By now you'd expect House Republicans to ignore jobs in favor of demagoguing on a social issue like abortion. It's become a familiar playbook. But what they're doing now is very different, and considerably more dangerous.
Republicans as prominent as Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor are backing a new measure sponsored by vocal anti-abortion Congressman Chris Smith. It is H.R. 3, The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.
The bill promises to just what it says it will: make the Hyde Amendment permanent; prevent tax breaks from going to insurance consumers (employers or the self-insured) if the insurance they're buying covers abortion. Anti-abortion legislative goals, in boilerplate language, designed to give the impression that the government pays for abortions willy-nilly (when the facts tell a very different story, particularly for low-income women).
However, in his update yesterday, TPM reporter Evan McMorris-Santoro detailed the bill's effects on rape victims:
...the widest criticism of the bill comes in its exemptions for rape -- provisions that would allow federal money or private insurance to be used to cover an abortion. H.R. 3 says those provisions would kick in only in cases of forcible rape, a distinction from other forms rape of that is largely undefined but seems to suggest that a rape that doesn't include violence wouldn't count. The bill would also limit the incest exemption to women under the age of 18 -- meaning a victim of incest who was legally allowed to vote wouldn't have her abortion covered by Medicaid and would likely have more limited access to private insurance than she does today.
Long story short? Rape, in Republican Newspeak, is only rape if you get hurt. Huh?
Pro-choice activists are relentless and out in force, staging the #DearJohn campaign on Twitter to get Speaker Boehner's attention. So are the many Democrats who don't already support H.R. 3., including Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who said, "I consider the proposal of this bill a violent act against women." Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado highlighted the Act's extremism by noting that it goes "far beyond the current law." It also goes far beyond the English language.
Rape is violence. Whether it happens to someone during a home invasion, a woman in a relationship who ends up having sex with her boyfriend after she's made clear she didn't want to, a minor even with her consent, or to an intoxicated woman accosted in a seedy bar, it's rape.
Real talk: a group of mostly male Republicans is using stunt legislation to prioritize the agendas of anti-abortion zealots and health insurance companies. And in doing so, they're making the very definition of rape a topic for debate.
The tweets on #DearJohn are coming from women (and not enough men) who are from this country, who live in this country, and are subject to this latest Republican exhibition of "small government." Will Republicans listen to these Americans, or only the ones who keep them powerful?
Leave a Comment:
Welcome back to the notsogood Ole Days when a woman "asked for it." When rapists were set free because the rapee didn't get stabbed or had no broken bones which meant that she did not "fight" so she "asked for it." Or maybe she asked for it because she was drunk; or she had on a shorter than you think she should wear skirt. The days when a woman would rather say nothing than endure the "rape" of a trial and publicity where SHE was villified and her identity was not protected,
I remember those days.
It's just the first step backwards. Allow this and you might as well just throw in the towel or move.
It's ironic that these same idiots that scream about how Sharia law is going to take over the US Courts are just fine and dandy with the "Christian" version. Any fundamentialism is "extreme" and just the word extreme tells you why it is wrong!
Once again, as I posted on another recent Maddow Blog entry, this extremism is exactly why I insist that we should not fall into the rhetorical trap of referring to the modern Rape-Public-CON Party and their supporters as "conservative" - there's nothing even remotely "conservative" about them - they are RIGHT-WING RADICALS, period!
The term "conservative" sounds relatively non-threatening, as if it may even have its positive aspects - e.g. "environmental conservation", etc. But, in a time when conventions of these so-called "conservatives" warmly welcome the likes of Birchers and make them feel right at home, we are not talking about genuine "conservatives" at all - they are DANGEROUSLY RADICAL RIGHT-WINGERS!
For more than 30 years now, the Right has demonstrated the importance of carefully crafted rhetoric. We should at least learn that one lesson from them, if nothing else. Every time you are even tempted to say "conservative" in a political context, carefully consider the subject. In almost all cases today, I believe you should be substituting the far more accurate and politically appropriate term RIGHT-WING RADICALS! Hammer the point home - people have to start to appreciate the nature and scale of the threat...
Why do we have to fight the "NO means NO" issue all over again?
It seems clear to me that the latest strain of GOP are actually full-on anarchists.
There is NO "right-wing radical". That's an oxymoron. "Radical" means solve problems by changing the root. "Reactionary" means simply to react to events and try to make them go away. That is why the right can't govern. They will always trying to force problems away and so can not move forward. There are militant reactionaries such as Osama bin Laden who attack anyone who they feel threatens them with change.
Republicans are not reactionaries. They are the pro-business party. All their actions are directed to one scam or another, mainly cutting taxes and deregulating white-collar crime. Because there are many fewer rich people than anyone else the pro-business party must scam votes off gullible knuckleheads with expensive, well-crafted propaganda. Thus they lie continuously and pose as moral elitists.
I do not have a clue why they call themselves conservatives. They conserve nothing. They will upset any tradition if there is a buck in it. Ask a "conservative" what a conservative is and they have no idea what the word means.
Even ignoring the abortion issue and the small government hypocrisy, this is outrageous. How dare they try to redefine rape? How dare they claim that there is a distinction between "rape" and "forcible rape." Who did they consult on this definition? Certainly not rape victims. And just because a woman does not get physically beaten, that does not mean that there will not be longstanding emotional and mental trauma. Shame on Boehner, Cantor and their good ole boy's club. Shame on Americans for voting in these weasels.
I think there needs to be a second woman's movement in this country. Thank God we have sensible advocates like Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz to speak out against this disgusting display of fraternity-style manhood. I have to disagree with Virginia Slims--we have not come a long way, baby. In fact, we seem to be reverting.
Rep. Wasserman-Schultz has her good moments, and I have certainly appreciated her occasional appearances on TRMS. However, it seems her hands may not be entirely clean in this case - her tendency to support the "corporatist" Dems of the DCCC may be coming home to roost in this case - see the post titled "Debbie Wasserman Schultz Eager To Prove She And The DCCC Can Be Just As Hypocritical About Women's Health As Republicans" at:
h ttp : // downwithtyranny "dot" blogspot "dot" com/2011/02/debbie-wasserman-schultz-eager-to-prove "dot" html
She undermined the attempts of more progressive Dems to get elected in FL, even going so far as to announce (while she was the head of the DCCC "Red to Blue Program", no less) that she would NOT support the Democratic challenger to the frankly despicable Rape-Public-CON Ileana Ros Lehtinen - who is now a co-sponsor of this heinous "re-define rape" legislation...
the people trying to do this have never been through anything as horrific as rape! Shameful!
I checked out exactly who the 173 congress people are who support this bill.
13 of them are women and all of them are Republicans. 10 Democrats support it, none of them are women and 5 of the 10 are from the South.
A few of us were discussing this on FB yesterday. Remove the abortion issue from this for now. They are redefining rape in a dangerous way. As I said to someone, will this now be a new defense in court? "Your Honor. She was going to say, 'No,' so I slipped something in her drink. She had a great time, even if she can't remember it. No harm. No foul." "Forcible rape?" That's as opposed to "gentle rape" which is acceptable, I guess. If they want to argue rights to abortion, ok. But don't argue the definition of rape. IT'S RAPE!
I guess we're going to a medieval model of rape:
"Another male conception of the guilt of the female body is present in medieval law – derived from the Galenic physiological model – that a woman could not conceive a child unless she consented to intercourse. Not only did she have to consent but, because a woman was believed to conceive only by the releasing of female sperm through orgasm, she had to enjoy the intercourse. This "guilt" of the female body would, due to a raped woman's pregnancy, betray the fact she had enjoyed being raped, ending her right to accuse her rapist." (An Oppressive Silence: The Evolution of the Raped Woman in Medieval France and England. Medievalists.net. February 2, 2011.)
We sluts who are raped and conceive OBVIOUSLY were not REALLY raped or we wouldn't NEED abortions. And, of course, we should have killed ourselves immediately rather than enduring the shame, anyway.
Prepare for a population explosion of unwanted, uncared-for babies of drug addicts who trade sex for drug fixes. Are Republicans going to adopt the babies? Love them?
Love the fetus, ignore the baby...no worse ...unwanted baby!
Margaret, I hope you didn't mean to be as offensive as your comment comes off. This post is talking about a re-definition of what counts as rape in terms of exceptions to an anti-abortion bill.
"...uncared-for babies of drug addicts who trade sex for drug fixes..." Really?
This bill has the potential to affect ALL women. There is no magic formula for avoiding rape. And any woman who is raped, regardless of her lifestyle, profession, etc, deserves the right to compassionate care afterwards.
Thank you Jender13, well said.
And Margaret O, that actually was extremely offensive - rape affect ALL women regardless of station in this world, and is no more prevalent, disposed or horrendous in any....
And well said by you, also, WBEng! There are times when I'll let offensive remarks slide on here, either b/c i'm not sure if the remark is meant to be sarcastic, or in an effort not to feed trolls etc, but no way i could ignore that one!
Maybe I'm bein overly sensitive... but I think I understand Margret... women forced to carry to term when they are feeling trapped may well lead to drug/alcohol/self abuse because a pregnancy needs to be entered into with honesty and integrity.
Forcing women to give birth after an accidental impregnation... then, of course making the MOTHER responsible for the care of said child... when often, the father is no where to be found??????? I cannot help but think it fascinatin that while the Right screams it wants government out of our lives, is eager to clime in bed with me if they don't approve of whom I love, or into my doctor's office with me if I become pregnant.
Can I make the request that they get in men's back pockets and either create a perfect condom, or -- all men get "vasectomy" surgery at puberty, and can only have it reversed when they enter a committed relationship.
The problem has always been naughty boys not takin care of business when they pull their peanut out of their pocket... waiting for the women to 'be on birth control" or not be there when their needs overtake their cerebral cortex.
I heard the line, "If you loved me, you'd let me..." so many times as a young woman, I cannot even begin to say. Then, I was one of those girls that even WITH birth control, accidents DO happen. None of the men I met EVER was willing to step up and help support a child. NOT ONE.
There are great men out there, I know it. I just never seemed to pick 'em. My son has BECOME one... I never let him imagine that a girl had to push, or shove, or scream or shout.. or actually even SAY the word 'no'... We talked since he was small the many ways people convey reluctance, or anxiety, or fear... and what it meant to actually have intercourse ---ALL that it meant.
I was one of the parents that figured, get it all out front, pick it apart, and have at least understanding of the implications of a moment's lost control.
My boy and his wife now have a beautiful baby girl... now all the talks we had make more sense. He's petrified already, and she's only two months old.
Melody...Margaret is talking about mothers "who trade sex for drug fixes" - not women as you say who are "forced to carry to term when they are feeling trapped may well lead to drug/alcohol/self abuse". The derogatory nature of Margaret's statement is extreme and not even close to what you are trying to reconstruct it into...
It's called survival sex, and it's not always for drugs. Sometimes women in poverty will have a sexual partner in exchange for a place to stay and food. And then they may start doing drugs as a way to cope with their situation.
Many LGBT youth get trapped in those situations when they're disowned by their parents. It affects a lot of different types of people.
Very true...in Los Angeles alone they estimate somewhere between 30-50% of the youth on the street identify as LGBT and the issue of trading sex for food/drugs/and anything else related to survival is the most prevalent problem they face in just trying to stay alive/cope.
In response to Melody P's issue with THEM wanting to be in her bedroom. They have always
wanted to be in your bedroom, that's who they are. Whatever we end up calling them, 'Radical Right' or 'God's Party' or the 'Spanish Inquisition', they claim the moral authority on who gets to do who and in what position (missionary).
Their platform, their mantra has always been "get government out of the boardroom and
into your bedroom". And as to rape ;.Ann Richards (the last Democrat in Texas) was handed the governorship when her opponent was asked what he thought about rape. He said, "Rape is like the weather, you can't do anything about it so you may as well enjoy it." Granted, he was probably not speaking for all of "God's Chosen".
