House Republicans To Redefine Rape To Limit Coverage For Abortions

Remove all ads!

MoveOn sent me this and it has a good description of what this attempt was about, at least from the side of pro-choice:

Looking at this attempt by some in the GOP, in it's totality, it was clearly designed to be a full attack on women's rights. There is no other way to see this, IMO.

 

I believe that in a case of life and death, an abortion is permissable. Always have. If the MoveOn people are correct, a provision that allows a hospital to let a woman die rather than get the abortion she needs is something that anyone with an ounce of decency should oppose.

My problem is this -- is that really what the Republicans who drafted the bill intended? Are they that ideologically blinded to common decency? Such a measure would scare moderates away in droves. It would be political suicide. On that basis, I am saying that I don't believe that the bill is saying what MoveOn says it says. I think they are engaging in fearmongering of the same sort as the Republicans have done with things like "this bill allows an abortion to be performed on a woman in labour if the woman doesn't feel like giving birth that day". It's dishonest no matter who does it.

I'll concede to the possibility that the bill was drafted by morons who really are ideological tools, but I think that's a really small possibility.

 

LKD,
are you not listening? Why do you not believe an anti-abortionist that he means it when he says that he wants all abortion banned, related funding prohibited and Roe vs. Wade overturned?

They don't exactly beat around the bush about their views. They speak English just like you and they don't live in a parallel universe where words have a different meaning.

 

If I am reading Drew correctly (and he can tell me if I am mistaken) he is arguing that in a polarized argument, in order to find the middle ground people sometimes take up extreme positions. I sincerely hope that's all that's going on here. I think that I am not alone in the reasonable belief that abortion should be reserved for violent rapes, incest, and counteracting a life threatening medical condition afflicting the mother. I would go so far as to say that most pro life people share my views.

In order to achieve that, these guys might be engaging in grandstanding and hyperbole. If so, they are still douches of the highest water. In an issue as serious as this, it would be better if all sides were more honest about their end goals.

I find it difficult to believe that there are a lot of people who "hate women" and have that as their main purpose in public discourse. Maybe I just believe too much in the innate goodness of the majority of people.

 

LKD,
I don't think they 'hate women' in the sense that they detest them. It's not about literal hate. The term, like most negative descriptions of attitudes, is used as an epithet and applied to a wide variety of behaviours and attitudes.

It's more that they have views along this line: 'Well, if a women has some rough sex, perhaps that was because she was a sassy, easy girl, and invited it', which I would consider to be at the very least sexist.

When it becomes something like: When a woman gets raped and she doesn't have bruises that's a lesser rape, and thus she shouldn't get federal funding for an abortion if she's poor #' it IMO turns clearly misogynist since the implicit point behind making such a distinction is that if she didn't resist it can't have been that bad, or even that she consented, and then changed her mind.

# I mention that since poverty is the key eligibility criterion for an Medicaid funded abortion in case of a rape.

 

No, no, I don't think they hate women at all. The GOP just likes men more.

 

There's no argument from me that using the presence of bruises as a metric for the consent is a really, truly, stupid thing to do. Using the threat of violence against family members, or the girl herself, makes it just as violent a rape. Any thinking human would get that, I would hope.

 

NOG, it wasn't quickly changed. It was changed only after several days of editorial coverage and after the daily show along with pretty much all of late night television made a mockery of it. "Quickly" would have been a redaction issued the very moment the flaw in the language was pointed out. This bill had more than one author -- and several of those authors were lawyers.

Your assumptions about my assumptions are similarly off. For starters, given how many times I have specifically taken you to task for it, you of all people should know how much I detest blanket assumptions of any kind. I simply do not make them. My assumption in this particular case is, in fact, quite specific -- when a group of lawyers along with some non-lawyers that draft legislation for a living re-define a term in their legislation in a manner that is in keeping with a specific goal, I assume that the language was used with specific intent to further that goal.

It is possible that the bills authors intended only to rule out statutory rape victims but not victims who were threatened with legitimate force or drugged and that they accidentally painted with too large a brush (which could, depending on the circumstance, render them incompetent rather than misogynistic), but it is equally possible that they concluded it was better to have the federal government occasionally deny funding for a valid case than to grant funding for an invalid one. Had they made the former claim in response to the ensuing firestorm, I would have given them the benefit of the doubt, but they made a much broader and more sweeping claim regarding their intent. I find it beyond unreasonable to believe that they did not intend to deny abortion funding in any instances whatsoever of what currently falls under the banner of legally defined rape. They changed the language because they felt that someone who shouldn't be qualifying for abortion funding currently does.

 

I've got to call on at least some of the MoveOn claims. Compare:

with:

I'd like to see citations #4, 5, and 7 at the least, if anyone has them.

Here's the problem with that assumption: They didn't re-define it. If they had, it would have changed everything, but they didn't. They inserted a legal nonsense term. Lawyers, as you pointed out, who do this for a living, essentially wrote gibberish. That either indicates that this was all a bad joke, or that they rushed things and weren't paying attention.

 

"Forcible" is not a "legal nonsense term." "Forcible" rape, also known as common law rape, encompasses both first and second degree rape. When you make another person unconscious by administering a drug or intoxicant, -- whether by force, threat of force, or without a person's knowledge -- and engage in a sexual act with them, that constitutes sexual abuse or assault (the exact legal terminology varies by state) rather than forcible rape in many states. Some states allow a person who had knowledge that a victim was mentally or physically incapable of opposing the [sex] act to be charged with forcible rape. Some do not.

Statutory rape is it's own crime, and is not covered under the forcible rape envelope at all. Even in those states where all of the more atypical forms of rape fall under the umbrella of forcible rape , statutory rape would still not have been covered. My initial take on the legislation (well before I got involved with this thread) was that this was their goal all along.After all, since statutory rape is not rape in the traditional sense of the word, the victim often doesn't feel he/she was victimized, and no pro-lifer would view a mother's youth as sufficient grounds for an abortion. I think they didn't think long or hard enough about the other types of rape that in many states would likewise no longer be covered under the new legal definition and were, for lack of a better term, caught with their pants down. The magnifying glass of the media was then pointed in their direction, and they simply could not afford to admit that they just tried to cut statutory rape out of the rape exemption. Admitting such a thing would have ensured continued (negative and largely unwelcome) noise regarding the issue and less scholarly accusations would have persisted regardless. By denying everything, we are able to move away from the issue with plenty of time for the voting public to forget before the next election. Whether you agree with me or not, NOG, you at least need to recognize that forcible rape is far from a "legal nonsense term." It's actually a clear-cut exclusion of statutory rape.

Forcible Rape
Aggravated Sexual Assault

 

Straws. And don't be such a lazy ass. Chandos gave you the source and the full unedited text (*hint*). It should for a thinking person be easy enough to find.

At least it was for me. I can tell you that you'll find what you allege to be interested in on page one of the search results. First find actually.

 

So...

Those two statements don't seem to quite line up. Realizing that legalese is a very precision-based language, if 'forcible rape' isn't defined in the Federal code, and this is a Federal law, then it's equivalently a nonsense term. If some states have definitions, that's something else. If those definitions differ, that's a matter of confusion for the vernacular, but not for legalese. In legalese, the state laws don't matter.

That I would actually accept as a reasonable explanation, except that I don't think they'd shy away from admitting to trying to ban federal funding for abortions in cases of statutory rape.

Wow. Talk about personal attacks. You're calling me a lazy ass because I didn't expect an email to be google-able? And it actually took me multiple searches to find. Though thanks for the pointer.

From what I found here, I'm not sure what to think.

On the one hand, 4 is from an analysis by George Washington Medical University. On the other hand, their reasoning seems to be that the law will impliment a wide-spread regulation that will impact the whole industry. It won't. It actually won't go any further than the Hyde Amendment did, except that it'll now cover all the people getting subsidies for their insurance... who currently don't have any at all. They almost seem to imply, without actually claiming this, that any abortion coverage would be banned from the Health Care Exchanges, but they won't. They just won't be subsidisable. I don't see this as impacting the demand for abortions (and thus insurances covering abortions) at all.

