I first saw this when it was posted by a friend of mine on Facebook. She is a limited-government, fiscal libertarian who has nothing but antipathy for the Left. However, this sort of stuff (along with the fixation on gay marriage) is why she will never support the GOP. She suspects that behind all of the small-government rhetoric is really just Party obsessed with social conservatism. I must confess, I think she might be right.
I'm not saying that social conservatism is wrong-headed, or unworthy of consideration. Indeed, whether this plan is a good idea or not is fairly unimportant. We've been screaming that the fiscal/Constitutional sky is falling, and then when given the chance to run things, we trot stuff like this out. I hardly think that the voters last November elected a GOP House so that they could tackle this burning problem, rather than slashing the size of the Federal government and bringing it in line with the Constitution. Repealing Obamacare is a nice, symbolic, first-step. Once the government is actually limited and solvent, maybe then we should deal with stuff like this.
As for ABC News reprinting Mother Jones...have they ever not?
I hope this article is grossly incorrect or slanted. Because if the GOP is trying to limit federal funding for abortion this way, it is the wrong way. Argue the case on the merits, rather than redefining what rape is and is not, particularly if the definition is ridiculous, which is how it appears here.
This is a bill in the first stages of being legislated. At least that is my understanding. It does not surprise me at all that some wording may not yet match the bills true goals. Has the sponsor stated that using the term 'forced rape' is aimed at limiting the scope beyond current law?
Same with the idea of not being able to use an HSA to pay for it. It would not surprise me that while focusing on an law about the use of federal funds, the author simply neglected to consider the tax implications. This is WHY there are committees and amendments. At least there are when the Democrats are not running things.
While in committees and the Congress as a whole consider it, words will likely changes. Why expect the initial draft to be perfect?
Maybe I'm too harsh a critic but for years I've treated everything I see on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, & NYT as if it had been selected, sourced and shaped by such hardcore ideologues as Mother Jones, Nation, NBC, NYT -- oh wait.
OBQuiet: narrative is much more important than content. If you can get the left riled up about how the GOP wants to take away freedom, then the mainstream picks up on it without question
Unfortunately this is the problem bec of the misguided notion of allowing abortions for cases of rape: You have to then "define" which "kinds" of rape are to be funded.
I mean, think about it -- if a woman wants to have her abortion paid for, all she has to do is say that she was raped. I imagine that Rep Smith is trying to prevent false claims.
However, further thought brings me to the conclusion that it would be cruel to require a woman to *prove* she was raped. Even simply requiring a police report would be a step too far (assuming an actual crime -- obviously, it would be easy enough to prevaricate).
I'm not sure how this problem is solved -- but part of it is to stop looking at children conceived by rape as "demon seed" -- babies should not be considered less worthy of living bec of the circumstances that created them or who their father was.
The rapist provided half a cell -- the mother is the one giving life. It is *her* child. As victims, both mother and child deserve help -- esp'ly emotionally. But the crime should not mean an automatic death sentence for an innocent child.
OBQuiet: the uproar is, you can't "define" rape, because - according to some people anyway - rape is whatever the victim says it is.
No setting limits. Especially if it restricts access to abortion...
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but - to say something politically incorrect yet I feel deeply and strongly about it - it's really not fair to the rape victims, when people who quite frankly aren't really victims and weren't really raped are appropriating the seriousness of the offense as a way to play victim politics and/or avoid the consequences of irresponsible behavior.
False claims are real. There are a lot of women out there who will actually go as far as self-mutilation, either because they want attention/have mental issues or because they want to frame someone. Limiting abortion to cases of rape adds another incentive.
But the left's preferred tactic is to make the entire conversation taboo. "There are some things that should just be beyond discussion." (Like anything having to do with identity politics, especially when the left is trying to piggyback on the genuine moral authority of some civil rights issues to push the boundaries beyond where the boundaries really ought to be going)
BTW simple answer to the case of rape: instead of killing the baby, attempt to pull the child out live and place it with a surrogate mother. Even if the child doesn't survive the attempt, it would still be better than having to endure an abortion (but we all know that if we actually did this, it wouldn't take us long to develop the technology for a successful transplant, if indeed we don't already have it). Make the biological parents - male and female both - liable for the costs of the procedure, the surrogacy, and any child support (until the child is adopted), but allow an exemption for rape victims. In this way NO woman is ever forced to carry a child she did not intend. The question of who has and has not been raped is reduced to a merely monetary question. It might even end up making it easier for couples who want to adopt.