Here is something I discovered when I was in prison that has given me insight into the real world. In times of profound distress and poverty...when there is absolutely no legitimate economy, people turn to the economies of last resort: Sex, Drugs, Violence, Other People's Property. Sound familiar?
In prison, when money is under interdict, cigarettes used to be currency. Little Debbies were always popular. Sexual favors if you got grossly in debt to anyone. I never engaged in it myself, but I had seen it happen.
By the time people turn to these desperate forms of barter, their recognition as human beings deserving of human dignity is a forgone conclusion. This is why it is convenient to say that anyone woman who isn't bruised or have broken bones is no victim of rape.
These are the kinds of news articles that make me so happy that I am gay. The idea that some disgusting republiturd thinks they can rape anyone they want to, and then expect them to carry a child of that disgusting lack of anything human, thinking or righteousness.
Just disgusting. Course maybe the law should be ameneded. That if a man rapes a woman and she has to have that child, then the man should have their head cut off because it will keep the population numbers down. It will of course keep the number of poor slaves down for the republturds to use to make their plastic toys to sell on tv, but that's okay.
Ms. Pelosi said that the Congress could focus on multiple things at one time back with they were creating the healthcare bill. But then again, she also said that the healthcare bill would create 400,000 jobs almost immediately, but that has not come to pass either...so maybe there Congress can only do one thing at a time.
As for as redefining rape...I hope that is not what they are doing and they were only very, very careless with wording. Had they not included the word "forcible" in the legislation this discussion would not even be necessary. I haven't searched to see if any of the sponsors/authors have commented on why this word was included.
Here's the text, RobDon:
You can read the bill here: www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3
This is not a case of "very, very careless" wording. This is a case of careful wording on the part of part of our nut job Congressmen and a few nut job Congresswomen. Why do they hate women so much? Why? In searching for comments from the authors, please let us know if any of them have answered that simple question. I'm curious, too. Please report back.
Thanks, Micro...I read the text and agree with you, it does NOT appear to be simply careless wording...if the word forcible was not included on the surface it would seem to be okay but by including that word something was meant by it.
I did a fairly exhaustive search and could not find any comments. It would appear, too, that if it was a careless "mistake" then he/they would be quick to correct it. I just don't understand what they were trying to do other than 1) try to make sure rape could not be used as an excuse instead of a true situation or 2) as other seem to indicate, trying to redefine rape or clarify a particular kind of rape.
Sexual activity without consent or against consent is rape and/or sexual assault. No problem with that here.
Jamil, I can not thank you enough for this post, and for your own #DearJohn tweets. Yet again TRMS lets us know that you've got our backs!
Right now they are trying to redefine Rape. Then they will end the right American women have to control their reproductive health. What is next? Women's right to vote? Will we some day no longer be able to own property? Or be the property of our fathers then our husbands? It is a slippery slop. Does America really want to move backward? That is the real question.
a whole lot of them do, as part of the End Game they call the Rapture. Remember that the Dark Ages followed a time of Illumination, and we are seeing the same kind of dangerous retreat. It is rampant. I am an American medical educator living in Brazil and practically every American I meet here is either a lobbyist for some kind of environmental catastrophe in the making, or an evangelist preacher come here to "convert the Catholics to Christianity." I joke you not.
Gotta remember Jolene. To these so called constituional consevatives the line is "All Men are created equal" this means all men and men only. women arent men and thus do not fall under the constitution. Justice Scallia echoed this exact sentiment. and rep Bachman parroted this notion.
This despite the fact that such a notion would render her unable to be in office as a woman by those defintions could not hold office.
even the equal rights ammendmant is going to far for them, as it extends civil liberties and rights to "non-people" ie non-whites, women, homosexuals, etc etc.
Hey, if we can redefine rape as only existing if it is forcible, why not redefine murder while we are at it? It's only murder if it is "forcible", so if you just want to poison someone, that is okey dokey by the government. If you kill them before they can object, that's also fine and dandy.
Honestly, it seems that repubs can't move fast enough to bring us back to the 12th century, something they have in common with the Taliban. Maybe Mullah Omar and Boehner could get together and shed a few tears together.
