Now that the family values-smaller government crew has gained a foothold in our Congress they are beginning to make their mark.  At a time when we are all concerned about the economy, jobs, outsourcing, escalating health care costs, Mother Jones reports:

But the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.

Should HR 3 pass, among other limts,  parents would no longer be permitted to use Health Savings Account funds to pay for their teenager daughter’s pregnancy, unless it was from “forcible rape”.  Hmm, you say, what defines “forcible rape”?  That is unclear.  No definitions are provided, and some states do not have a definition.  Mind you, HSA accounts are funded by the individual contributor on a pre-tax basis.

Oh, there is an incest exception, but only if the woman is under 18.  No coverage for women who were drugged, given excessive alcohol, or with limited mental abilities.

Contact your Congressman, let him know that HR 3 takes us backwards and that there are much more pressing issues we want them to address.

 

13 Responses to So it begins…

  1. JMPrince says:

    And Rep. Chris Smith is & has been a very determined madman on this issue forever. And it’s actually far worse than imagined, even with the likely ‘red herring’ rape provision removed:
    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/2/2/940765/-H.R.-3-hides-even-bigger-dangers-than-redefinition-of-rape

    JMP

  2. Robert J. says:

    Hoping to not step on religious toes, but it seems to me that the ultra-conservative evangelicals don’t want rape defined at all because they do believe that women should have next to no rights whatsoever.

    Legislate about what men can do or not with THEIR bodies and stand back to absorb the explosion.

    Where is the outcry about men not wearing condoms?

    Where is the outcry about attacking the women who wear what they want to wear? Or calling them sl*ts or hos if they wear something men see as provacative?

    Frankly, all the garbage attached to this issue stems from the Southern states which are dominated by regressive right-wing radicals.

    • Jen B. says:

      I know it’s easy to place the blame of the Southern states; however.. the sponsor of this legislation is from Jersey and plenty of the cosponsors are from non-Southern states, like California, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

      Rednecks are everywhere.

  3. EGaluszka says:

    Now, I’m going to begin this by saying I 100% understand the reason Republicans are doing this is to restrict abortion, and the entire idea of redefining a crime to appeal to a special-interest group is pretty bad. That having been said, it’s not like different tiers of crimes haven’t existed in the past. There are dozens of different crimes representing taking the property of someone else without their permission, and there are even multiple levels of murder.

    While what they’re doing is repugnant, it’s not exactly without precedent. You can’t really be upset with this without being mad about property crime laws being written to protect white collar criminals and the rich.

    • Jen B. says:

      I’m honestly confused by your comment.

      Are you saying that since there are different types of rape, then this bill is reasonable in making a distinction?

      Just so everyone’s clear, there are two types of rape in Georgia.

      Rape – Sexual intercourse without consent; or sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 11.
      Statutory Rape – Sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 16.

      There are some caveats, but they aren’t really relevant to this discussion.

      • EGaluszka says:

        I’m saying that the definition of a crime based on the level of violence involved, the use or nonuse of a weapon, whether the perpetrator was on a controlled substance, and whether the action was premeditated have all been used to define a crime in the past. The people trying to redefine rape are assholes, but they aren’t assholes for that reason.

        • Jen B. says:

          But those reasons have not been used to define rape. Rape is sexual intercourse without consent. Historically, there’s not been a distinction made if the rapist has a weapon or if the victim was drugged. So yes, they are assholes for that reason.

          • EGaluszka says:

            Actually, there has been. Several jurisdictions have distinctions between the acts of sexual battery and aggravated sexual battery, including in our neighbor of Tennessee.

            • Jen B. says:

              Fair enough. I’m not familiar with the laws of Tennessee or other states.

              I guess Georgia is fairly ‘progressive’ in that realm. Ha! Georgia has sexual batter and aggravated sexual battery, but they relate to non-vaginal intercourse conduct.

              • Jen B. says:

                And also let me clear, they are still assholes since they are not allowing a thirteen year old who was raped by her father to get an abortion.

              • EGaluszka says:

                Georgia’s laws on rape have less to do with “progressivism” and more to do with having one of the most regressive, anti-defendant systems in the country. Thank you, Zell Miller.

  4. Juliana says:

    I hate these people.

    I suppose the cranky political person in me knows it won’t pass the Senate and the President is unlikely to sign it, but really? As is pointed out… sheesh folks more important things to focus on.

  5. Jen B. says:

    Thanks Catherine. I’ve been meaning to post this. I mean, FFS, if you’re raped by your father at the age of thirteen, but it’s not ‘forcible’ because you feel like you have to go along with it.. then well, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE CHILD!