1. Joro's comments about surrogate motherhood are interesting and at the moment unfeasible. The point is if you are on Medicaid you likely are unable to pay for a procedure that costs many thousands of dollars. I do wonder though how the abortion debate will change once it is viable to remain fertilized eggs/embryos from the womb that can survive. Would it be morally allowable instead of abortions to warehouse embryos indefinitely? Also I wonder how things will change if medical science gets around to making men capable of carrying and bearing children.
Also Joro, though a few women do falsely claim they are raped..there are many others who have been raped we never hear from. Rape is the most unreported crime in the world. And though we do not criminalize our rape victims like in some countries our society has a long history of heaping blame on the victim and adding to her/his shame.
2. C Moran,Pregnancy lasts nine months during which a woman can go through a number of uncomfortable and even dangerous medical changes to her body. Subjecting that to a person against their will following a rape could be considered cruelty. You are adding on to what is already an extremely tragic and emotional episode--not to mention the hormones involved. So you would have her suffer through pregnancy--the nausea, back pains, multiple exams, diet restrictions, fluctuating hormones, possible preclymsia and postpartum depression and other potential pregnancy dangers all while being reminded every single day that she was raped for nine months? There is a reason why there is a rape exemption supported by many pro-lifers.
3. Craig, I agree it is one of the reasons I have avoided the GOP. Making a caveat for "forcible" rape, refusing to define it, and then claiming it is targeted at statutory rape when you could just spell that out is disgusting.
I first saw this when it was posted by a friend of mine on Facebook. She is a limited-government, fiscal libertarian who has nothing but antipathy for the Left. However, this sort of stuff (along with the fixation on gay marriage) is why she will never support the GOP. She suspects that behind all of the small-government rhetoric is really just Party obsessed with social conservatism. I must confess, I think she might be right.
I'm not saying that social conservatism is wrong-headed, or unworthy of consideration. Indeed, whether this plan is a good idea or not is fairly unimportant. We've been screaming that the fiscal/Constitutional sky is falling, and then when given the chance to run things, we trot stuff like this out. I hardly think that the voters last November elected a GOP House so that they could tackle this burning problem, rather than slashing the size of the Federal government and bringing it in line with the Constitution. Repealing Obamacare is a nice, symbolic, first-step. Once the government is actually limited and solvent, maybe then we should deal with stuff like this.
As for ABC News reprinting Mother Jones...have they ever not?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hope this article is grossly incorrect or slanted. Because if the GOP is trying to limit federal funding for abortion this way, it is the wrong way. Argue the case on the merits, rather than redefining what rape is and is not, particularly if the definition is ridiculous, which is how it appears here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe ABC page is now unavailable. Looks like you busted 'em, Kathryn!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseClicked on Mother Jones and the page is available.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMore concerned on if it's true. Waiting for facts. The left wing social media squawk machine was going full bore.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYep, the ABC link is dead.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseClearly, they are just following Whoopi's lead, making sure we're talking about rape-rape.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI guess that Tass must be taking a hard line on their copyrights.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am not sure I understand the uproar.
This is a bill in the first stages of being legislated. At least that is my understanding. It does not surprise me at all that some wording may not yet match the bills true goals. Has the sponsor stated that using the term 'forced rape' is aimed at limiting the scope beyond current law?
Same with the idea of not being able to use an HSA to pay for it. It would not surprise me that while focusing on an law about the use of federal funds, the author simply neglected to consider the tax implications. This is WHY there are committees and amendments. At least there are when the Democrats are not running things.