That's the GOP's version of business as usual. Out of the boardrooms and into the bedrooms.
Fox news is targeting Planned Parenthood as they did Acorn with sting operations. My hope is they don't have the same results. It seems the right want to take any and all avenues of assistance to average and low income females without insurance, for birth control and health issues.
Again I ask this question.....WHY are "thinking Christians" NOT trying to counter thee religious zealots who have hijacked the very word "Christian"..and turned it into something so ugly and vile?
What about little girls like my 9 YEAR OLD daughter. If she were raped (horrible enough to consider but it does happen) She could actually conceive because she has a medical condition known as Precocious Puberty. Look it up. Children as young as 18 months old with this condition menstruate. I would then be forced to help her get over the trauma of rape by forcing her to go through a pregnancy and delivery???? I am so FURIOUS at these self- righteous religious zealot moral police !!!!!
In Brazil, where I live, abortion is illegal except if the pregnancy is the result of rape or if it poses a threat to the mother's health. In order to perform abortions in cases of rape, doctors demand to see a Boletim de Ocorrência , the document the police issues when you report a crime. A few years ago, there was an attempt to drop the requirement and people here freaked out. I think the language in this bill stems from the same belief that women are untrustworthy. In their minds, any woman could walk up to a doctor and lie about being raped in order to get an abortion. The only way to ensure women won't cheat the system is to have "objective proof" of rape - which is what I imagine they are thinking when they talk about "forcible rape". Once again, it becomes clear that this has nothing to do with defending life. These people are simply terrified by the idea of women being autonomous.
I live here too, and of course, just as is and will always be the case in the US, women with money, (like the wives, daughters, etc) of these male lawmakers, etc, will always have access to safe abortion. It's called a spa vacation.
So... if you aren't bruised and broken, it wasn't rape? As I read this, consent is out the window. You can say "no" a thousand times, but if you don't endanger your life fighting back against your rapist, it's not rape? If you are drugged, or a child, or a longtime victim of abuse who has learned that fighting back makes it worse, you are going to carry that baby - unless you have the resources to pay for your own abortion. By making this a part of the funding of abortions they are once again winning political points on the backs of the poor - this won't affect them, or their daughters.
Everything about this is sickening. And the worst part is, it comes down to a fundamental mistrust of lying whores women. If you don't have physical evidence of "force," you'd have to rely on a woman's word that she was raped. And clearly, the Republicans aren't about to start trusting women....
"Lying whores" was supposed to be stricken through. Sorry about that.
I don't think THESE men understand what it means to be raped. The problem is NOT that we don't tell them, it's that they don't get it. We need a different frame of reference.
If we gave the example say... that they were raped in prison by another male... we might begin a dialog that they can grasp. Explaining in excruciating, ignoble, despicable detail what it would be like for them to be violated. Having their anus forcibly penetrated, and have their soul molested in the process, we might shock them into some comprehension.
Excuse me for using a homo-phobic fear as a teaching moment, but I can't find another analogy that brings with it the repulsion, and permanent mental devastation to ANY male who thinks its ok to parse that part which is good and right about the rape of a woman and that part which isn't.
A true man would never countenance force of any kind on a woman, and would therefore never need this grotesque analysis. I pray... that the people (male and female) willing to use rape or abortion as a political issue truly begin to understand it, or if they are unwilling, experience it. That will be the end of that.
I know I know I KNOW the reaction I will get for saying this...but if a large number of Republican lawmakers were roofied and woke up in what appear to compromising positions, they may want to revisit the whole "forcible" rape thing.
And once again Don Q you, remind me why I love you so...
WB... you beat me to it...
The ability to engage in coitus is not consent to have coitus...
These lawmakers are not really thinking. They ARE trying to control... which vaguely smacks of, oh, NO>>> Tyranny. ???
If this passes, will rape laws change also? Shameful...
