New GOP low: Redefining rape

[PeshakJang]

I watched a YoungTurks video on the subject a few days ago and admittedly my memory of the details is a little foggy. However, I got the impression that a large part of the criticism wasn't the defining of Forcible Rape, but the application of Federal Rape requirements to Health Savings Accounts. Meaning, that those who have chosen to Pay into a HSA were not allowed to use their HSA funds for an Abortion except when Forcible Rape has occurred. IOWs, it was an encroachment of Federal Government regulation limiting the members of HSAs use of those Funds.

Not sure if accurate.

An HSA can be used for qualifying medical expenses without incurring federal tax, but you can withdraw money for any purpose to use for non-qualified expenses, in which case it is subject to regular income taxes... similar to a Roth IRA.

So the only scenario that this really applies to is in cases of statutory rape, when the parents want to use their HSA to pay for the child's abortion. If it was consensual, why should the parents receive a tax benefit for their child's mistake?

Again, this bill doesn't make the determination whether the girl was of appropriate mental capacity to understand and give consent... that is and always has been the determination of the State. This bill simply says that government will only allow federal funds to be used in cases of non-consensual pregnancies.

 

[sandorski]

An HSA can be used for qualifying medical expenses without incurring federal tax, but you can withdraw money for any purpose to use for non-qualified expenses, in which case it is subject to regular income taxes... similar to a Roth IRA.

So the only scenario that this really applies to is in cases of statutory rape, when the parents want to use their HSA to pay for the child's abortion. If it was consensual, why should the parents receive a tax benefit for their child's mistake?

Again, this bill doesn't make the determination whether the girl was of appropriate mental capacity to understand and give consent... that is and always has been the determination of the State. This bill simply says that government will only allow federal funds to be used in cases of non-consensual pregnancies.

Why should the Government be limiting Parents Rights in using their HSA? This, assuming it is indeed what's occurring here, is an exact "Death Panels" action.

 

[HAL9000]

I'm completely anti abortion but even I think this is fucking retarded. They shouldn't be pushing their morality on others like that.

 

[thegimp03]

In case anyone forgot, the President already signed an executive order that limits federal funding for abortions. In an attempt to slice away more rights of women the Republicans want to pass a law that would allow the following...

Guy takes girl on date, slips her the date rape drug, has sex with her (currently defined as rape) and she gets pregnant, she won't be able to obtain an insurance covered abortion.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/01/dws-rape-language/#

This is HR#3. Guess jobs, the economy and the debt aren't really that much of a priority.

Nobody is trying to change the definition of rape. The wording is being fixed to clarify the purpose of the bill to avoid the confusion that is spreading everywhere. You should probably change the title of the thread as it isn't accurate.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Just read that the Republicans have decided to shitcan the language instead of defend it.

http://www.politico.com/huddle/0211/huddle714.html

 

[PeshakJang]

Why should the Government be limiting Parents Rights in using their HSA? This, assuming it is indeed what's occurring here, is an exact "Death Panels" action.

It's a federal benefit, not a "right". Being a tax benefit, it is basically a subsidy. Your "death panel" accusation isn't grounded in reality at all.

You can't use an HSA tax-free to get cosmetic surgery. Is that a death panel action?

You can use your HSA money at any time to pay for anything you want (even non-medical expenses), but you don't get to write off the money from your income taxes.

So it basically boils down to, should the government subsidize abortions in cases of consensual sex between minors?

 

[sandorski]

It's a federal benefit, not a "right". Being a tax benefit, it is basically a subsidy. Your "death panel" accusation isn't grounded in reality at all.

You can't use an HSA tax-free to get cosmetic surgery. Is that a death panel action?

You can use your HSA money at any time to pay for anything you want (even non-medical expenses), but you don't get to write off the money from your income taxes.

So it basically boils down to, should the government subsidize abortions in cases of consensual sex between minors?

Except that's not the problem. The problem is de facto No Abortion Unless Rape. It is not, "You'll lose a Tax Break".

 

[PeshakJang]

Just read that the Republicans have decided to shitcan the language instead of defend it.

http://www.politico.com/huddle/0211/huddle714.html

I guess when you're preempted by the opposition with a lie so loud that reasonable people aren't heard, it is easier to just appease them with a superficial change than try to argue with an idiot.

