House Republicans To Redefine Rape To Limit Coverage For Abortions

Remove all ads!

What is the point of the 10th Amendment, if not that, Chandos?

 

Rotku

Link.

 

That's exactly right. Thank you for the link, Ragusa. The states can certainly still fund abortions if they chose to. I can't stress enough importance on how the Founders were deeply concerned with forging an American nation of one people, rather than a confederation of separate states with divided self interests. But even after more than 200 years, the old regional divisions are still with us. When one goes back and reads the documents, he can't help but be moved by how important and how the Founders fretted over this issue. This should be absolute required reading for every American, or anyone who has an opinion on the American history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington's_Farewell_Address

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

 

I think I try to say this once every other year or so but this American obsession with and reverance for the founders is scary. When it was drafted yours was the most modern constitution of them all but it is getting old, the world changes and the founders are a bunch middle aged to old dead men and as with all "holy" texts seems you can find justification for pretty much anything if you really want to.

 

Montresor,
I beg to disagree. The Supreme Court did come to their view that the 10th Amendment is declaratory by considering the history of its adoption. Historical context, legislative intent and legislative history are highly relevant to the interpretation; they didn't make their finding up out of thin air.

Of course, it is currently popular among some American Conservatives to limit their reading of the constitution to the supposed 'common sense' literal meaning of the words in the text of the constitution (as long as it suits their purposes). Well, when such a reading is not supported by legislative intent, then it presents a substantial re-interpretation, and I dare say, a distortion. People who do that are activist judges, of the conservative variety. Think of Justices like Scalia or Thomas.

And then, of course, there are the outright frauds like Beck, who suggest that everybody who can read, can read the constitution, which means he can understand it. All I say about that is that there is a reason why they teach constitutional law in university: Because it isn't all that easy.

 

Ragusa, perhaps I'm misuderstanding something, but it seems that your arguement doesn't change anything, either. Even if the 10th Amendment is only stating a truism, it's still one that applies. That just means it applies with or without the 10th Amendment. Either way, if the federal government isn't given authority to fund medical procedures, then it shouldn't be allowed to.

 

NOG,
like Montresor, you don't get my point. Only because 'medical procedures' isn't mentioned in verbatim that doesn't necessarily mean that the federal government is barred from funding them because of that.

Vaccination is also not mentioned anywhere in the 10th amendment (nor in the constitution proper). That is unsurprising, since the 10th amendment is from 1791 and vaccination was first used by Edward Jenner in 1796. Yet there is federal funding for vaccinations and related research! Then it must be unconstitutional! It must be abolished! Right? Well, no.

The power is, and so I understand this, derived from *x* (insert exact source); in particular it has not simply been usurped for *y* years (insert the right number; do it yourself; I don't have the time).

And re-read that article from MoJo: There is a constitutional justification for this sort of spending, on which there has been consensus for a couple decades, and the clowns proposing that law now play dumb and maintain that it is not so and that it only accidentally remained unchallenged for the entire time. And they sucker folks into believing that because it isn't there in literal text.

Well, that doesn't necessarily matter. There are lots of things that are constitutional even though they are not mentioned literally in the constitution itself.

 

*yawn* The Democrats still control the Senate, right? Obama still has veto authority as president, right? What makes anyone think this change will actually become law? On the first week the new Congress got together, they voted to repeal the health care law in totality, and start over. The vote was nothing more than symbolic, as it wasn't going past the House. Until I see something like this bill debate taking place in the Senate (and I doubt it will ever be debated there), nothing is going to be done to change the law as it currently stands.

 

Aldeth,
sure, you are perfectly correct. Of course it is a mere stunt, and a quite brazen one for that. But you see yourself what ideas their proposal gets some people about such payments being allegedly unconstitutional, after all it's not written in the 10th amendment or whatnot - it must be unconstitutional!

Beyond that, that meme isn't going to go away. And it blends just splendidly with the other themes and memes spread by born-again fiscal conservative Republicans. They managed in this bill to artfully lace a proven wedge issue with 'fiscal conservatism'. It's not just abortion - and that in these dire economic straits - federal spending on abortion! We have money for this? Worse, for this? Obama and the Democrats have babies killed with taxpayer dollars?! With MY taxpayer dollars?!

And what annoyed me about this initially was simply their deliberate watering down of the definition of rape ...

