Redefining rape with the GOP
I usually try not to stray too far outside of Wisconsin politics, but this is just too abhorrent to ignore: House Republicans are currently trying to pass H.R. 3, the so-called "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." In addition to the whole thing being a disingenuous PR stunt because federal law in place since 1976 -- the Hyde Amendment -- already forbids the use of taxpayer money in relation to abortion funding. The only exceptions to the rule are for cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and his backers would like to see that changed, however. In fact, they'd like to go so far as to redefine what constitutes "rape" on your behalf. Considerate, no? If they get their way and the new act passes, the only exception would be for "forcible rape" -- something none of them have yet been willing to define in detail.That means things like statutory rape would not be covered. Over at Mother Jones, they've got a good example of what the implications of that restriction might we be:
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.
It gets worse, too. According to legal scholars, who take issue with the bill's hazy wording, "Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes."
Because none of those cases are necessarily "forcible" -- i.e. violent.
But they're definitely still rape, no matter what the GOP or other supports of this bill (including a few Democrats) might like us to believe.
Nice to see that the new "jobs-and-economy focused" majority's first priority is stripping rights away from rape survivors. Tiger Beatdown has more:
If your rapist drugged you, intoxicated you, or raped you while you were unconscious, you don't get coverage. If your rapist used coercion, you don't get coverage. If this is a case of statutory rape -- that is, if you are a thirteen-year-old child, raped by someone outside of your family -- you don't get coverage. If you're an incest survivor over the age of eighteen -- if, say, years of abuse only culminated in a pregnancy after your nineteenth birthday -- you just don't get coverage. And if you live in a state that doesn't distinguish "forcible rape" from "rape," you might not qualify, meaning that no matter what the circumstances of your assault were, well, sorry: You might not get coverage.
...It's not a coincidence that rape involving "force" -- and remember that proving "force" often means proving an overwhelming and potentially deadly amount of violence; other sorts of force often get swept under the rug -- is less common than other methods. This bill would deny coverage to most survivors. That's what it's about. That's what it's intended to do.
The bill was already offensive enough in that it aims to severely limit abortion access for some of the most at-risk and in-need populations in the country: low-income and working class women who wouldn't be able to afford an abortion at all if not for insurance or Medicaid. That's important just in terms of making sure we're treating people equally, but also because too many women experience longer delays in obtaining abortion services due to lack of money and lack of access.
In fact, "Fifty-eight percent of abortion patients say they would have liked to have had their abortion earlier. Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cite the time it took to make arrangements and raise money." That lag time can lead to an increased risk for complications, but mostly cause further stress on and complications in the woman's life.
This bill is a bold-faced maneuver by the anti-abortion movement to massively ramp up their efforts (some already successful) to erode women's rights in this country. Though it doesn't outright strip a woman's right to choose, it does everything in its power to eliminate any good options for action should her choice be to terminate the pregnancy. It's part of the de-facto Roe v. Wade repeal that anti-choice advocates crave, since they know that actually overturning the law outright is still, thankfully, pretty impossible.
It's time to stand up and put down this reprehensible piece of wannabe legislation that Speaker John Boehner has called a "top priority." Call your representatives, tell your friends, speak out -- heck, take to Twitter (hashtag #DearJohn):
Right now, we're Tweeting at the Boehner -- oh, look! Here he is -- and at all of our representatives, and we're going to keep Tweeting, to tell them that this bill is an attack on the rights of survivors everywhere, and that it will not stand. We're Tweeting to say that all rape is rape. We're Tweeting to tell them the many ways that this leaves women open to attack and reproductive coercion. We're Tweeting to tell them that the exemption for cases of rape and incest must stand, and that it must apply in all cases. We're Tweeting to tell them that we will not support them if they back it, we will not support them if they "compromise" on "just this one thing" -- the rights and dignity of rape survivors are never to be compromised, under any circumstances -- and they will not be able to push this redefinition of rape forward. We're the American people; we got them the jobs they have, and if we are unsatisfied with their performance? We can get them oh, so very, very fired.
Don't know who your representative is? Find them here, along with ways to contact them.
Strengthening marriage or just an anti-gay agenda?
Apparently Governor Scott Walker has found time in his busy job-killing day to issue a proclamation in support of National Marriage Week -- a movement "which encourages citizens, churches, businesses, organizations and community leaders to strengthen marriage."
You might notice that the above link is to the National Organization for Marriage's (NOM) website. The group is vehemently anti-gay rights and even toured around the country to anemic crowds -- including one in Madison -- to spread their message of misguided, homophobic marriage law. I'm not surprised, then, that both NOM and the Wisconsin Family Council have issued statements (PDF) crowing about Walker's endorsement.
What neither they nor Walker seem to recognize, however, is that if they really wanted to "strengthen marriage" and society as a whole, they'd be in favor of letting homosexuals get hitched, too.
Want to create more loving, healthy home environments for more children? Recognize the equal rights of gay couples to marry and raise children just like anyone else. Especially in terms of adoption, I can't think of a better home life for a kid than being taken in by people who want you there. Rarely if ever are there accidental pregnancies/children in gay families, is all I'm saying.
Oh and Walker? If you're so gung-ho about luring people away from Illinois, fully legalizing same-sex marriage would go a long way toward attracting a whole group of professionals -- since you'd be one-upping the state's move that legalized civil unions just yesterday.
Just a thought.
