The Misogynist Bill's Sponsors
The Post, tonight:
So if it isn't violent, it isn't rape.
Shelby Knox posts the names of the sponsors of the bill ...
It's hard to figure out why these legislators are not more concerned about women's rights. Republicans, you say?
A Republican bill seeking to permanently cut off federal funding for abortions has angered women's groups who say it alters the definition of rape, permitting coverage for the procedure only in cases in which the rape is considered "forcible." Legislative proposal puts abortion rights supporters on alert
So if it isn't violent, it isn't rape.
Shelby Knox posts the names of the sponsors of the bill ...
It's hard to figure out why these legislators are not more concerned about women's rights. Republicans, you say?
posted by JimK at 9:53 PM
10 Comments:
all Congressmen and Congresswomen have an inherently biased point of view
their mothers didn't kill them so they find it hard to identify with the victims of abortion
fortunately, Republicans are willing to stand up for the rights of weak, who can't stand up for themselves
"Republicans are willing to stand up for the rights of weak"
Right, as long as the "weak" aren't blacks, immigrants, gays, Muslims, women, Jewish, or needy.
Well, "forcible rape" seems redundant to me.
Probably what has happened is that pro-aborts have watered down the meaning of "rape" so much that the word "forcible" needs to be added.
For instance, according to the article, pro aborts think that drugging a woman and then raping her is not "forcible?"
Interesting.
"Right, as long as the "weak" aren't blacks, immigrants, gays, Muslims, women, Jewish, or needy."
Please do provide us with the statement from Republicans advocating legalized murder of any member of those groups.
Democrats think its OK to kill a baby if it hasn't been born yet and is inconvenient.
There is no equivalent view among Republicans regarding any other group.
"Probably what has happened is that pro-aborts have watered down the meaning of "rape" so much that the word "forcible" needs to be added."
That's true.
Pro-infanticide groups have also done that with the word "health."
First, it was argued to be OK to kill a baby if it threatened the life of the mother. Then, it was the "health" of the mother. Then, that was broadened to include "mental health." Then, "mental health" came to include freedom from any stress.
So, now they think it's OK to kill children if they may cause any stress.
Any parents out there?
Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and his 173 co-sponsors approve this language in H.R. 3 "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act:"
"'The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--
(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest;"
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3/text
Smith and his co-sponsors do not define "forcible" within H.R.3. The authors of this bill need to define precisely what they mean by "forcible" so everyone can be clear if being drugged and raped is "forcible" per this proposed legislation or not.
Here's a quote from the Washington Post article:
"In a sign of the potential confusion that could arise, one senior GOP aide said the wording was meant to prevent coverage for minors who engage in consensual sex that results in pregnancy. In some states, consensual sex involving minors is considered statutory rape.
But Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, said he interpreted the wording to exclude all statutory rape, which is typically understood as sex between an adult and a minor.
"We don't believe that the Hyde Amendment has ever been construed to permit federal funding for abortion based merely on the youth of the mother," said Johnson, whose group supports exemptions only in cases where the life of the woman is threatened."
"Anonymous" said:
"Please do provide us with the statement from Republicans advocating legalized murder..."
We have been beset for years and years by "pro-life" (sic)Republicans who are, in fact, supportive of "legalized murder". It's very difficult to find one who actually opposes the death penalty, currently in vogue in just about every state.
Put your money where your mouth is!
personally, I oppose the death penalty but it's not murder
it is a penalty exacted on those who have committed heinous crimes
to compare innocent children to these venal monsters is heinous in and of itself
A child is not "innocent" until he/she is born.
How do you reconcile that with the Christian belief that "we are all born into sin"?
What is murder if it isn't killing?
The death penalty is analogous to killing another human being. But then again, in your thinking, they are just throw-aways anyway, so semantics be damned.
"What is murder if it isn't killing?"
let's ask Merriam-Webster:
the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
a child is guilty of no capital offense
only God is qualified to punish sin
"Republican lawmakers have removed the term "forcible rape" from an antiabortion bill in Congress after women's groups accused them of trying to change the widely held definition of rape.
The bill, called the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, seeks to permanently bar federal funds from being used to subsidize abortions. It allows exceptions in cases in which the pregnancy resulted from incest or when the life of the mother would be threatened if the fetus was carried to term.
In the original language, it also allowed exceptions in cases of "forcible rape." The term provoked an outcry from critics, who said rape is by definition committed by force and that lawmakers were seeking to exclude from coverage certain kinds of rape by adding the modifier - for example, cases in which the victim was underage or unconscious.
The bill now echoes existing law by taking out the term "forcible" and excepting all cases of rape.
A spokesman for Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.), a chief sponsor of the bill, said Thursday that they decided to change the term because it was being "misconstrued."
Hearings on the legislation are scheduled to commence next week. It has 173 co-sponsors, including 10 Democrats, but it is considered a top priority of Republican leaders in the House.
It would make permanent several provisions that prevent federal money from paying for abortions. Currently, some of those provisions - notably the Hyde Amendment - must be renewed each year. It would also make it more difficult for women to obtain abortions through their private insurance."
Post a Comment
<< Home