Sure I would, absent anything else. It’s also just plausible from knowing what I know about Republicans that they would want to force little girls to have rape babies. Sarah Palin has flat out said she’s a hardcore supporter of that.
Which will have the greatest impact upon the most vulnerable. Those with means aren’t reliant upon Medicaid or private insurance to pay for an abortion when they need one. Those who can’t face delays, driving up the cost and the danger, eventually leading many to have children they do not want or leading them into clinics like the Gosnell butchery in Philadelphia.
You are right, in fact, it relies upon a regressive “definition” or perhaps better stated, belief about rape, which is that it only really counts if it was “violent,” if it was, as Whoopi Goldberg so aptly put it, “rape rape.” That this regressive definition only applies in roughly 30% (if that) of sexual assaults is irrelevant – or more aptly, considering the source, just tough luck, sluts should’ve been more careful.
The problem is that you’re framing this poorly. The issue of funding specifically relates to Medicaid recipients. So the government has already taken on the responsibility to fund their healthcare. The decision has been made not to pay for the particular form of healthcare which is a pregnancy termination except in particular circumstances. Those particular circumstances are already so severely constrained that often the government refuses to pay even when they’re met, and many providers have just given up attempting to be paid for providing this care to Medicaid recipients, turning to private charitable funding instead.
So the real question, it seems to me, is: why is it so important to constrain this funding even further, and to do so with vague, stratifying and divisive terminology (“forcible”) which isn’t even defined in the bill?
Who benefits by doing so?
Not Medicaid recipients, who are already financially vulnerable - and more vulnerable to sexual assault – and could be put into a ruinous situation by either an unwanted pregnancy, an effort to self-fund an abortion or unwanted parenthood.
Not sexual assault victims, especially those who were too traumatized to put themselves through the wringer which is a rape report and forensic rape examination, and thus are unlikely to still have evidence to prove “force” by the time a pregnancy becomes known.
Not healthcare providers, who are already stretched thin and regularly have to turn patients away when they can’t afford a termination procedure and already strapped private financial reserves cannot help.
So who, exactly, are we helping with this policy?
But that would require believing that woman are trustworthy and moral actors who can choose their own paths with the aid of their families and doctors and personal counsel of choice. It’s quite clear that above all else, or perhaps below and underpinning it all, that many in the echelons of power in the U.S. cannot and will not, in the words of Dr. Tiller, “trust women.”
Sure it is, especially since that wasn’t the entirety of the arugment. What I said was that I’m OK with people running their own affairs. There is nothing objectively correnct about defining the political unit for doing so as being the US as opposed to the several states.
Now, that’s a logical fallacy. We should do it because we are currently doing it.
The comparison with education is certainly valid. I would have no problem with getting rid of the entire Dept of Education and its budget. It’s just a fraction of overall spending on education, and I don’t see the point of the feds taking it from the states in order to give it back to the states. Leave it in the states in the first place.
It would still be a logical fallacy.
It doesn’t even make sense. The exclusion is to make the bill palatable to people who would object to not allowing for rape or incest victims (which is most Americans). As a practical matter, why would they fashion the bill to do just the opposite, regardless of their feelings about “rape babies”? You’re trying to make this a scary Republican bogeyman, and invoking Sarah Palin as a Republican Everyman makes it an even less credible position.
And as I said earlier, I don’t care if this is the NYT reporting this. It’s a statement made by the writer with absolutely no supporting evidence. I don’t accept that from anyone, reputable or not. We wouldn’t accept that from a poster here in a debate, and I won’t accept it from a journalist either.
And don’t forget that Sharron Angle counseled that women who are pregnant as a result of rape should just turn lemons into lemonade and “err” on the “side of life”. Gotta love that lemonade that can cause emotional trauma and PTSD triggers every day for the rest of your damn life.
Disclaimer here: I am not from the US.
The idea of narrowing the distinction to “forcible rape” and “incest” only is scary.
When laws are interpreted in my part of the world, the over-riding principle is to be guided by (what the judge thinks) is the intent of the lawmaker. How does the judge know? Well he doesn’t - but the act has an introduction that sets out what is the purpose.
Beyond that, the judge uses the words of the act itself.
