# House Republicans redefining "rape." **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 29, 2011, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439 "2011-01-29T19:06:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/41 "2011-01-29T23:07:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Of course they are. And when you get the government involved the health insurance business, as it is increasing doing, this is the kind of unintended consequence you’re going to get. How does this have anything to do with getting government involved in health insurance (which is usually understood to be government-funded/run health care)? Even if there were no government-funded healthcare whatsoever and all health care was through private insurance, this bill would still have a huge impact by not allowing individuals and companies the right to choose whether their plan includes abortion coverage or whether they can claim abortion-related medical expenses on their taxes. Saying that this is an unintended consequence of health reform is bullshit. It has nothing to do with health reform, and the majority of people who support health reform would not support this bill. The authors of this bill are not those who support health reform. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/42 "2011-01-29T23:16:39Z")
> [@Waenara](#): > > How does this have anything to do with getting government involved in health insurance (which is usually understood to be government-funded/run health care)? Even if there were no government-funded healthcare whatsoever and all health care was through private insurance, this bill would still have a huge impact by not allowing individuals and companies the right to choose whether their plan includes abortion coverage or whether they can claim abortion-related medical expenses on their taxes. > > Saying that this is an unintended consequence of health reform is bullshit. It has nothing to do with health reform, and the majority of people who support health reform would not support this bill. The authors of this bill are not those who support health reform. Well, yeah, and that’s why these guys are introducing this bill. Because the HCR law requires every American to buy HC Insurance. That’s the government getting involved in the health insurance business. > [@](#): > > But wouldn’t it make more sense just to define “forcible rape” within the legislation? Since not all states already have a definition for that term, and it isn’t consistent across states? Yeah, it would. But in the absence of a clear definition in the bill, you could challenge it in court (assuming you had standing), and get the courts to determine what it means. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/43 "2011-01-29T23:21:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, yeah, and that’s why these guys are introducing this bill. Because the HCR law requires every American to buy HC Insurance. That’s the government getting involved in the health insurance business. So basically Republicans are trying to play politics with people’s lives? People who’ve under gone a terrible trauma no less. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/44 "2011-01-29T23:25:35Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > So basically Republicans are trying to play politics with people’s lives? People who’ve under gone a terrible trauma no less. Unlikely, in this case. The more parsimonious explanation is that they don’t want federal funds to be used for abortion. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/45 "2011-01-29T23:31:46Z")
The article’s title is also very misleading. I’ll give the OP a pass, since he just copied his thread title from the article, but this bill does not redefine rape. It redefines when federal funds can be used for abortions. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/46 "2011-01-29T23:36:42Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Yes it does. read what I quoted. It also says that date rape isn’t rape and that it isn’t rape if the victim is mentally challenged. > > I don’t see how you can defnd this bill as anything but sick and depraved. This is what it says: > [@](#): > > 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; > > (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. > > ``` Here’s a definition of [forcible rape](http://www.ramapo.edu/facultystaff/publicsafety/fbi.html): > [@](#): > > The carnal knowledge of a person, forcibly and/or against that person’s will; or not forcibly or against the person’s will where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity (or because of his/her youth). Your original cite is full of shit. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/47 "2011-01-29T23:38:20Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > There are damned few federally funded abortions in the first place. They tend to define “federal funds for abortion” as “any money going to an organization that might theoretically at some point engage in abortion”. Which is why the “Mexico City Policy” that forbade such federal money going to overseas organizations in effect amounted to a ban on _all_ medical care for pregnant women in foreign hospitals supported by American foreign aid. If some pregnant woman came to their doors seeking aid, to protect their other patients such a hospital would be forced to literally shut their doors in her face and let her bleed to death, because otherwise if she lost the baby for _any_ reason we’d scream “abortion” and yank their funding. > [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > So basically Republicans are trying to play politics with people’s lives? People who’ve under gone a terrible trauma no less. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Unlikely, in this case. The more parsimonious explanation is that they don’t want federal funds to be used for abortion. Two ways of saying the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/48 "2011-01-29T23:51:51Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Unlikely, in this case. The more parsimonious explanation is that they don’t want federal funds to be used for abortion. That makes sense. However I’m then confused about: > [@](#): > > Well, yeah, and that’s why these guys are introducing this bill. Because the HCR law requires every American to buy HC Insurance. That’s the government getting involved in the health insurance business. Which unless I’m misreading boils down to “Republicans don’t like this health-care law so lets make it do something its supporters would really hate”. Reading it a third time I think you’re saying they’re trying to hijack the law(which if I may add was needed and didn’t go far enough) to their own unrelated project. If so I disagree with your conclusion. The conclusion I draw is “vote the Republican jackasses out, and if possible amend the Constitution so they, by name, have to start the day with a bowl of pissed in Wheaties”. Piss-Wheaties, the breakfast of jackasses. ---
