Congress

Rape Redefined and Brought to You by Members of the US House of Representatives

Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger

The new Republican majority in the House of Representatives is moving to make changes in abortion law. The new No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H. R. 5939) has 173 co-sponsors—most of them Republicans. According to The House GOP’s Plan to Redefine Rape, an article in Mother Jones that was written by Nick Baumann, John Boehner (R-OH) considers the bill a top priority for the new Congress. The bill, reportedly, includes a provision that rewrites the definition of rape.

Federal laws that have restricted the use of government funds for abortions have contained exemptions for pregnancies that resulted from rape and incest and for pregnancies that could endanger the lives of women. Evidently, the new legislation proposes that the rape exemption be limited to “forcible rape.”

Laurie Levenson, an expert on criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said that the authors of the bill used language that was unclear. She thinks that some women will probably lose protection if the bill becomes law. Evidently, the term “forcible rape” is not defined in the criminal code—and the authors of the new bill did not provide their own definition of the term. In addition, there is no legal definition of “forcible rape” in some states. This would make it unclear whether any abortions could be covered by the rape exemption in those states.

What are some types of rape that would no longer be covered by the rape exemption if this bill becomes law? The rapes of women with limited mental capacity and rapes in which women were drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol.

Sources: Mother Jones

130 thoughts on “Rape Redefined and Brought to You by Members of the US House of Representatives”

  1. Elaine, I am still on my vacation as the plane was cancelled due to bad weather in Dallas. This assault on women by the republicans started faster than I could even have imagined. Also, Breitbart is going after Planned Parenthood in an attempt to run them out of business as they did ACORN.

  2. rafflaw,

    I just found this:

    From The Raw Story (2/1/2011)
    Exclusive: Dem calls GOP rape-redefining bill ‘a violent act against women’
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/wasserman-schultz-gop-rape-violent-women/

    Excerpts:
    WASHINGTON – Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) on Monday tore into House Republicans for proposing legislation that would limit access to abortion coverage for some rape victims.

    The Florida Democrat, a rising star in her party and vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, is a leading voice on women’s issues. And she didn’t mince her words in an interview with Raw Story, fiercely denouncing GOP colleagues over H.R. 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.”

    “It is absolutely outrageous,” Wasserman Schultz said in an exclusive interview late Monday afternoon. “I consider the proposal of this bill a violent act against women.”
    *****

    “It really is — to suggest that there is some kind of rape that would be okay to force a woman to carry the resulting pregnancy to term, and abandon the principle that has been long held, an exception that has been settled for 30 years, is to me a violent act against women in and of itself,” Wasserman Schultz said.

    “Rape is when a woman is forced to have sex against her will, and that is whether she is conscious, unconscious, mentally stable, not mentally stable,” the four-term congresswoman added.

  3. Elaine,
    Great links on this issue. It is really a big issue that the main stream media seems to be ignoring for the most part.

  5. From Huffington Post (2/1/2011)
    What’s Behind The Drive To Redefine Rape In New And Insane Ways?
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/01/whats-behind-the-drive-to-redefine-rape_n_816967.html

    Excerpt:
    The recent drive behind H.R. 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” is animated by one thing and one thing only — the deep and abiding belief among its cosponsors that women are chattel. Not even that “babies are great” — many of the same cosponsors are those who’d all but wash their hands of the responsibility of ensuring those children got affordable health care. But what’s getting all of the attention in the bill is the part where legislators have banded together to mansplain the various shadings of the crime of “rape” to America.

    Definition of “mansplain”:
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mansplain

  6. petition signed, word passed…
    Rape is NEVER JUSTIFIED, NEVER SUPPORTABLE….and it’s NASty (Not About Sex…)

  10. Now may be a good time to remember that Mr. Boehner is next in line to the Presidency after VP Biden. Followed by Mr. Inouye, Ms. Clinton, Mr. Geithner, and Mr. Gates.

    Think about it.

  11. Stamford, you could be right. He does have a slurred speech issue quite often as well.
    Tomdarch,
    I mentioned earlier that if a child is abused by a parent on mulitple occasions, it may no longer being considered forcible since the victim did not “resist”. Date rape situations might not be considered rape because the victim was not forced to have sex.

  12. rafflaw:

    “That is the rumor about Mr. Speaker.”

    Slurred speech is usually an indicator. From my perspective, it seems every time John of Orange has a press conference, he slurs his way through it.

  14. How is the current federal law enforced? If there is an exception for “rape” (without a verbal qualifier) must there be some proof, like a criminal conviction, an indictment or a police report? I’m trying to get at the question of what/how might this wording change translate into reality.

    Yes, this changes sounds like an obviously bad idea, but it also sounds like it might end up having no real world effect.

    This wouldn’t be the first time that the politicians in DC throw their “culture war” driven suckers/donors/volunteers/voters some meaningless crap in exchange for donations, hours of volunteering and/or votes. The anti-abortion crowd has been played and strung along for decades now. (I suspect that playing to them was a big part of McCain selecting Palin, for example).

    The only real progress they could make would be with a constitutional amendment, and that isn’t going to happen any time soon. Instead, the professional politicians talk up a storm and fight little skirmishes of trying to increase the regulatory burden on healthcare providers and creating odd barriers for minors seeking abortions. As long as the single-issue voters reward them for this trickle of dreck, the right-wing politicians will continue feeding it to them and collecting the corporate cash that is the reward for their real work in DC.

  18. Wlaine,
    Great link to Roy Orbison singing about Mr. Speaker Boehner. I am trying to figure out who is stranger, Roy Orbison or Boehner and I am afraid Boehner is stranger, but he may have some “medical” issues that causes the frequent crying.

  19. Stamford Liberal,”At this point in time, I shouldn’t have to deal with it – I am tired of being shoved to the side and told to deal with it. Particularly when those telling me to do so are seeking to define rights and laws based on their sorry-ass beliefs.”

    I agree with only a couple added thoughts…if you shove me aside and tell me to go deal with what you have wrought based on your sorry-ass beliefs at the expense of my sore-bottom end, why do you also think you have a right to tell me HOW and with what PARAMETERS I must use to deal with it?

  20. Elaine M.,

    “Crying” – you need to stop this. It is cruel and unusual punishment. My stomach hurts from laughing!!

Comments are closed.