Republican -So called Christian Hypocrites Who elected these jackwagons and why do the intelligent people have to put up with so much stupidity? We don't need internment camps we need educational camps for stupid elected officials and their supporters as well as the gone off the deep end republican party!! It would appear that letting Bush Jr. steal the election in 2000 opened the flood gates for STUPIDITY in our government . I don't believe we as a nation are allowing all this non-sense !!! Please help me and others like me who are making intelligent decisions about who we put into office and lets fix what Bush and Cheney screwed up and hid from us all !!!
So, in repub bizarroworld, the government has no right to tell you to buy healthcare, as that infringes on your freedom. It cannot control who buys guns, as that infringes on your freedom. It can't even force you to have a drivers license, according to the nutjob in GA, as that also infringes on your freedom. BUT, the government can tell you when you can and cannot have an abortion, (mostly cannot), and can even tell you if you were really raped or not. There are not words to express my total revulsion at these people. Are they purposely trying to make us long for the comparatively "rational" days of the Bush administration?
They aren't telling you when you can and cannot have an abortion, they just don't want to pay for it with taxpayers money if it was consensual. Makes perfect sense to me
they are actually also trying to shut down planned parenthood, by their own admission, which is largely supported by donations, with a small percentage from govt healthcare money, going NOT for abortions, but for pap smears, annual exams, and birth control, MOSTLY for families. they are also saying that health insurers and providers who receive ANY govt aid for ANYTHING will be denied that aid if they provide insurance coverage (private pay here, we are talking about), or abortions (NOT paid for with govt money). You need to dig deeper. And do you really think every rape victim is beaten? And if someone rapes you or your daughter or mother at knifepoint, so you don't fight, and you don't have bruises, you weren't "raped" and should carry any child that might ensuoe? Let's hope you never have to defend that THAT wasn't consensual.
Actually, Mark, they are going further than that. They are even taking away tax breaks to companies who offer health insurance that covers abortion. That goes far beyond a simple move to keep taxpayers from paying for abortion. As it is, I truly object to the whole idea that a fringe constituency can keep tax money from being spent on abortion. Polls show 2/3 of Americans support Roe v. Wade, so in other words, 2/3 of Americans have no problem with tax money being spent for abortions. If a fringe constituency can keep tax money from being spent on things they don't like, does that mean anti-war constituencies have the right to push through legislation that bans their tax money from being spent on the military? That PETA can push through legislation to ban taxpayer funding of animal research? Where does it end?
Mark, talk to us after you have been roofie-raped and find yourself carrying your rapist's baby. Tell us how reasonable the law is then.
If I wanted to be completely cynical, I'd wonder if the "redefining rape" section is a political trick. It was bound to cause a big outcry and attract a huge amount of media attention. Maybe the GOP is planning to eventually remove the language about forcible rape and make a show of compromising and giving #DearJohn a victory - but in the meantime, the rest of the bill goes relatively unnoticed. If the fight stops there and the bill passes, the GOP will still have succeeded in further restricting abortion rights for women.
I don't think we should call anything rape that is consensual.
Definition of Rape= an act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
Incest and consensual sex shouldnt apply. I don't want to pay for an abortion for these people. I have no problem with forceable rape. I'm confused on why you guys are so upset.
How exactly is incest consensual? A father having sex with his underage daughter is non-consensual, because legally a child cannot give consent to an adult to have sex. Not to mention that the father can coerce his child through his personal power ofver her destiny and very life--if he does not give the child food and shelter, she will die.
Do yourself a favor: look up the LEGAL definitions of the words "consensual", "coercion,""forcible", "incest" and "rape" before you open your mouth. Don't just use a dictionary--look up how these words are used in law--and then speak your mind.
Otherwise, you come off sounding either ignorant or without empathy for women and children who have survived the horrors of incest or who have "consented" to be raped because they were being threatened with a deadly weapon.
Not to mention that the father can coerce his child through his personal power ofver her destiny and very life--if he does not give the child food and shelter, she will die. Coercion would be considered the same as forcible, so it would still be covered. There are people who have consensual insest.
