House Republicans To Redefine Rape To Limit Coverage For Abortions

Remove all ads!

It takes the (good)will to do it, a couple keystrokes (or the stroke of a pen even) and another day in session. They had time to do both.

 

As you can see by my previous post, I said "many" - not all states - have age of consent at 14 (so no, it isn't across the board). In many states it wasn't even lowered - it's always been that since the law's inception, which in some cases goes back to the 1800s. It varies from one state to the next, but in some cases it is as low as 14. There is no hard 18 anywhere as far as I'm aware - that there are allowances if the age difference is small. The most common age is 16. The larger point is that the victims of statutory rape are often 15 or younger, and in some cases, 13 or younger. So the point of such laws are to protect children.

I don't know what you mean by formally. Sub-committees can amend bills, but the markups are usually done by hand, and when the bill gets out of sub-committee, the product looks like a word document edit, complete with the changes and strike-outs of parts that have been deleted. Amendments can come at any point in the process.

 

The use of the term "rape" is not a problem, because everyone knows what it means even if it is never explicitly used in federal statutes. The use of the term"forcible rape" is a problem because it is a more limiting term than "rape" -- with the new term, statutory rape to no longer applies and, in some states, other forms of rape that currently qualify for federal abortion funding will likewise no longer qualify for it. It really is that simple.

 

It seems that at that point you'd be ranging into the 'child sexual abuse' range, which includes much more severe penalties, and for a good reason. If we're talking a consentual act between even a 15-year-old and an 18-year-old, I don't think it meets the vernacular definition of rape or child abuse, either one, and I think you'd garner more support for denying federally-funded abortions to that range than you may think. If you're talking 13 and younger, then I think you're probably talking about child sexual abuse, not statutory rape. Looking at some stuff here, it looks like 16 is the standard, though there are a lot of 17s and more than a few 18s (including in California of all places). Arizona and Mass. have a flat 18, and Idaho has a flat 18 for females only. Anyway, the point is that most laws seem to allow for cases of statutory rape for 16 year old women, and at that point I think they should be held responsible for their actions (and I don't count a federally funded abortion as them being held responsible).

Not being at all familiar with this, I wasn't sure what the process would be. Does it just require someone suggesting it? Is there a vote? Is it a kind of informal consensus? From your 'word document edit' analogy, I'm guessing more informal, in which case I don't see any excuse for it still being there. If the Republicans have 'agreed to remove it', but it hasn't actually been removed, what does that mean?

It seems to me that the term 'forcible rape' would be a problem because of an inconsistent definition. If that includes use of drugs or social pressure in one state, but not in another, which standard do you use? I would think you'd run into a similar problem with statutory rape, though, as the ages vary so wildly.

 

What about 'They lied and want to retain it because they intentionally placed it there in the first place?'

What? Pro lifers want to push back abortion rights as they exist now and repeal Roe vs. Wade? If that surprises you you need to get out more.

The pro lifers among the Republicans have be reinvigorated through their midterm gains. They are very keen on pushing the pro-life agenda, as they understand it (and which apparently differs from my and your views), and they try to do just that.

Point in case is Ohio, firmly under GOP control, where State Representative Lynn Wachtmann proposed the so-called 'heartbeat bill'. The bill forbids abortion the moment a heartbeat is detected in the fetus. Fetuses generally develop a heartbeat within six weeks of conception, and in some pregnant women a heartbeat can be detected within 18 days.

That bill would effectively ban all abortions since it leaves women a very narrow window to meet the criteria for being allowed to abort, making it effectively impossible. That bill is to be understood as a direct attack on Roe vs. Wade.

But that's not a reason for Wachtmann not to try. Since it is utterly clear such a bill will go to court, they are practically fishing for precedents - they engage in pro-life legislative activism.

