Monday, January 31, 2011

GOP Family Values

Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.

For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) 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.

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)

Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense.
As for the incest exception, the bill would only allow federally funded abortions if the woman is under 18.
The bill hasn't been carefully constructed, Levenson notes. The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill's authors don't offer their own definition. In some states, there is no legal definition of "forcible rape," making it unclear whether any abortions would be covered by the rape exemption in those jurisdictions.

Mother Jones

h/t Alternate Brain

1 comment:

  1. Yep. Read about it on TPM and I agree with their article: it's telling that pro-lifers aren't cheering this on. In fact, they're not saying anything. I know the attitude that informs the words forcible rape. I've seen the misogynist underpinnings behind restricting abortion funding before. Pro-lifers may not want to or even intend to recognize a distinction between real rape (violent rape) and maybe-not-rape (drunk and unable to consent). But if this is an honest Freudian slip it reveals their hostility towards women and female sexuality.

    Lastly, where oh where are the Randian galt heroes of Tea Bagging yore denouncing this government intervention to shift our behavior and attitude towards abortion and rape?


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.