PS: The aforementioned legal consensus has the shape of the Hyde Amendments to the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services in its 1977 shape. Originally enacted in 1976 excluding any funding for abortion, it was changed in 1977 to allow federal funding for cases of abortion where the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest or when the pregnancy threatened the life of a pregnant woman. The Stupak–Pitts Amendment to the recent Affordable Health Care for America Act was very similar. The scope and language of the amendment have been accepted and added by Democrats and Republicans alike ever since 1976. That is 35 years of legal consensus.

But, suddenly it has been discovered by these folks that all that has been "unconstitutional" for all these years and wouldn't it be for these pro-life Mavericks America wouldn't know!

​

If anyone wants to argue that the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services (or the Department of Health and Human Services itself) is unconstitutional, he may please make his case.

 

The Founders would be the first to agree with you. They would certainly have considered themselves to be far outdated by now, as you suggest, and sometimes commented as much. Nevertheless, America is a very large country and divided between states with strong regional differences that makes governing in a rational manner difficult. It's a testement to what they accomplished that it has held together this well for as long as it has.

They are still a uniting force for us and probably the largest part of our national indentity. Sure we have had other important political figures but they all create division in one form or another: FDR, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and even Reagan. There are large groups of Americans here who hate all of them and largely along regional lines [that's what makes it scary]. Our agreement over the Founders is probably the only thing that keeps this place from becoming a complete insane asylum, at least IMO.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-09/the-gops-war-on-teddy-roosevelt/

 

This looks to me like one of those definitions arguments that we all love so much.

Only the coldest hearted douchebag in the world would want to deny someone a procedure that is medically necessary.

However, what is medically necessary? Opinions differ on this widely, and even medical professionals disagree on fuzzy cases. Sex change operations are a case in point -- some argue that they are not medically necessary, while others claim that there is a legitimate psychological necessity involved, and that the operations should therefore be funded lest the patient feel bad about him/her self. Using that logic, I should qualify for liposuction, fully funded by the government, lest I feel bad about myself. But I digress.

Same goes for the definition of rape. This one is a lot more iffy, in that to many rape is rape is rape. Certainly there have been times in my life that I wanted it to be. But the level of physical violence involved here is key, as well as the whole "consent" without being able to give consent issue.

What I mean by that is that a 14 year old girl who gleefully and without any argument has sex with her 20year old boyfriend*, it's stat rape in some places, because she wasn't legally able to form consent. Some see consent as an "either or" idea with no grey area. While I am not fond of the idea of 14 year old girls boinking, I do see a vast difference between that case and another 20 year old fellow breaking into her house, tying her up and raping her while she struggles. Yet the law seems to be being used to get the first girl a taxpayer funded abortion on the basis of equating the two incidents.

It's a dicey issue, and I haven't even touched the whole Constitutionality of it. I mean, at the rate it's going, pretty well all abortions could soon be funded by the government, and that makes many people morally uncomfortable as well as fiscally uncomfortable. it's one thing for the option to be open to all -- some abortion opponents may find abortion distasteful, but hey, if it's between a woman and her doctor, they can make their decisions and face the moral consequences. But when you get government funding involved, then those opponents feel some complicity with the act, and they don't like that. Hate them if you will, but it's a long way from not wanting to be complicit in something to wanting to ban it altogether.

On the other hand, this could be seen by pro-choicers as a backdoor way to ban it altogether rather than as a loophole closer. Intriguing issue.

 

Ragusa, the Health and Human Services bill, overall, can easily fall under 'providing for the common welfare' (article one, section eight) and at times national security. It's far from a certain argument, however, that abortions without medical necessity qualify as either. To some, it's the equivalent of the government funding boob jobs for porn stars. Sure, there's a certain argument to justify it, but it just doesn't go far enough to justify government intervention.

LKD, while I do understand your example, I don't think the defining factor is the use of force. After all, if a guy drugs a girl and has his way with her, it's no better (at least in my book) than tying her up and doing the same, while still worlds away from young woman just being a little too young. No violence or force, but still rape rape. That (and the general poor formation of the bill) is my issue with this.

 

NOG,
excuse me? The current law does have a Hyde amendment already, like every annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services since 1976.

With that bill, federal law already allows federal funding only and narrowly for cases of abortion where the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest or when the pregnancy threatened the life of a pregnant woman. The latter case is as clear cut a case of medical necessity as there will ever be.

