaker Rep. John Boehner
[R, OH-8] recently called it “one of [the Republicans’] highest legislative priorities.” You can expect it to move through the committee process and onto the House floor for passage soon.
Obviously, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D, NV]
isn’t going to be calling this bill up for a vote in the Senate any time soon; Reid and the Democrats want to preserve the status quo (i.e. the 1976 Hyde Amendment)
that already bans the use of federal funding for abortion services.
Still, the Republicans can use the same procedure they did for the health care repeal to bypass committee and put it directly on the
legislative calendar. That allows them to call for the bill to be considered and could force a test vote on redefining rape, expanding the Hyde restrictions, and making it permanent law.
Now back to You, the Republican voter of Amherst County. How insane are you going to allow the GOP to become? Call Bob Goodlatte and request he and the hard core conservative lawmakers plot a path back to sanity. It is time for You to stand up and correct the madness You have unleashed.
If you think You are innocent explain why in your comments which will be added to the comment section below this article. Please be warned that ignorance is no excuse and does not equell innocence.
Feed and keep mad dogs and you are responsible for their actions.
ACVDN
UPDATE
Feb. 3 by Donny Shaw
Republicans Agree to Drop 'Forcible Rape' Language From Abortion Bill
House Republicans are backing away from controversial language in their No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act that would change a long-standing exemption in abortion laws that allows federal funds to be used for abortions in the case of rape or incest by requiring that a rape be “forcible” to qualify. According to Politico, the bill’s author, Rep. Chris Smith [R, NJ-4], has agreed to amend the bill and remove the language after pro-choice groups and political commentators of all stripes expressed outrage.
“The word forcible will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment,” a spokesman for Rep. Smith told Politico.
The Hyde Amendment is a federal law banning the use of federal funds for elective abortions that is renewed annually as a rider on the Health and Human Services Appropriations bill. It applies primarily to Medicaid, but it will also be applied to all elements of the new health care reform law as it comes into effect over the next couple years. The No Taxpayers Funding for Abortions Act would make the Hyde Amendment permanent law so that it doesn’t have to be renewed every year.
More importantly, however, the bill would expand the Hyde Amendment to make it more difficult for businesses and individuals from using their own money to purchase health insurance that covers abortion services. The guiding theory behind the bill is that money is fungible, so no matter how carefully federal money is segregated from private money, the mere presence of federal money still frees up private money to be spent on abortions. It would, for example, block companies that offer their employees health plans that cover abortions from receiving tax credits. And individuals who buy their own policies would no longer be able to claim a deduction for the cost of their insurance policy if the policy covers abortions.
The dominant theory in the liberal blogosphere is that the rape-redefining language in the bill was never actually meant to become law. It was put in the bill to distract the pro-choice community from all the other stuff they wouldn’t like and would eventually be dropped to give the illusion of compromise, when in fact the Republicans are still getting everything they wanted. Sure enough, they’re dropping the rape language.
House Speaker John Boehner [R, OH] has said that this bill is one of his top priorities for the year. Expect action on it soon, and don’t be surprised if this, or some version of it, attracts a bit of Democratic support in the Senate as well.
ACVDN
UPDATE
Feb. 3 by Donny Shaw
Republicans Agree to Drop 'Forcible Rape' Language From Abortion Bill
House Republicans are backing away from controversial language in their No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act that would change a long-standing exemption in abortion laws that allows federal funds to be used for abortions in the case of rape or incest by requiring that a rape be “forcible” to qualify. According to Politico, the bill’s author, Rep. Chris Smith [R, NJ-4], has agreed to amend the bill and remove the language after pro-choice groups and political commentators of all stripes expressed outrage.
“The word forcible will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment,” a spokesman for Rep. Smith told Politico.
The Hyde Amendment is a federal law banning the use of federal funds for elective abortions that is renewed annually as a rider on the Health and Human Services Appropriations bill. It applies primarily to Medicaid, but it will also be applied to all elements of the new health care reform law as it comes into effect over the next couple years. The No Taxpayers Funding for Abortions Act would make the Hyde Amendment permanent law so that it doesn’t have to be renewed every year.
More importantly, however, the bill would expand the Hyde Amendment to make it more difficult for businesses and individuals from using their own money to purchase health insurance that covers abortion services. The guiding theory behind the bill is that money is fungible, so no matter how carefully federal money is segregated from private money, the mere presence of federal money still frees up private money to be spent on abortions. It would, for example, block companies that offer their employees health plans that cover abortions from receiving tax credits. And individuals who buy their own policies would no longer be able to claim a deduction for the cost of their insurance policy if the policy covers abortions.
The dominant theory in the liberal blogosphere is that the rape-redefining language in the bill was never actually meant to become law. It was put in the bill to distract the pro-choice community from all the other stuff they wouldn’t like and would eventually be dropped to give the illusion of compromise, when in fact the Republicans are still getting everything they wanted. Sure enough, they’re dropping the rape language.
House Speaker John Boehner [R, OH] has said that this bill is one of his top priorities for the year. Expect action on it soon, and don’t be surprised if this, or some version of it, attracts a bit of Democratic support in the Senate as well.
