You’re always wrong, Dio.
Regards,
Shodan
If I had to guess, perhaps the age thing is for children. That is, if a man rapes a 5 year old, there is never going to be a question about whether it was consensual. At some point, though, it becomes statutory rape if the girl is a minor, but old enough to have consensual sex. Although, that seems to kind of defeat the whole purpose of having an age of consent.
But the think about this is that it’s a proposed bill. What bill every gets passed without being modifies at some point in committee or after debate? If the Republicans goal is to make the rape exemption as narrow as possible, it behooves them to leave it as vague as possible, and let the other side make the proposed definition first, negotiating from there. That’s often the way negotiations work.
Still, this article is very bad journalism as it gives a sensationalistic, and inaccurate, title as well as unsubstantiated claims of adverse effects.
Edited for brevity, not to pick one crime out of the others. (This note shouldn’t really be necessary but I know how SA rolls!)
- Alabama Crime Victims Compensation Commission
- Alaska Violent Crime Compensation Board
- Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
- Arkansas Crime Victims Reparations Board
- California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board
- Colorado Division of Public Safety
- Connecticut Office of Crime Victim Services
- Delaware Violent Crimes Compensation Board
- District of Columbia Crime Victims Compensation Program
- Florida Division of Victim Services and Criminal Justice Programs
- Georgia Crime Victims Compensation Program
- Hawaii Crime Victim Compensation Commission
- Idaho Industrial Commission
- Illinois Crime Victim Compensation Bureau
- Indiana Violent Crime Victim Compensation Fund
- Iowa Crime Victim Assistance Division
- Kansas Crime Victims Compensation Board
- Kentucky Crime Victims Compensation Board
- Louisiana Crime Victims Reparations Board
- Maine Victims’ Compensation Program
- Maryland Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
- Massachusetts Victim Compensation and Assistance Division
- Minnesota Crime Victim Reparations Board
- Michigan Crime Victim Services Commission
- Mississippi Crime Victim Compensation Division
- Missouri Crime Victims’ Compensation Program
- Montana Crime Victims Unit Board of Crime Control
- Nebraska Crime Victim Reparations Program
- Nevada Victims of Crime Program
- New Hampshire Victims’ Assistance Commission
- New Jersey Victims of Crime Compensation Board
- New Mexico Crime Victims Reparations Commission
- New York Crime Victims Board
- North Carolina Crime Victims Compensation Division
- North Dakota Crime Victims Compensation Program
- Ohio Office of the Attorney General Crime Victim Services
- Oklahoma Crime Victims Compensation Board
- Oregon Crime Victims Assistance Section
- Pennsylvania Crime Victim Compensation Program
- Puerto Rico Office of Compensation for Crime Victims
- Rhode Island Crime Victim Compensation Program
- South Carolina Office of Victim Assistance
- South Dakota Crime Victims’ Compensation Program
- Tennessee Criminal Injuries Compensation Program
- Texas Crime Victims Compensation Division
- Utah Office of Crime Victim Reparations
- Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services
- Virginia Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
- Washington State Crime Victim Compensation Program
- West Virginia Court of Claims
- Wisconsin Office of Crime Victim Services
- Wyoming Division of Victim Services
Off to prepare for the “won’t make me whole” nitpick, have lunch, shovel my neighbor’s driveway, I’m thinking the mesquite turkey but on wheat or rye?, the dishes are back so I’ll have to wash them yet again, mustard and mayo or just mayo?, then off to SA’s orchard (many branches to trim, which leads to me hitting my head on the low hanging fruit), post in a few threads after I announce I’m too busy to respond to any more posts, I’m a bit chilly maybe start a fire in the living-room, toasted bread or plain (I love the flavor of the toasted but it shreds the roof of my mouth), should start building that fireplace for the living-room . . . BISY BACKSON
CMC fnord!
Yes, that could explain it.