I am being long winded, but I do have a point. To insert the word “forcible” into the act as a part of rape, the only conclusion is that there is a distinction between “forcible” and other types of rape - otherwise why use the word in the first place?
If there are no specific instructions or definition on what “forcible rape” means, it would be up to the judge to come up with a definition, being guided by the “normally accepted” meaning of the word.
If I were that judge, I could only conclude that forcible rape was a subset of rape. That certain rapes (maybe where threats or drugs were used instead of a beating or at the point of a gun) were NOT included.
That is not right. It does try to narrow the definition and make abortions harder to get.
And I do believe that if such a law were passed it would have other ramifications - the next step would be to look to make abortions harder to get (rather than just the funding for abortions)
I had a really long post with references from the California Penal Code, the New York Criminal Code, and U.S. Code Title 18, but I… accidentally deleted it. It demonstrated that rape statutes always define rape or sexual misconduct by force separately from rape by incapacitation, deception, or incompetence, usually lumping it in with threat, menace, coercion and/or duress – but the word force is always used in the statutes. A judge could (and some would) construe this narrowly. It’s terrible, terrible draughtsmanship.
Congressman Smith of New Jersey, who introduced this bill, is a rabid abortion opponent. In his world, abortion is a violent crime, which he grudgingly admits is excusable when saving another life. I daresay he finds the entire rape exclusion repulsive, and the thought of federal money paying for it nauseating. I don’t expect this bill to become law, and I don’t think he does, either, or it would have amended Title 42 of the U.S. Code, “The Public Health and Welfare,” instead of – get this – Title 1, “General Provisions.” Title 1 contains the rules of construction, the definitions or “act” and “resolution,” the type of parchment or paper to be used in legislation, and how to fund printing of laws and supplements. Why is an abortion bill adding a chapter to Title 1? Because it doesn’t matter, because he’s grandstanding – he’s making a point, not a law. Which is why the wording really matters not at all.
He’s grandstanding along with 37% of the House of Representatives who are signed on as co-sponsors of this bill. That number is not insignificant. If they were the only ones who would vote for this piece of legislation if it makes it to a floor vote, it still wouldn’t be insignificant, but there are at least 75 additional representatives who are all dedicated “pro-lifers” who will vote “yes” to just about any restriction on access to abortion, even for survivors of rape, even for young girls who have been molested, especially if they can couch it in language of “we’re not saying you can’t an abortion, we’re saying taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for it” and pretend that they don’t know what is plainly clear: lack of funding is lack of access, especially for those reliant upon Medicaid.
That this is the third bill introduced in this Congress, the Congress we were told was going to focus, first and foremost on job creation, is a shot across the bow. The Speaker has called this bill a “top priority.” It’s important to know that at present, Medicaid funding of abortion is already so restrictive that annual expenditures on Medicaid funded abortions are less than $100,000. (And some reports say less than 1/2 that.) While decrying “out of control” federal spending, they’re prioritizing this bill which targets an outlay of money that is less than the annual salary of a single congressional rep.
You’re right that the bill probably won’t pass. If it does it probably won’t even be introduced in the Senate. But this grandstanding has a purpose. It is the first salvo in a renewed culture war that this Congress is looking to start, and all while trying to uphold the fiction that their focus is the national wallet. In the next couple of weeks, they’re going to take up yet another federal same-sex marriage ban (which has a much higher chance of passing in both chambers).
They’re going to try to create an argument with every regressive move that they make that it’s somehow a “protection” of taxpayers. No taxpayer funding for abortion, no taxpayer enforcement for workplace discrimination “for deviants” (i.e. no ENDA), no taxpayer subsidies for labor unions (i.e. no Employee Free Choice Act), I’m sure that they’ll come up with some tax-related rhetoric for the same-sex marriage ban too, probably something about us horrible nation destroying homoqueers getting “tax breaks” if we’re able to file our 1040s as married couples.
They lost on health care reform. They lost on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal. They lost on pay equality. And most importantly, they lost the presidency to a man that many of them (and their ignorant constituencies) continue to believe holds the office illegitimately. And these “priorities” as enumerated by the Speaker show that there is a determined willingness to use any tactics available, including outright fabrication about financial “benefits,” to push back on every bit of social progress that’s been made, all to appease a minority of their base (PDF link).