 

[PeshakJang]

Except that's not the problem. The problem is de facto No Abortion Unless Rape. It is not, "You'll lose a Tax Break".

No, that's exactly the case, and exactly the language of the bill.

`SEC. 303. PROHIBITION ON TAX BENEFITS RELATING TO ABORTION.

...

• • `(3) in the case of any tax-preferred trust or account the purpose of which is to pay medical expenses of the account beneficiary, any amount paid or distributed from such an account for an abortion shall be included in the gross income of such beneficiary.

 

[jackschmittusa]

PeshakJang

"I guess when you're preempted by the opposition with a lie so loud that reasonable people aren't heard, it is easier to just appease them with a superficial change than try to argue with an idiot."

Or maybe, when confronted with questions you are not prepared to answer in public, declare the questions moot and avoid the embarrassment.

 

[sandorski]

No, that's exactly the case, and exactly the language of the bill.
[/LIST]
[/LIST]

What's the Pre-language of the Bill? Does it narrowly Define what constitutes "Abortion" in the context of this entry? For eg, does it state that the term "Abortion" from hereon is subjected to the limits specified in Section X Subsection y...yadda yadda ya?(or words to that affect)

 

[PeshakJang]

PeshakJang

"I guess when you're preempted by the opposition with a lie so loud that reasonable people aren't heard, it is easier to just appease them with a superficial change than try to argue with an idiot."

Or maybe, when confronted with questions you are not prepared to answer in public, declare the questions moot and avoid the embarrassment.

The question, and the controversy, are moot. It literally took me 10 minutes of initial research to determine the intent and the definition of the language. Problem being, once something goes mainstream and is distorted so much by so many people with an agenda, it's impossible to respond with reason. Easier to just make a little change than to waste time and money defending a non-issue.

 

[theeedude]

Sounds like GOP is on top of the big problems in our country, like rape victims getting too many abortions.

 

[dmcowen674]

It's a shame that the OP is a lie

The only lie is the guy claiming it is a lie.

 

[PeshakJang]

What's the Pre-language of the Bill? Does it narrowly Define what constitutes "Abortion" in the context of this entry? For eg, does it state that the term "Abortion" from hereon is subjected to the limits specified in Section X Subsection y...yadda yadda ya?(or words to that affect)

I can't find anything in all of the USC which actually defines 'abortion' specifically. Closest is the ban on partial-birth abortions, in which that is clearly defined, but it appears as if as it is now, 'abortion' is understood as not needing definition.

 

[PeshakJang]

Sounds like GOP is on top of the big problems in our country, like rape victims getting too many abortions.

You're already lost the argument several times over. Wanna keep playing? I can give you a line of credit.

 

[theeedude]

You're already lost the argument several times over. Wanna keep playing? I can give you a line of credit.

I am not the one changing the bill, GOP is.

 

[bfdd]

I'm completely anti abortion but even I think this is fucking retarded. They shouldn't be pushing their morality on others like that.

says the guy who constantly raves about pushing his morals on to others for the good of society.

 

[HAL9000]

says the guy who constantly raves about pushing his morals on to others for the good of society.

I don't remember doing that....? :\

 

[PeshakJang]

I am not the one changing the bill, GOP is.

I guess you aren't familiar with the old adage...

Never argue with an idiot. They'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I guess the GOP realized that before wasting any more time.

 

[thegimp03]

Sounds like GOP is on top of the big problems in our country, like rape victims getting too many abortions.

Just like Obama was, in chasing down Arizona SB1070 last Spring/Summer.

 

[theeedude]

I guess you aren't familiar with the old adage...

Never argue with an idiot. They'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Obviously I am not familiar with this adage, since I am arguing with you

 

[FuzzyBee]

Rep. Chris apparently doesn't realize that you have to write bills to cater to the lowest-common-denominator in politics - the soundbite.

Well, unless it's a healthcare reform bill.

 

[PeshakJang]

Obviously I am not familiar with this adage, since I am arguing with you

I don't consider it an argument, I consider it a lecture for your benefit. I've presented the facts, you've fallen asleep drawing boobs on your desk.

 

[thegimp03]

Rep. Chris apparently doesn't realize that you have to write bills to cater to the lowest-common-denominator in politics - the soundbite.

Well, unless it's a healthcare reform bill.

In that case, the democrats didn't realize that you have to actually read bills before you pass them.