Agreed. More than that, it takes the illogical leap (pointed out elsewhere in this thread, by you I think) that “this exclusion could mean almost anything, therefore it must mean this parade of horribles I’m envisioning.”
I’m not claiming to know the definition. I’m saying there isn’t one, but the bill does say what’s specifically excluded.
Toasted bread is more easily digested than untoasted.
Also, you can mitigate the palate-shredding properties of the toast if you use both mustard and mayonnaise. And spread them on the outside. 
ETA: That’s for CMC
More rapes are not reported than are reported. Of the rapes that are reported, many don’t end in a conviction, and this doesn’t mean that the rape was falsely reported. It means that there might not have been enough evidence, or that the police couldn’t even find out who did it. So this means that at least 75% of rape victims would not be eligible for an abortion under your proposal. A woman might very well not want to report a rape after it’s just happened, for various reasons. It might be a family friend, or someone who has some sort of power over her. She might not even think about getting pregnant…but after a month or so, she realizes that she might be pregnant. It’s almost impossible to collect evidence after even a few days, let alone a couple of weeks or longer.
A pregnant rape victim is not made whole by abortion. The damages are mitigated, at best, but she’s certainly not going to become unraped. She just won’t have to go throughout her life with the knowledge that she gave birth to and possibly raised her rapist’s child.
If you want the US gummint out of the abortion business, how about proclaiming that Uncle Sam cannot RESTRICT abortion, either? This means that the government can’t make laws that make it illegal for health care professionals to talk about or advocate abortions, and the government could not make laws that would make various abortion procedures illegal.
This thread is hilarious. The FBI, court system, maybe march each girl or woman out in front of a Republican panel so they could determine if she’s young/physically handicapped/raped enough to not have to be pregnant and give birth. They’ve already got to wait two days in many states, looking at (vagina)l ultrasounds and hanging out in their motel rooms, hoping they don’t get fired or fall behind at school, what’s a few more weeks/months in America’s no-fail justice system? But I guess the point is to get them to pay for it themselves, assuming they have the money to get the procedure and, likely, travel to wherever it can still be performed. So perhaps not much will change.
Can you quote the part of the bill that supports your claim that a woman who is drugged and raped doesn’t fall into the category of “forcible rape”?
I have no reason to distrust the article and neither do you.
Because it saves the government money. An abortion is much, much cheaper than 9 months of prenatel care followed by years of WIC, Foodstamps, CHIP, etc, are of which government funded and don’t even require the pregnancy to be the result of crime.
So, you are retracting the statement that “the bill does say what’s specifically excluded”?
And yes, I have good reason for distrusting the article, stating with the sensationalist title. But I don’t think it’s a good idea to take any journalist’s word for interpreting a piece of legislation. He had access to at least two “experts” on the subject that he quoted for the article. If he wanted an authoritative interpretation, he should have at least quoted one of them. That would be a start, even though we all know you can usually find an “expert” to tell you anything you want to know.
No, I’m taking the article’s word for it. We have no reason to dstrust the article.
Look, can we at least agree on this: even if it’s not as bad as Dio says it is, it’s still pretty fucking bad?
Eh. Now you’re just dancing. First, it was “the bill does say what’s specifically excluded”, now you just ignore that and claim that some sensationalist journalist is an authority on the law.
As a strongly pro-choice, libertarian leaning guy who is also a strong federalist it gets a big “meh” from me. As I said earlier in the thread, this is something that I think should be handled at the state level, if at all.
It’s federal money. How can it be handled at the state level?
“It” being the funding of abortions for people who can’t afford one. But more broadly, I think aid for the poor should be run at the state level, and that includes aid in the form of health care.
No, it has to be done at the federal level or it won’t get done. States can’t be trusted.
They can’t be trusted to do what you want them to do. I’m more in favor of letting people run their own affairs at as local a level as possible. But I’m not trying to stake out a position for debate here. I was just explaining why, given my political beliefs, that this bill is a “meh” from my perspective and not “pretty fucking bad”.
Cite and context?