You need to rid yourself of the mistaken idea that these folks want to write good bills. A good bill, legally, would reflect Roe vs. Wade. But they detest Roe vs. Wade and want it repealed. So they write laws that are bad legally, since they ignore or expressly contradict Roe vs. Wade. Now these laws then create controversy precisely because they are usually unconstitutional because they ignore Roe vs. Wade. That is a feature, not a bug.

This is not about unfortunate wording, poor timing and sloppiness, but a deliberate political strategy. Even when they lose they win because they keep the issue in the news, gain 'pro life cred' and keep their base aggravated and can blame their loss in court on liberal activist judges and the pro choice groups who will predictably rally against the bills. These people thrive on controversy, and they have nothing but incentives to create it. If what it takes to advance the cause is an unconstitutional law as in Ohio, or some white lies about wanting to delete a passage in a bill - so be it.

 

I'm assuming there are more than just Republicans on this committee. If the Republicans won't do it, surely one of the Democrats could. And if the Republicans refused to let it happen, surely the Democrats could scream to the world how the Republicans were lying to the American people and trying to 'enslave' rape victims or something. It'd be the political equivalent of handing your enemy a knife and turning your back on them. If the Republicans really intended to slip this through Congress without anyone noticing, their only real option now is to cut their losses. Since none of those things have happened, yet at the same time the provision hasn't been changed, I'm guessing something else is going on.

That one, I actually support, provided that there's a provision for at least medical necessity, and that it can pass the Supreme Court (which I guarantee you it'll go before if it passes).

I'm not entirely sure I agree with this reasoning. After all, Supreme Court rulings can and have been overturned by other, later Supreme Court rulings. That doesn't happen unless someone is challenging the old ruling.

 

Put simply? Not really. Under the current Hyde amendment, abortion funding for anything a state chooses to define as statutory rape is not unevenly applied. The only thing "uneven" about it is that the states enjoy and exercise their privilege to define for themselves what constitutes statutory rape within their jurisdictions.

The states have always enjoyed the ability to define for themselves what does and does not constitute rape, statutory or otherwise -- or, for that matter, any other crime -- within their own jurisdictions. Unless the Federal government can invoke the interstate commerce clause regarding a specific statute or, since the passage of the 14th amendment, when the statute itself violates the Constitution of the United States, it has and deserves no say in the matter. The Federal government can decide where Federal funding goes, but they cannot usurp the authority of the states to set their own statutes. This is the very essence of Federalism, and I see nothing wrong with it.

 

While the pro-life caucus is bi-partisan, the sponsorship of such bills usually comes from Republicans. For instance the Sestak amendment simply reflected the old Hyde amendment. In contrast, Republicans currently pride themselves on their lack of moderation and their bills 'push the envelope'.

The bill only makes an exception to the heartbeat rule only in 'emergency medical situations' i.e. it apparently doesn't allow for abortion in case of rape or statutory rape. A comment I read about that bill on a Christian site was 'And – will this end abortion? Do you think that this law will actually stop an abortion?' In that light the lack of exceptions and the very narrow window are only straightforward, since the very point is to make abortion all but impossible. And since the bill is simply designed to contradict Roe vs. Wade, it isn't meant to address real world concerns anyway - that is all secondary. It has been written to be challenged in court for contradicting Roe vs. Wade, and to perhaps make it to the Supreme court. And as the quote indicates, to some it still doesn't go far enough, and only a complete ban will do.

And make no mistake, the heartbeat bill is already designed make abortion all but impossible. Do the math. Ignoring the context of rape or medical necessity (in which women could be forgiven to be distracted), a woman needs to be ultra vigilant to spot she is pregnant, have that diagnosed asap to enter the mandatory 24h waiting period for an abortion - before heartbeat (usually it starts on day 22 of pregnancy) sets in. A woman has about three weeks to find out and make the move. The case can be made a women vigilant enough to meet that standard is usually so vigilant to not get pregnant in the first place. It's a race against the clock, and that is also a feature, not a bug.

What part of that this is about the final goal of ending abortion in total is it that you don't understand?

As long as the ruling is not overturned, and Roe vs. Wade is still in effect and binding, it is binding interpretation of constitutional law and has to be respected by lawmakers and authorities alike - for instance it rendered state laws criminalising abortion invalid. But this is not about 'working with what we have'. To wit: In Ohio there are no less than six bills restricting abortion or limiting access to abortion under consideration. It's the scatter gun approach: Make enough bills, and one will eventually make it to the Supreme Court.

The only legitimate way to address Roe vs. Wade is to amend the constitution, but they don't have the votes for that and never had. So they go for it by other means - namely by deliberately writing unconstitutional (activist) bills, in hope that they make it to the Supreme Court so that the (activist) conservative judges there get a chance to vote down Roe vs. Wade.

 

I'm not saying any of that is wrong or should change. I'm just saying that, to me, it would make more sense for the Feds to use their own standard definition of 'rape' (statutory or not) when deciding where that Federal funding goes. What I mean is, the states can prosecute on whatever (constitutional) basis they want, but if they want the Feds to pay for an abortion, they have to show (within whatever reasonable expectations of proof there may be) that this case meets the Federal definition. Otherwise, someone else has to pay.

If they don't do that, then couldn't a teen mother-to-be 'shop around' states until she finds one where her sex act was illegal, go there, and claim (statutory) rape in the Medicaid filing? Or does Medicaid require a police report to be filed or something (in which case she couldn't shop around after the fact thanks to jurisdictions)? Anyway, just thinking out loud (or whatever) here.

The news said that the 'Republicans' were willing to remove the term, so I'm assuming it was the Republicans that were driving the issue. Yes, the pro-life caucus is bi-partisan, as is the pro-choice, but I've always gotten the impression that there are a lot more Republican pro-lifers and more Democrat pro-choicers. I'd guess something like a 70/30 split.

Anyway, the point is that there are probably more than just supporters of the bill on this committee.

Do you mean this site? I think you're misinterpreting what it's saying. I think it's arguing that abortions will still happen whether they're legal or not.

Oh, I agree with that assessment entirely. This is why I agree with it. I realize you disagree with it, though.

None. What part of my question you quoted made you think I didn't understand this. I was talking about how to go about overturnign Roe V Wade!

Again, I ask you, how do you propose overturning an old Supreme Court precedence? What if, 50 years from now, we decide that letting corporations provide unlimited funding to campaigns was a bad idea? The opinion of the Court has changed, but they need a new case to address it. Do you really suggest that the only option should be a constitutional amendment?

And that's the critical point: to get it to the Supreme Court.

 

Yes, that site, and no, they don't say that. They are arguing that even with that bill legal abortions will still happen, and their tone strongly suggests that they think that the bill doesn't go far enough.

It makes little sense to nominally allow abortion but make it all but impossible to meet the legal requirements. I don't like abortions, but sometimes there is no other way, as in case of rape or statutory rape or danger to the health of the woman. Because of that necessity it must be realistically possible to qualify for an abortion as for instance under the already narrow circumstances of existing law. Anything else is a nothing but a cruel hoax. This bill deliberately limits abortion legally to the extent that it as an option practically exists on paper only.

Arguably, given a reasonable amount of time to ponder a decision to abort, a woman is probably more likely to keep the baby. Putting a gun to her head by giving her an exceedingly narrow window to qualify will probably lead to a 'use-it-or-lose-it' situation - either a woman aborts asap, or not at all - i.e. constitutionality and intentions aside, the bill is probably also counter-productive.

I said it already: The only legitimate way to address Roe vs. Wade is to amend the constitution. Point is, they cannot do it because they don't get the votes necessary. If there was a majority for that, such an amendment would have long passed, but - alas - that has not happened.

 

What part of the post made you think that? The entire text of the post is:

And anyway, Ragusa, you may want to look at some other stuff on that site. Of course, I think we all knew that the Garden of Eden was modeled after a valley in West Virginia, right? Or maybe the conservative rancor in this post clued you in? Some of the posts are hard to tell, but the site seems to be made with tongue planted firmly in cheek one way or another.

It exists for the medical necessity exemption, which is the only case I think genuinely merits an abortion. In that light, it makes perfect sense.

To be clear, what you're comparing are the likelyhood that a woman will consider her options and choose an abortion vs the likelyhood that a woman will choose an abortion in a snap decision. Given that roughly 20% of pregnancies in the US end in abortion (and upwards of 60% in some groups), I think you'd have a tough time arguing that more than that will choose an abortion as a snap decision.

By your logic Bowers v. Hardwick should still be the law of the land and the police should be able to arrest adults for private, consentual sexual acts that violate laws like sodomy laws. By your logic Plessy v. Ferguson should still rule, allowing racial segregation. The Supreme Court's ability to change it's own rulings is one of the recognized protections we have from bad or out of date rulings. In short, you're wrong.

 

No. Jurisdiction doesn't work that way. If it doesn't qualify as statutory rape in North Carolina, you can't just head over to Virginia and claim statutory rape. Why? Because to claim statutory rape in Virginia, the statutory rape has to happen in Virginia. If you had sex in North Carolina and it was legal in North Carolina, it isn't statutory rape.

 

On a criminal basis, yes. On an insurance basis, I don't know that. Do you? They're two completely different things, after all. Which is why I asked:

 

NOG, this stuff isn't rocket science and I'm not going to hold your hand. Medicaid is a state administered program that happens to recieve federal funding. This is why jurisdiction matters. Even if getting treatment out of state, your home state still holds the purse strings and therefore still gets to decide what does and does not constitute a qualifying rape.

 

... How did I forget Medicaid was state-run?

 

There is a simply majority vote on the committee or sub-committee level necessary for any edits.

Committees and subcommittes are always bipartizan. There are basically two rules here. The first rule is you want an odd number of people on the committee, and the second is you want the majority party to have the majority in every committee and subcommittee. Since Congressmen always serve on multiple (sub)committees, and there's no limit on how many (sub)committes a Congressman can serve in, even if you have a razor-thin majority, this is easily accomplished. In most cases, there is exactly one more Republican than Democrat on each House (sub)committee. Subcommittes are fairly small, even in the House of Representatives, with only around a dozen members. Committees are typically about two dozen, although the very important committees (like the House Appropriations Committee) are larger.

Even in the states where it's 18, it's not really a hard 18. It's 18 to consent to anyone. Every state has exceptions for people who are really close in age. In a 17-year old girl has sex with he 18-year old boyfriend in CA, it's not statutory rape.

 

What you are saying here is that residence is irrelevant, but WHERE the event occured is? I get the idea, but it sounds pretty complicated to me -- someone goes to another state and has what is legal sex there, and then returns home to her home state where her sex act would get the guy prosecuted for stat rape. But because it happened out of state in a jurisdiction that doesn't classify it as stat rape, she doesn't get her abortion paid for?

I think that no matter how you slice it, no matter what sort of rules you create, there's always going to be some nasty conundrums.

 

That's a tricky one. I'm pretty sure taking a minor across state lines to have legal sex with her is in itself a criminal offense - one that would be handled by the federal government in that it took place between states. Drew is right that it would be the state that gets to decide what type of Medicaid assistance she could get, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if the action of crossing a state line with a minor with the sole purpose being to sleep with her wasn't illegal to begin with.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of the minor going to visit her Aunt in another state, and while there she meets this really cute boy and . . . . problem being that their age differential is not problematic in the state where he resides but it IS in the girl's home state. If the offense occured in her home state, would she get the funding? given that it occurred elsewhere, will she NOT get the funding? Moral / legal grey area . . .

 

Perhaps. We have a judicial system to sort this stuff out for a reason.