House Republicans plan to sidestep a charged debate over the distinction between “forcible rape” and “rape” by altering the language of a bill banning taxpayer subsidies for abortions.
The provision in question, written as an exemption from the ban for women who become pregnant as a result of “forcible rape,” touched off a firestorm of criticism from women’s groups, and it gained enough attention to become the subject of a satirical segment on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.”
But a spokesman for the bill’s author, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), says the modifier “forcible” will be dropped so that the exemption covers all forms of rape, as well as cases of incest and the endangerment of the life of the mother.
“The word forcible will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment,” Smith spokesman Jeff Sagnip told POLITICO, referring to the long-standing ban on direct use of taxpayer dollars for abortion services.
The fight over the definition of rape threatened to sabotage Republican efforts to highlight their push to end taxpayer subsidies for abortion, and the distinction between types of rape mystified some GOP aides.
“Such a removal would be a good idea, since last I checked, rape by definition is non-consensual,” said one aide.
The underlying bill, which imposes sweeping new restrictions on existing taxpayer subsidies for health plans that cover abortion, has support from a bipartisan group of anti-abortion lawmakers, including several House GOP leaders who attended a press conference announcing its introduction last month.
But proponents have found themselves on the defensive in the last few days over the phrase “forcible rape” and a decision to grant an incest exemption only to minors. Under the Hyde amendment, which is recodified annually in an appropriations law, women who are victims of any type of rape or incest at any age are eligible for federally subsidized abortions.
“The phrase ‘forcible rape’ was abandoned some time ago, and there is some indication that what they would be trying to do is make women jump over an additional hurdle if they want to get an abortion,” Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) told POLITICO this week.
The bill’s authors, including Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), say it’s not their intent to change the way the exemption is applied.
“The language of H.R. 3 was not intended to change existing law regarding taxpayer funding for abortion in cases of rape, nor is it expected that it would do so,” Lipinski told Talking Points Memo in a statement.
Regardless of the intention, the language became an inviting target for critics, and its potential to hijack the debate over taxpayer subsidies for abortion forced a quick reversal from GOP leaders.
---------------------------------
Whee. In the Rush to cater to social conservatives, the GOP underscores why women need to be worried about them.
"boys will be boys" (Southern white) Repugs are also talking about referring to rape victims as rape accusers, since they know most rapes, esp the few that are reported, are really frame jobs by the ladies.
forcible rape, a redundancy, is exactly the kind of politicized language abuse that Repugs excel at.
forcible rape as opposed to consensual rape?
I don't ing understand why some people think they have more rights than others when it comes to ing about taxpayer spending.
Do pacifists get bans on overseas military spending? or bans on spending money for pre-emptive wars? or bans for spending money on ANY war that isn't in direct self-defense of the nation?
do I get a ban on things I don't like?
. this is a woman's body. if she doesn't want to ing have a baby, let her abort. it should be the same as any other medical condition or service.
christians.
Are they trying to make a distinction between "forcible rape" and "date rape"? Just curious. I think there have been numerous false allegations of date rape. I'm not trying to defend what they're doing, just wondering what gives with the terminology.
When is date rape not forcible?
Forcible rape and statutory rape... which is very rarely forcible.
when fraud is involved.
That means there is no rape at all.
Some of you are unclear on the concept.
When roofies are involved
I don't want to pay taxes that go to abortion clinics, all this crap derails the subject in hand.
Force does not have to be physical-- it can be chemical.
afraid not. If you tell someone that unless they sleep with you they will die of an illness, that is rape if she wouldn't have consented had she known that was not true.
So we make it unaffordable? Then we have unnecessary babies without sufficient homes? Are you going to adopt them?
You should think more into what you're saying.
Somehow I doubt that's what Republicans had in mind when they wrote the legislation.
And it's still forcible since there is a threat. Replace "disease" with "gunshot wound" and how does it look to you?
I guess, like, if you threaten to throw acid in someone's face unless they have sex.
just so you guys know, you can't have sex with a girl who has passed-out drunk. it doesn't matter that she voluntarily got drunk.
Is it legal for a woman to consent to sex if she has razor blades in her yoo-hoo but doesn't tell you?
Would that be any different than a woman with HIV consenting to sex without telling you?
These aren't questions of consent.
If you want to call it something other then questions of consent, is it legal or not?
Cutting someone's penis up with razors has nothing to do with sexual consent. That's assault or felony assault, unless the man was attempting to rape you, in which case it would be up to the court to decide what to do with the situation. Of course it's not legal to attack someone or inflict undue physical harm. However, if that case were to go to court, I'm sure it would concern a woman's right to defend herself from physical harm as well.
I'm sorry these things happened to you, but that's what fingers and condoms are for.
Perhaps you should start a new thread.
Perhaps you should tell me why its wrong to do this but ok for an abortion.
Her body, her choice?
Abortion is legal.
Assault is not.
Any other questions?
If you're not doing anything or moving. Is it assault?
Are you always a pretentious prick or can you have a discussion?
As much as laying a bear trap in a dark doorway you know someone will be walking through. There may be different names for the actual charge, but it's not legal.
I can have a discussion.Are you always a pretentious prick or can you have a discussion?
Any other questions?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote