So you think slavery should be a state issue? You know 600k people died to teach people like you this lesson, right?
This part is just the gibberish of a disordered mind, so I’ll skip over it.
Slow down idiot. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Abortion isn’t murder. Unless you think taking a brain dead person off life support is murder. If that’s the case, you simply aren’t able to constructively participate in public policy discussions.
No, pretending that they are babies is nonsense. Keep your bullshit witch-doctor understanding of biology out of policy debates, kay?
That is your opinion, not a fact. However, I am more than willing to let you never have an abortion. See, we both win!
You really are limping along, aren’t you? Take a rest. You should be reading this board to lessen your ignorance, not advocate for it.
Well, these Republicans don’t consider abortion to be “health care”. They consider it to be murder. You want they should agree to provide federal subsidies for what they consider to be murder?
I do think it is forcible. Yes, the term was obviously chose to exclude some number of rapes. It doesn’t follow that the term was chose to exclude that type of rape.
They clearly don’t consider it to be murder, because they do except forcible rape victims, and minors who are the victims of incest. Either it’s murder, or it isn’t.
In any event, FSA/HSAs are not subsidized.
Well, your definition, though perhaps plausible, is certainly not the obvious one, so the burden is on you to provide some evidence for it.
Not necessarily. They know that have to include that exemption to get the bill passed.
A tax exemption is a subsidy.
Uh, no. Those who made the assertion have to provide the evidence. I called BS on the assertion made in the OP and by DT. They have to provide the evidence.
The bill is never going to pass. Even if the House approves it the Senate won’t and Obama certainly won’t.
What? No it isn’t. You know better than that.
Actually, Mother Jones made the assertion - but it’s a logical inference. That said, I’ll concede the point, since it appears that several states define forcible rape to include those involving substances administered without the victim’s consent (such as Missouri).
On the other hand, I haven’t found any yet which include victims unable to give consent for other reasons (such as getting drunk themselves).
You guys are really reaching here. I’m a hard-core defendant of a woman’s right to choose, but this bill in no way says date-rape isn’t rape, or anything even remotely like it. It says that forcible rape is an exception to the provisions of the bill. That in no way denies the existence of any other kind of rape.
Besides the disgusting “forcible rape” provision, I also have another major problem with the proposed legislation: it says people can’t use their own HSA’s to pay for an abortion, and that tax benefits/deductions cannot be made for money paid for an abortion or for health benefits plans that include coverage of abortion.
So they’re saying that if a health benefits plan includes coverage for abortion then you can’t deduct medical expenses, even if abortion isn’t actually obtained. Just the fact that abortion is included as a possible treatment in your plan means that your entire premium is no longer deductible, even if you don’t have an abortion yourself.
The problem is that these legislators created the term “forcible rape”, which apparently is a subset of rape. However, there is no legal definition of “forcible rape” to distinguish it from other types of rape. So who will make this distinction? If someone wants to get federal funds for an abortion resulting from a rape, or if they want to pay for it themselves out of their HSA, or deduct the medical expenses from their taxes, who will decide what “forcible rape” is and whether it applies in each case? Would a woman’s claim be accepted or denied at the whim (and political inclinations) of whatever case worker/IRS agent happens to be working that day? Or will a definition of “forcible rape” be created somehow?
Considering that the authors of this legislation clearly have an agenda in using the term “forcible rape” instead of just “rape”, you’d think that they would have defined the term within the legislation so it’s clear what they mean, especially since there’s no established legal definition of that term.
Missed the edit window, and wanted to add: It’s just a backdoor attack on abortion - they want to force insurance companies into dropping abortion coverage from their plans.
You’re using tax exempt funds. That tax exemption is a subsidy. If you want to fund an abortion, do it with taxable dollars.
I agree that the drunk woman might not be covered, but it’ll be a matter for the courts to decide. I could easily see them decide it is covered.
You didn’t quote the bill, you quoted someone’s interpretation of the bill. No court is going to find that drugging a woman and raping here is not “forcible”. And many states do define forcible rape as covering that type of situation.
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.
Cite that I’m wrong. Cite that the bill doesn’t say what the article claims it says?
Court has nothing to do with this, by the way. We aren’t talking about what can be charged criminally, but what kind of pretexts Republicans want to use to deny subsidized emergency medical care to rape victims (including chidren).
I could say the same thing to you. You surely aren’t posting as a moderator, since there’s no on topic rule in the Pit, so I can finally tell you that this shtick is getting really, really old.
Every time you post this crap, you are doing the same thing you are accusing other people of doing. You are being a hypocrite.
Even a big tard like me was smart enough give up on trying get people to stay on topic. Do you really want to be like a stupider version of me?
That’s not the way it works around here. You cite the part of the bill that supports what the guy in that article says.
The guy who wrote that article gave nothing to back up the statement he made. He wasn’t even quoting anyone else, just putting it out there for consumption. He did, however, cleverly place it inbetween two quotes, probably thinking people like you would read it without questioning it.
A fetus is neither a baby, a person, or “human life” in any meaningful sense until it can survive outside the womb. Until then it’s just an extension of the woman’s body and she can do with it whatever she sees fit. It cannot “die” because it isn’t alive in the first place. She has absolute and unqualified right to terminate the pregnancy regardless of the circumstances of conception. Her body, her choice (& her’s alone), end of story.
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?
I thought that [broad generalization] people of a political inclination that would support this bill are usually against “activitist judges”?[/broad generalization]
Wouldn’t they want the term defined in the legislation, so that judges (such as those that decided Roe v. Wade, which you apparently disagreed with) won’t be able to water down the impact of the bill? What if the judges decide that “forcible rape” is just a synonym for all types of rape? I’m sure the authors of this bill wouldn’t be thrilled with that - they want the definition of “forcible rape” to be narrower than that.