For 5, they reference this bill, the offending text seems to be:

Except that that is specifically talking about 'health plans' being not required to 'provide coverage' for things. I may be mistaken, but that suggests insurance to me, not hospitals.

6 is citing an analysis from Center for American Progress (not exactly unbiassed).

And 7 is actually a repetition of 5.

In short, I don't believe a word they're saying. If 4 is right, then the current Hyde Amendment should cause a similar result. It hasn't. If 5 is right, then legalese is even more of a foreign language than I thought, calling actual hospital work 'health plans that impliment coverage'. 6 is an analysis that doesn't provide reasoning, just conclusions, from a left-wing organization.

 

NOG

No, I expected you to know that MoveOn.org as a and professional activist group is also providing their e-mails on their website. That is something that activist groups do. That is so because as an activist group they want maximum exposure to what they have to say. That is why I was not surprised to find Chandos' e-mail in verbatim here. Look at the domain.

But that lazy ass was for not even considering googling in the first place. You and Google ... how was that? Machete don't text.

 

Not true at all. The Federal government isn't providing federal funding for abortions only in those exceedingly rare cases in which a rape falls under their jurisdiction. That law is not and never was intended to cover only those offenses committed under federal jurisdiction. t was was explicitly referring to rape in broad terms in order to ensure that the funding standards were evenly applied. As to whether or not the house pro-life caucus would be willing to acknowledge attempting to stop federal funding for statutory rape, you underestimate the intelligence and competence of the pro-life caucus. These politicians are still politicians, NOG, and they are not naive or foolish enough to believe that a repeal of federal funding from abortions in the event of statutory rape could be sold to the American people. It can't, and owning up to such an attempt would be particularly catastrophic for the authors and co-sponsors of the bill at a time when their every move is getting the full attention of the media. That admission, at that time, would have ensured that these politicians would be continually beaten over the head in the next election regarding that vote and it would have ensured even more play time for an issue so controversial that most politicians -- pro-life, pro-choice, or even somewhere in the middle -- have a vested interest in not talking about it.

 

Which is in a sentence the reason why there was a consensus not to make it an issue and accept the compromise found in the revised Hyde amendment.

The current House pro-life caucus* was merely still a little high on the mavericky tea party spirit and forgot that there are political realities that a house majority still has to address, like public opinion and the Senate.

Point is, Drew's reasoning would probably not apply if they held both houses. It also was impossible not to notice the extent to which GOP candidates boasted their pro-life and Christian credentials. The extent of litmus-testing over the hot button issues was pretty much unprecedented in the entire time I follow US politics.

And then there is the timing. One week or so after the 'repeal Obamacare bill', along comes the 'repeal federal funding for abortion bill' ... next in line is then the 'repeal something else bill' (probably FEMA or the EPA [yes, and while at it, repeal all regulations, and taxes! **]) ... after all, so lore has it, about everything the Federal Government does is in violation of the 10th amendment ***.

It gives testimony to the new uncompromising spirit in the GOP as a result of the tea party folks that entered the house in the mid terms that comparable attempts at limiting funding for abortion were not made under Bush when Republicans controlled both houses, even though Bush was very much pro-Christian and pro-life. Bush's GOP was more moderate, well, comparably moderate. Point in case is Bush scolding the tea party for it's nativism over the immigration issue.

Spoiler

PS: * That said, I am perfectly aware that the pro-life caucus is bi-partisan.

PPS: ** Yes, they do come across that childish to me.

PPPS: *** A nice take-down on 'Tentherism' by ultra-conservative Justice Scalia, as reported by ThinkProgress, and relevant since it has been claimed in these pages that, indeed, federal funding for abortion violates the 10th amendment and is thus un-consti-tooo-tio-nal. Nonsense, Scalia says:

 

Forgive me for not being intimately familiar with the workings of an activist group. I'm serious about that, the most 'activist' online group I'm a member of would be either the AIAA or here, and I don't think either provide the text of emails online.