**Author:** ![Cyningablod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc29f/32.png) [@Cyningablod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyningablod)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2011, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/49 "2011-01-29T23:52:23Z")
Rarely have I seen opinions as hopelessly simplistic and as morally fucking vile as those espoused above by **smiling bandit**. [QUOTE=smiling bandit] First off, whether or not you have a right to “sovereignty” over your body (you don’t legally, under a great many circumstances), it isn’t my problem […] However, you really don’t have such sovereignty and I know of no nation which ever allowed it, and in any case it would be far more accurate to say your body has sovereignty over you. [/QUOTE] Think VERY carefully about your statement’s likely implications here. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![splatterpunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3be4f8/32.png) [@splatterpunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/splatterpunk)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/50 "2011-01-30T00:02:20Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Do you really want to be like a stupider version of me? I really don’t think that’s possible. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/51 "2011-01-30T00:05:19Z")
If the goal is to limit this to forms of rape that are relatively easy to prove, I don’t have a problem with that. Providing a financial incentive to accuse someone of rape is not something that should be done lightly. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/52 "2011-01-30T00:31:07Z")
There’s nothing in there about having to prove the “forcible rape,” nor would there be any time to wait for a trial. The abortion needs to happen immediately. Also, what makes “forcible rape” so easy to prove? It’s actually notoriously _difficult_ to prove. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/53 "2011-01-30T01:03:41Z")
So, two questions: Do you acknowledge that your cite is full of shit, and this bill, whatever you think of it otherwise, does none of the nonsense thrown about regarding roofy-induced rapes and twelve-year-olds (since forcible rape covers those scenarios)? Second, while I know you’d prefer this bill didn’t exist at all, given its existence, would you prefer there be no exclusion for rape? I want to see if this will be a redirection to the “real concern” when the facts collapse, or an acknowledgment that \*the specific concern this OP raised \*is based on hysterical nonsense. (Or none of the above?) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/54 "2011-01-30T01:08:05Z")
I haven’t seen any rebuttal of the facts alleged in the article (your own cite breaks down at the meaningless use of the phrase “forcible rape”). The bill is an abomination and should not exist at all, but if they are going to exclude rape and incest, they should actually exclude rape and incest, not just pretend to by defining them so narrowly that nothing counts. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/55 "2011-01-30T01:15:12Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That tax exemption is a subsidy. Didn’t you get the memo? Being allowed to keep one’s own money is [not](http://stevebussey.com/wp/2011/01/%E2%80%9Cbig-oil%E2%80%9D-subsidies-words-mean-things/) a [“subsidy”](http://cafehayek.com/2011/01/more-on-failure-to-tax-as-subsidies.html). I’m afraid you’ll have to turn in your “conservative” card. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/56 "2011-01-30T01:20:47Z")
Diogenes, what’s meaningless? I actually provided a cite defining forcible rape, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting definition no less, and that definition was inclusive of all the scenarios your cite asserts this bill is trying to exclude from funding. You’re acting like “forcible rape” was some term they cooked up specifically to victimize a subset of rape victims. You’re wrong. The cite you provided was hysterical nonsense, a product of the writer’s imagination and political bias. ---
**Author:** ![may\_be\_ignorant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c5a1d2/32.png) [@may\_be\_ignorant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/may_be_ignorant)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/57 "2011-01-30T01:31:54Z")
I havent read through the thread, and it may have already been said, but I think redefining stat rape is a great idea. At least in my state, they throw the charge around for kind of petty dealings. I agree that the example you provided is worthy of punishment, but a 16 year old should not be able to charge her 18 year old boyfriend with stat rape because she’s pissed when they break up, or when daddy finds out theyre banging. As for the rest of it, bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/58 "2011-01-30T02:15:51Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > So, two questions: Do you acknowledge that your cite is full of shit, and this bill, whatever you think of it otherwise, does none of the nonsense thrown about regarding roofy-induced rapes and twelve-year-olds (since forcible rape covers those scenarios)? Actually, that cite defines statutory rape as “non-forcible rape”, so the 12 year old example would not be covered under this law, by that definition. This bill is largely symbolic since even if it passes it’s not going to affect many people. But it does seem to be targeted at not allowing minors to access federal funds for abortions when they have had consensual sex. Seems like that would be the largest group affected. ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/59 "2011-01-30T02:19:41Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > This bill is largely symbolic since even if it passes it’s not going to affect many people. But it does seem to be targeted at not allowing minors to access federal funds for abortions when they have had consensual sex. Seems like that would be the largest group affected. ?? By my reading, it targets both direct federal funding of abortion **and** anyone who has a health insurance plan that includes coverage of abortion (even if that plan member doesn’t have an abortion themselves). The second group is probably larger than the first. ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2011, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439/60 "2011-01-30T02:49:59Z")
I have to admire the Republicans for their laser like focus on the really important issues facing Americans. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-republicans-redefining-rape/569439.md?page=4)