Why should we have multiple definitios for things. That's silly. I just looked it up. Didn't know a woman can rape a man. That was surprising. It also said that sexual rape isn't called rape anymore, but sexual assault. So technically speaking with your legal definitions, you can't get pregnant from rape. So this is all a wast of our time.
survived the horrors of incest or who have "consented" to be raped because they were being threatened with a deadly weapon. Again, that is still coercion.
Mark I am assuming you are a man. I wish i could tell you(and I could in vivid detail) about the rape that happened to me in 1975. I was a 14 year old virgin and I could, to this day, tell you every detail. Rape is rape and it affects the victims of this heinous crime for a lifetime. Yes we move on and heal but it never leaves us, never! Men have no business making decisions concerning women and rape. They could never possibly understand!
I have a problem with faggots
@kathleen. I have no problem calling rape rape. It was barbara telling me to look up the legal definition so I did. Most states don't call rape ,"rape" anymore, but sexual assault. Rape is not defined that way anymore. I still don't understand the complaint though. It will cover forcible rape, I don't know anyother kind of rape but forcible. The repubs just don't want to pay for abortions for people that have an accidental pregnancy, or someone that thinks they can have unprotected sex and have no consequences for their irresponsible actions.
Rape by Roofie, sex with someone too young to consent - statutory rape; rape with threat of violence - presence of knife or gun, threat of battery; rape by position - blackmail. None of these leave marks, none of them can be proven to anyone who wasn't there, and all of them are real.
Rape can be proven or at least is indicated by medical examination according to vaginal tearing. But any woman who is shamed by the attack enough to not report it but turns up pregnant is just SOL, isn't she Mark?
And instead of working on creating jobs, as every single repub campaigned on, and as promised by The Orange Weeper, they have as yet failed to offer even ONE piece of legislation to do so. Instead, they push social agenda items, and this one in particular is stupid beyond belief. They are trying to pass legislation that already exists as the Hyde Amendment. Maybe they need to go back and make sure every single other law is duplicated at least once, just to be absolutely sure that it's doing what it's supposed to do.
So, repubs, where are the jobs, or at least, where are the jobs bills?
It is business as usual. Pay back the religious zealots who put them in power so they will keep getting votes.
Except, you know--the bill won't pass. If it passes in the House, it won't in the Senate. And even if it passed both--it will never be signed into law. It is too broadly written to be legally useful, because it redefines the meaning of a crime that already has been defined on the statute books.
But--I think that Dear John B. knows that it won't pass. It's just a bone to throw to the woman-hating Christian Right to give the appearance that he and his compatriots who were elected by them that they are getting something when they really aren't getting a thing because the bill WILL NOT be signed into law as written.
The second reason this bill is there is BECAUSE it will incite and inflame public opinion and thus cause debate in the House that will then slow down any useful political process on other bills that might actually do some good for the American public at large--such as job creation. See, they don't -want- jobs to be created because they want Obama to take the blame for it so he won't be re-elected.
All they care about is power. Getting into power, keeping power and if necessary, they will screw over the American public, as they have been doing for decades in order to get and keep that power. They will lie to us all, they will screw over their own supporters--Bush did it with the Religious Right before when he vowed to end abortion in the US--we note that it did not happen, and in fact, little was given to the Christian Right who elected him twice that was promised.
Look below the surface people. Boehner is not ignorant, but he is using his supporters ignorance to further his own agenda.
I suggested the same thing. Put them in a situation where they are drugged and raped violently, wake up and have a watermelon sewn up their ass. Let them walk around for 9 months that way. "Give birth" to said watermelon but they exchange the watermelon for a baby at the hospital. Don't give them insurance or a woman for guidance, just them. Let's see how all these male congresspeople would handle it. It's essentially the same thing. Woman goes into bar, is drugged, raped and 9 months later is supposed to carry her attackers baby and raise it? GAH!!!! Redefining rape is a slippery slope law wise. How many guys will use this bill as their defense?
Until the Democrats make a firm stand for womens bodily autonomy by being firmly pro choice and backing it up by boldly speaking up when womens access to abortion and reproductive services is chipped away on the state level, the GOP will keep pulling horrendous stuff like this. By continuing to do nothing they stand with the GOP.