For these people the Hyde amendment, as reasonable as it is (probably because of that), suddenly doesn't go far enough any more. They have changed their mind on the 35 year consensus behind the Hyde amendment. So now they want their old absolutist approach and now want to not fund any abortion whatsoever, including in cases of medical necessity, or in case of rape (in which arguably the case can be made that having to bear the child of the rapist is a second rape and can have severe mental health consequences).

 

Montresor,
the law that is so so clear that it doesn't need any clarification or interpretation has not yet been made. Your expectations are unrealistic.

As for that seizure of property, that is unconstitutional only if it is not being adequately compensated. I am quite certain that the mentioned Supreme court decision reflects that, and if it isn't in there explicitly, then only because compensation is self evident. People have routinely been expropriated for the common good, say for military bases, and compensated. I don't see any serious legal problem in that.

You just discovered that freedom of property is not unlimited but may only be infringed upon for a good reason. A redevelopment project that benefits a city at large can be such a good reason. Think of the consequences of freedom of property being unlimited: Town needs a harbour, but Mr. Obstinate refuses to sell his property, just because he takes delight in being crusty and spiteful. Expropriating him and compensating him certainly beats the community having to come with torches and pitchforks and solve that problem using other means.

 

Montresor,
a better example: Imagine our Mr. Obstinate bought all the pieces of land surrounding your home, encircling you, and refusing to let you or anyone else pass through his land - it is his property after all - rendering your piece of land useless, and limiting your freedom of movement. If the right to property was unlimited you'd have to accept that. But that would be unreasonable, so reflecting that, laws include provisions that he can be can forced in court to allow you passage, against a compensation. What he feels is adequate or what he prefers doesn't matter in this.

You do very much want government to be able to impose such conditions and restrictions of his property rights on Mr. Obstinate lest you want to be subject to his whims. People who exercise that sort of tyranny are usually rich, and the sort of tyranny about unlimited property rights I describe would basically be a throwback to feudalism. You don't want that.

Early liberty rights were first of all about imposing checks on feudalism. Democratic ideals built on that. It is one insight worth keeping in mind that it's not just the state that can behave tyrannically. You also want liberty from tyranny by non-state actors.

 

Exactly. The latter of those conditions is medical necessity. The former to aren't.

First, there has never been a consensus, merely a cease-fire. If you took that as a consensus, I can only blame the distance between Germany and the US. Neither side has been happy with the Hyde amendment, they've just settled for it while fighting about other things.

Secondly, you're assuming too much. While I agree that the republicans probably don't really intend to limit it to what they've proposed, assuming they indend to ban federal funding even in cases of medical necessity is unreasonable.

And lastly, while I'm sure it's easy to guess that carrying a rapist's child could cause severe psychological trauma, the evidence doesn't bear this out. Sure, it's emotionally painful, but in reality, the risk is greater with actually having the abortion.

 

(a) Bicker about the wording all you like, it has been a consensus that the language of the Hyde Amendments is an acceptable compromise, balancing the protection of life and medical concerns. The new proposed bill abandons that.

(b) Not to mention cases in which pregnancy itself is threatening the health of a woman - you do not appear to recognise the impact that a rape or incest related pregnancy has on the health of a woman or girl, and, if no abortion is being made, for the rest of their lives. It is something very easily said for a man who is not and never will face such a situation that an abortion is not acceptable. Tell that a woman in such a situation.

And oh yes, considering that "psychological post-abortion trauma" (something that US anti-abortionists often quote, with little substance to show for) - then rape victims really have the choice - either get traumatised by not aborting their baby and see the eyes of the rapist whenever they look into their child's eyes, or get traumatised by alleged effects of having an abortion - and the total ban then solves that dilemma for them, by condemning them to only having to face the the trauma of having to bear the child of their (statutory) rapist.

Point is, (just like federal spending) the women's mental health is for the anti-abortionists secondary; not having abortions is the overriding concern. That offers little help for the women caught in such a situation.

I think that in these cases the limited choice offered by contemporary law is exactly is what called for, even more so considering how weak the case for the existence of the asserted "psychological post-abortion trauma" is (it is IMO not much more than an assertion expressed in pseudo-scientific language, a sham argument en par with intelligent design, to bolster the case against abortion).