So, you think 'lazy ass' and 'not familiar with the ways of activist groups' are parallel? Or do you consider 'lazy ass' to be equivalent to 'thinks about searches before doing them'?

I never even hinted at their jurisdiction. It was their definition I was talking about. I'm pretty sure that, if it doesn't meet the federal definition of rape, it doesn't meet the Hyde Amendment requirement of rape. That rape doesn't need to happen under federal jurisdiction, just

I think you're not applying the mechanics right. Yes, they're politicians. They're conservative, pro-life politicians that were likely elected for being conservative and, at least in part, pro-life. They don't have to convince the nation, just their own constituents. I doubt any of them care much what the average resident of LA thinks of their actions, for example.

And, on another note, I'm not really sure why you think the removal of statutory rape would be unworkable in America today. The pro-life movement is strong, and while so is the pro-choice, the fact that statutory rape is only 'rape' by a technicality, and about 100 miles away from what people think about when they think 'rape' would weigh heavily on the debate.


Umm, Ragusa, we may be talking about two different things, but I never thought 'tentherism' would be limited to talking about earmarks. In fact, I haven't even heard many, save a few loons, call earmarks unconstitutional. The Tenth Amendment issue generally comes up where the government is doing something, anything, that isn't (or that people think isn't) authorized directly or broadly in the Constitution.

 

I cannot believe this even needs to be explained to you. It's not about the pro-choice or pro-life movement - statutory rape is about protecting children. That's the "technicality" you're referencing. The age of consent in many states is 14, so if you commit statutory rape you're screwing a kid.

 

NOG, put simply, you're wrong. Using your logic, the Hyde amendment as issued and renewed every year for more than 30 years is also invalid because it, too, employs a "legal nonsense term." You see, the Federal rape statute never actually uses the term "rape". Check it out for yourself.
http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC02241.html

NOG, moderates decide elections. Moderates don't like the idea of denying federal abortion funding to the victims of statutory rape. There are some (usually catholic) single issue voters out there who almost certainly do, but single issue voters aren't nearly enough to actually get a politician elected. Politicians have moved away from abortion as an election issue because it has been consistently proven that politicians that choose to do so either don't get elected or lose their seats. Taking a clear and obvious stand on the issue, regardless of what that stand may be, has been found to cost more votes than it generates. Haven't you ever wondered why politicians no longer talk about abortion during election time? It's simple math, and both sides agree on it.

 

No, I was hinting at what I meant with the last bit. 'Machete don't text', as in 'NOG don't google'. Now, Machete improvises, whereas NOG don't.

---------- Added 20 hours, 59 minutes and 29 seconds later... ----------

House Republicans last week promised to drop a controversial provision in their high-priority No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act that would redefine rape. Vindicating NOG's optimistic/sympathetic analysis that the language that has been criticised in the bill must have found its way in there by accident, chance and/or sloppiness, that language is still in the bill.

And it is easy to see why: Mr. Smith's computers ran out of bytes, so they were unable to correct the text, and the intern they sent to go buy some got lost in a maze where he still remains. In stead of criticising Mr. Smith, our prayers should be with the intern.

 

Has it really been lowered that much across the board? I realized many states had lowered it from 18, and that some states had instituted age-difference policies as well (i.e. 18&16 is ok, 35&16 isn't), but is 14 the 'new standard'?
EDIT: And before I offend Ragusa's delicate Google sensibilities, I'm not actually asking, just expressing my unfamiliarity with that standard. I can look that one up.

Hmm, that does change things. But now I'm confused. Why did Ragusa's article mention it if it isn't a problem?

Who's 'Machete'? If you're talking about that movie about a Mexican assassin, 'Machete', I never saw it. I never wanted to see it. Sorry, but I'm just not getting the reference.

How long does it usually take to formally amend a bill that's been put up for discussion (I'm assuming at least in a sub-committee)? And no, Google didn't help me any on that. I'll admit this isn't looking good. I said from the beginning that the provision was stupid and, if they stick to it, so are they (along with a few other choice words).