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”

  2. Amberlynn 1, February 7, 2011 at 11:32 pm “I cried when I read this…I hope to God it is a cruel joke…”
    ———————
    You are not alone in your crying. And yes, it’s no joke and definitely cruel. I have tried to understand where these people are coming from and I don’t think it has anything to do with rape or even women. If men could make babies they would be treated the same way by this particular mob. This is quite simply a gang who are so invested in power that the right to say yes or no to the beginning or ending of life is no longer a dialogue between Wo/Man and G*d, because they actually think they are G*d. So now, in order to see that rape and its many variants are made fruitful, unless THEY say otherwise, they are willing to rape a whole Country.

    A major problem is that they have proven to be totally resistant to reason or even dialogue….it is a proven fact, you can not listen and be present when there is the loud clattering and clanging of agenda in your mind…

    Hatred- The Anger of the Weak.

  3. Swarthmore mom,

    Thanks for the link.

    **********

    The GOP hasn’t given up yet! They’ve inserted a provision in the “Protect Life Act” that would deny pregnant women with life-threatening conditions the right to get abortions in order to save their lives. Read the following article:

    From Mother Jones (2/8/2011)
    If You Thought the GOP’s “Rape Redefinition” Bill Was Bad…
    Check out the new proposal that could allow doctors to refuse to provide any abortion—even one intended to save a woman’s life.
    — By Maddie Oatman
    http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/joe-pitts-protect-life-act-abortion

    Excerpt:

    Last week, the GOP backed down from its attempt to limit the definition of rape under federal abortion law. But hold your applause: While the Republican leadership was removing the controversial “forcible rape” provision from the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) was busy slipping a provision into a related bill, the “Protect Life Act,” that could prove just as controversial.

    Supporters of abortion rights say Pitts’ latest effort would allow doctors and hospitals to refuse to perform any abortion, even one that was needed to save the life of a pregnant woman. A Pitts spokesman told Talking Points Memo on Friday that the bill simply clarifies existing law and suggested that the new measure does not go beyond current law. (That’s the same claim that defenders of the “forcible rape” language made before ultimately scrapping it.) But contra Pitts’ attempt to downplay the new provision, a close look shows that it may change what hospitals are required to do in the very rare cases when an abortion is needed to save a woman’s life—and the provision itself may even be unconstitutional.

    As it stands right now, a pregnant woman with a life-threatening condition cannot be turned away by a hospital, even if her condition requires a doctor to abort her child. A federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), requires hospitals that receive federal funds (almost all of them do) to provide you with emergency treatment or transfer you to a hospital that can. Pitts’ provision would trump that law, allowing a doctor to not only deny an abortion to a dying pregnant woman but to also refuse to transfer that woman to a place where she might be able to receive an abortion. In fact, the hospital would not be required to do anything at all.

  4. Swarthmore Mom,
    Thanks for the latest link to the Democratic response to this craziness. Elaine, thanks for keeping this issue alive.
    Amberlynn,
    I am sorry for your pain, but this is no joke. These right to live crusaders only care about keeping their radical base enflamed and certaintly not women and children.

  6. As a woman who was raped…and recieved no bruises or broken bones…and no child…I still find this to be the most horrid piece of shit ever. BROKEN BONES ARE NOTHING compared to your EMOTIONAL DAMAGE! What idiot, woman hating, rapist thought up this crap? You need control on the women filing false claims…understandable…so your solution is to punish thoes who really are? To deny them them thier rights as a HUMAN BEING not just a woman!!! NO MEANS NO! THATS RAPE! I cried when I read this…I hope to God it is a cruel joke…

  7. You have my most profound sympathy, “Woosty’s still a Cat”. I run into these nuts occasionally but only ever on the internet. That’s bad enough, at least I don’t have to deal with people like that in real life, and much less so in positions where they might actually have the power to put their wicked, inhuman notions into practice.

  8. this is bizarro….what’s really going on in those hallowed halls that the inflammatory rape card, and now the death card are being played?

    Well they’ve almost been successfull at having me pack my bags and move to a more civilized place….

  9. Elaine: My friend that lobbies for Planned parenthood is working overtime. The republican victories at the state and national level have dealt women a major setback regardless of what Tony C says. Rick Perry has abortion bills listed as emergency legislation here.

  10. Thanks to Woosty and Buddha and everyone who is posting links on the subject of this thread.

    Now…read this!

    From TPMDC (2/4/2011)
    New GOP Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Let Women Die Instead Of Having An Abortion
    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/new-gop-law-would-allow-hospitals-to-let-women-die-instead-of-having-an-abortion.php?ref=fpb

    Excerpt:
    The controversy over “forcible rape” may be over, but now there’s a new Republican-sponsored abortion bill in the House that pro-choice folks say may be worse: this time around, the new language would allow hospitals to let a pregnant woman die rather than perform the abortion that would save her life.

    The bill, known currently as H.R. 358 or the “Protect Life Act,” would amend the 2010 health care reform law that would modify the way Obamacare deals with abortion coverage. Much of its language is modeled on the so-called Stupak Amendment, an anti-abortion provision pro-life Democrats attempted to insert into the reform law during the health care debate last year. But critics say a new language inserted into the bill just this week would go far beyond Stupak, allowing hospitals that receive federal funds but are opposed to abortions to turn away women in need of emergency pregnancy termination to save their lives.

    The sponsor of H.R. 358, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) is a vocal member of the House’s anti-abortion wing. A member of the bipartisan Pro-Life Caucus and a co-sponsor of H.R 3 — the bill that added “forcible rape” to the lexicon this week — Pitts is no stranger to the abortion debate. But pro-choice advocates say his new law goes farther than any other bill has in encroaching on the rights of women to obtain an abortion when their health is at stake. They say the bill is giant leap away from accepted law, and one they haven’t heard many in the pro-life community openly discuss before.

    Pitts’ response to the complaints from pro-choice groups? Nothing to see here.

  11. Independent Thinker 1, February 3, 2011 at 3:47 pm

    I think the point of this proposed bill is being missed. Although I support a woman’s right to choose, the Federal Government shouldn’t be funding abortions, period. That is a State’s responsibility and should be legislated accordingly.
    ———————————

    I’m trying to remember if there was Federal funding for busing during desegregation…..I know they spent a lot of money via Nat’l Guard to help keep order consequently …

  14. IT,

    Why don’t you just propose that to the several states and see if you can get some soliloquy of excellence in offering…or maybe you should back to your crack pipe as you still have the possibility of getting hi from some of the residual Drano …..

  16. I think the point of this proposed bill is being missed. Although I support a woman’s right to choose, the Federal Government shouldn’t be funding abortions, period. That is a State’s responsibility and should be legislated accordingly.

  17. On sooner have there useless loonies managed to stage a swift withdrawal of their idiotic “forcible rape” language than the run into another mound of trouble with a clause in another bill that would allow hospitals to refuse an abortion that was needed to save a woman’s life.

    By the way, did I say these people were a bunch of useless bloody loonies? The British National Health Service isn’t perfect but at least we don’t have to put up with brainless wankers like this messing women’s lives up.

    http://dlvr.it/FkZyr (NARAL)

  18. Lottakatz, thanks, every once in a great while I get to use colorful language to meaningful effect 🙂

  19. rafflaw,

    I know what the Republicans are attempting to do. Did they think their devious tactics weren’t obvious to anyone with even half a brain?

    The reason I posted the definitions was because the fact that all rapes are forced upon unwilling individuals isn’t being discussed. Even I didn’t address it in my post. Shame on me!

  20. Elaine,
    you would be correct, but the Republicans are trying the back door approach, as Woosty suggests, to overturn Roe v. Wade. They have no real care about women or rape, but they do love their blastos!

Comments are closed.