Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Republicans redefining rape.... or a great big load of BS?

Redefine rape, or solidify the law on taxpayer funded abortion when rape is the cause of pregnancy? From what I can read (Once we get past Moveon's abbreviated blurb), The bill deals with who pays for abortions, not what the term 'rape' means. The wording of the bill (concerning this question) is as follows:


‘The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--

‘(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or

‘(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

How is that a redefinition of the term 'rape'? If it is.... I am not seeing it. It does use the term 'forcible rape', which is what this discussion really seems to be about. The only time I can see that applying is when the 'rape' is statutory between two consenting people (Adult and a minor). In every other case it's forcible, as the victim is unwilling and being coerced. Being 'date raped' counts, as drugging someone without their knowledge is considered assault in every state, and thus an application of force.

If was the least bit honest, they would have linked the text of the bill so people could read for themselves. I notice they very carefully name the bills Republican author, but just as carefully ignore all the Democrat co-sponsors. Really, for isn't that what this is all about?

No comments: