It’s no wonder that Republicans have such a bad rap with progressives. Apparently, we want to legalize rape. I wouldn’t like Republicans either if that were even one teensy weensy bit true.
The controversy stems from the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, which seeks to expand existing Hyde amendment restrictions on the use of taxpayer money for abortions by prohibiting indirect funding and tax-exemptions to businesses that provide abortions.
As it stands now, the government claims it doesn't fund abortions with taxpayer money, yet billions of dollars go to Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services. Which then frees up ‘private’ money for abortions and advice on how to run an underage sex slave ring.
The legislation includes an exemption for the 3% or less of abortions performed after rape or to preserve the life of the mother. The bill explicitly states that federal funding will not be withheld from women that ‘need’ an abortion, just those that ‘want’ an abortion.
SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.
‘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; or
‘(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
Republicans want to end taxpayer-funded abortions except in cases of rape, incest involving a minor, or health of the mother, and liberals accuse them of wanting to legalize rape. Yet somehow we’re the ones that refuse to compromise. I’m still scratching my head on that one.
Some pro-choice advocates have claimed that this bill redefines rape to not include:
- Instances where women are drugged and raped
- Instances where women say “no” but do not physically fight off their aggressor
- Various cases of date rape
- Instances of statutory rape where minors are impregnated by an adult
I’ve read the bill, and I don’t see any of that in there. There is no such thing as non-forcible rape. All rape is forcible rape. Rape is when someone doesn’t consent to sex (either by choice or circumstance), and it is forced upon him or her anyway. If you’re held down, that’s rape. If you’re drugged, that’s rape. If you’re under the age of consent, that’s rape. If you’re mentally incapacitated, that’s rape. It’s all rape, and it’s all forcible rape, because it’s a sexual act forced upon someone that doesn’t want it or can’t legally consent to it.
Republicans explicitly put that section in the bill in order to give pregnant rape victims a choice, since the choice to engage in procreational activity was never given to them.
This bill has nothing to do with your legal right to an abortion, and it has nothing to with legalizing rape. It has everything to do with cutting off funding for a voluntary act that over half of Americas believe is wrong.
One final thought: It’s interesting that the pro-federal funding of abortion crowd overlaps quite a bit with the pro-government school crowd. I just have one question: Why should we taxpayers fund abortions but not private school? They’re both moral decisions that not everyone is going to agree with. Why should your morality be funded by taxpayer dollars but not mine?
Image via brownpau/Flickr


This Hot Dad Wants to Vacuum Your Rug
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
KStew Refuses to Shower
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
















Comments 31
THANK YOU!!!!!! I am so sick of the ridiculous claims some people have been making, regarding this matter.
Thank you for this! I wasn't sure how to respond to the other blog.
Boondocker, we're not talking about the criminal justice system, we're talking about health care. So next time, try to avoid making a public fool of yourself by introducing totally irrelevent information about a completely unrelated topic in your snide comments.
Great article, Jenny! I honestly wasn't one to embrace the idea that certain people will do or say ANYTHING - regardless of how blatantly untrue and downright horrid - to serve their own agenda. I've been proven wrong today - the author of the other article must be completely lacking a moral compass or a brain - and unfortunately, I believe it's the former. It's truly disgusting.
‘'(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; or'
But why not just call it 'rape'?
Ok, I'm reading the bill
SEC. 305. CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO SEPARATE COVERAGE
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting any individual, entity, or State or locality from purchasing separate abortion coverage or health benefits coverage that includes abortion so long as such coverage is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by Federal law and such coverage shall not be purchased using matching funds required for a federally subsidized program, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.
The way I read that is 'You want one; you pay for it yourself.' Am I right?
"‘Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as restricting the ability of any non-Federal health benefits coverage provider from offering abortion coverage, or the ability of a State or locality to contract separately with such a provider for such coverage, so long as only funds not authorized or appropriated by Federal law are used and such coverage shall not be purchased using matching funds required for a federally subsidized program, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds."
Soooo this one means that a private insurance plan could still provide abortion coverage?
Tax payer funded abortions and the definition of rape aside; why was this such an important piece of legislation and not something related to trade or jobs?