While in committees and the Congress as a whole consider it, words will likely changes. Why expect the initial draft to be perfect?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe I'm too harsh a critic but for years I've treated everything I see on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, & NYT as if it had been selected, sourced and shaped by such hardcore ideologues as Mother Jones, Nation, NBC, NYT -- oh wait.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOBQuiet: narrative is much more important than content. If you can get the left riled up about how the GOP wants to take away freedom, then the mainstream picks up on it without question
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnfortunately this is the problem bec of the misguided notion of allowing abortions for cases of rape: You have to then "define" which "kinds" of rape are to be funded.
I mean, think about it -- if a woman wants to have her abortion paid for, all she has to do is say that she was raped. I imagine that Rep Smith is trying to prevent false claims.
However, further thought brings me to the conclusion that it would be cruel to require a woman to *prove* she was raped. Even simply requiring a police report would be a step too far (assuming an actual crime -- obviously, it would be easy enough to prevaricate).
I'm not sure how this problem is solved -- but part of it is to stop looking at children conceived by rape as "demon seed" -- babies should not be considered less worthy of living bec of the circumstances that created them or who their father was.
The rapist provided half a cell -- the mother is the one giving life. It is *her* child. As victims, both mother and child deserve help -- esp'ly emotionally. But the crime should not mean an automatic death sentence for an innocent child.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOBQuiet: the uproar is, you can't "define" rape, because - according to some people anyway - rape is whatever the victim says it is.
No setting limits. Especially if it restricts access to abortion...
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but - to say something politically incorrect yet I feel deeply and strongly about it - it's really not fair to the rape victims, when people who quite frankly aren't really victims and weren't really raped are appropriating the seriousness of the offense as a way to play victim politics and/or avoid the consequences of irresponsible behavior.
False claims are real. There are a lot of women out there who will actually go as far as self-mutilation, either because they want attention/have mental issues or because they want to frame someone. Limiting abortion to cases of rape adds another incentive.
But the left's preferred tactic is to make the entire conversation taboo. "There are some things that should just be beyond discussion." (Like anything having to do with identity politics, especially when the left is trying to piggyback on the genuine moral authority of some civil rights issues to push the boundaries beyond where the boundaries really ought to be going)
BTW simple answer to the case of rape: instead of killing the baby, attempt to pull the child out live and place it with a surrogate mother. Even if the child doesn't survive the attempt, it would still be better than having to endure an abortion (but we all know that if we actually did this, it wouldn't take us long to develop the technology for a successful transplant, if indeed we don't already have it). Make the biological parents - male and female both - liable for the costs of the procedure, the surrogacy, and any child support (until the child is adopted), but allow an exemption for rape victims. In this way NO woman is ever forced to carry a child she did not intend. The question of who has and has not been raped is reduced to a merely monetary question. It might even end up making it easier for couples who want to adopt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1. Joro's comments about surrogate motherhood are interesting and at the moment unfeasible. The point is if you are on Medicaid you likely are unable to pay for a procedure that costs many thousands of dollars. I do wonder though how the abortion debate will change once it is viable to remain fertilized eggs/embryos from the womb that can survive. Would it be morally allowable instead of abortions to warehouse embryos indefinitely? Also I wonder how things will change if medical science gets around to making men capable of carrying and bearing children.
Also Joro, though a few women do falsely claim they are raped..there are many others who have been raped we never hear from. Rape is the most unreported crime in the world. And though we do not criminalize our rape victims like in some countries our society has a long history of heaping blame on the victim and adding to her/his shame.
2. C Moran,Pregnancy lasts nine months during which a woman can go through a number of uncomfortable and even dangerous medical changes to her body. Subjecting that to a person against their will following a rape could be considered cruelty. You are adding on to what is already an extremely tragic and emotional episode--not to mention the hormones involved. So you would have her suffer through pregnancy--the nausea, back pains, multiple exams, diet restrictions, fluctuating hormones, possible preclymsia and postpartum depression and other potential pregnancy dangers all while being reminded every single day that she was raped for nine months? There is a reason why there is a rape exemption supported by many pro-lifers.
3. Craig, I agree it is one of the reasons I have avoided the GOP. Making a caveat for "forcible" rape, refusing to define it, and then claiming it is targeted at statutory rape when you could just spell that out is disgusting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse