New GOP low: Redefining rape

[HomerJS]

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.

 

[PeshakJang]

Edit for those not wanting to read the whole thread:

OP is a lie, proven several times over.

Forcible rape, as defined in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.

Looks like date rape fits right in to "forcible rape", as defined by the FBI, and the left has turned a semantic non-issue into the story of the century. Non-forcible rape is statutory rape. Rape of somebody against their will, to include using drugs, is forcible.

Also, to refute some of the other comments made about incest not applying to women 18 and over:

rape by force involving a female victim and a familial offender is counted as a forcible rape and not an act of incest.

Straight from the UCR handbook:

“Against her will” includes instances in which the victim is incapable of giving consent because of her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity (or because of her youth). The ability of the victim to give consent must be a professional determination by the law enforcement agency. The age of the victim, of course, plays a critical role in this determination. Individuals do not mature mentally at the same rate. For example, no 4-year-old is capable of consenting, whereas victims aged 10 or 12 may need to be assessed within the specific circumstances regarding the giving of their consent.

So basically, the OP is based on a lie.

ThinkLOLgress

edit: Please change thread title to reflect the truth. kthxbye

 

[Infohawk]

Liberals were pretty good at redefining rape to make Assange look better too. Last time I checked pinning a girl down and forcing her to have sex is a valid rape allegation.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Except the term "forcible rape" has no set legal meaning, Peshak.

Its a horrible bill, period.

Nice to see the Republicans focusing on hot button issues however!

 

[dali71]

One of Obama's first executive orders was rescinding the Mexico City Policy, so I guess his priorities were questionable as well.

 

[xj0hnx]

Thinkprogress is flying high in the roflcopter.

"And yet, 172 Republicans — including sixteen women — and lone Democrat Rep. Daniel Lipinski (IL), chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus — readily support the new standard."

Dan Boren [D-OK2]
Jerry Costello [D-IL12]
Mark Critz [D-PA12]
Joe Donnelly [D-IN2]
Daniel Lipinski [D-IL3]
Mike McIntyre [D-NC7]
Collin Peterson [D-MN7]
Nick Rahall [D-WV3]
Mike Ross [D-AR4]
Heath Shuler [D-NC11]

Why are Thinkprogress such lying sacks of shit? I find it highly entertaining that someone that cries about Faux Newz bias has the audacity to use TP as a source for anything other than another fine example of partisan hackery.

 

[thegimp03]

Liberals were pretty good at redefining rape to make Assange look better too. Last time I checked pinning a girl down and forcing her to have sex is a valid rape allegation.

Oh snap.

 

[xj0hnx]

Liberals were pretty good at redefining rape to make Assange look better too. Last time I checked pinning a girl down and forcing her to have sex is a valid rape allegation.

It's ok though, he's their hero.

 

[Genx87]

Liberals were pretty good at redefining rape to make Assange look better too. Last time I checked pinning a girl down and forcing her to have sex is a valid rape allegation.

Dont forget Roman Polanski.

 

[jman19]

Lots of deflection in this thread, as usual.

 

[PeshakJang]

Except the term "forcible rape" has no set legal meaning, Peshak.

Its a horrible bill, period.

Nice to see the Republicans focusing on hot button issues however!

I'm on my phone otherwise I'd look to see what USC uses, but 'forcible' is used to differentiate between statutory and everything else. A police report doesn't say, "rape but not forcible because she was drugged." OP is a lie, end of story.

 

[HomerJS]

Liberals were pretty good at redefining rape to make Assange look better too. Last time I checked pinning a girl down and forcing her to have sex is a valid rape allegation.

When the United States becomes Sweeden this will mean something

 

[PeshakJang]

Lots of deflection in this thread, as usual.

It's a shame that the OP is a lie, otherwise you wouldn't look pretty dumb right now.

 

[HomerJS]

Looks like date rape fits right in to "forcible rape", as defined by the FBI, and the left has turned a semantic non-issue into the story of the century. Non-forcible rape is statutory rape. Rape of somebody against their will, to include using drugs, is forcible.

Also, to refute some of the other comments made about incest not applying to women 18 and over:

Straight from the UCR handbook:

So basically, the OP is based on a lie.

ThinkLOLgress

edit: Please change thread title to reflect the truth. kthxbye

Not a lie. Three members of the commitee working on this bill including Chris Smith are in the process of redefining forcible rape applying to healthcare. The OP stands.

 

[xj0hnx]

When the United States becomes Sweeden this will mean something

Ahh, so forcing a woman to have sex with you is ok in Sweden, gotcha.

 

[Patranus]

Why should the tax payers be footing the bill for any abortion?

If my car gets stolen I don't get a new one courtesy of the federal government.

 

[Freshgeardude]

am I missing something here??


this is the text from the bill.

‘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.

According to the line "The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion"

these are special circumstances.





301-304.

‘SEC. 301. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR ABORTIONS.

‘No funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for any abortion.


‘SEC. 302. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS THAT COVER ABORTION.

‘None of the funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.



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

‘For taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this section--

‘(1) no credit shall be allowed under the internal revenue laws with respect to amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or with respect to amounts paid or incurred for a health benefits plan (including premium assistance) that includes coverage of abortion,


‘(2) for purposes of determining any deduction for expenses paid for medical care of the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse or dependents, amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or for a health benefits plan that includes coverage of abortion shall not be taken into account, and


‘(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.




‘SEC. 304. LIMITATION ON FEDERAL FACILITIES AND EMPLOYEES.

‘No health care service furnished--

‘(1) by or in a health care facility owned or operated by the Federal Government; or


‘(2) by any physician or other individual employed by the Federal Government to provide health care services within the scope of the physician’s or individual’s employment,



may include abortion.

"‘No funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for any abortion."


thats the part of no federal spending for abortion, but article 306 states sec 301-304 are exempted in the "TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER"



So in simple terms...

No federal money for abortions UNLESS there was rape, incest, or the life of the mother is at risk.

whats the problem?

 

[hal2kilo]

am I missing something here??


this is the text from the bill.

According to the line "The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion"

these are special circumstances.





301-304.



"‘No funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for any abortion."


thats the part of no federal spending for abortion, but article 306 states sec 301-304 are exempted in the "TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER"



So in simple terms...

No federal money for abortions UNLESS there was rape, incest, or the life of the mother is at risk.

whats the problem?

Faux anti-abortion, appealing to their sad base politics rage. Just like the SD state legislators proposal tor require every adult to own a gun.

 

[jman19]

It's a shame that the OP is a lie, otherwise you wouldn't look pretty dumb right now.

Doesn't matter - people were still bringing up democrats. Get it now, dumbass?

 

[PeshakJang]

Not a lie. Three members of the commitee working on this bill including Chris Smith are in the process of redefining forcible rape applying to healthcare. The OP stands.

Link to your claim. The only thing stated in the OP and the linked Lib-trash is ranting and screaming over the use of "forcible rape" instead of "rape", when I clearly showed how the use of "forcible", AS ACCEPTED BY THE FBI UCR, WHICH DEFINES CRIME IN THIS COUNTRY, is only used to differentiate between consensual statutory rape and everything else.

You stated in your OP that a girl that was date-raped wouldn't fall under forcible rape. That's a lie.

The article you linked states that incest would be exempt. That's only the case if it is incest with consenting adults. Incest involving a minor is defined as forcible rape.

The article implies that there is "some type of rape that is OK", which is a lie. Rape is still rape.

You state that the GOP is attempting to redefine rape. Including the term "forcible" does nothing to that end, and is a lie.

So please tell us where you think anything you are stating is grounded in facts.

 

[PeshakJang]

Doesn't matter - people were still bringing up democrats. Get it now, dumbass?

If I weren't busy owning libs, I might understand what you're talking about

 

[jman19]

If I weren't busy owning libs, I might understand what you're talking about

Talking about diversion... you know, where people immediately start talking about democrats rather than addressing the OP (whether full of lies or not)?

Sorry if you have trouble reading.

 

[MovingTarget]

Hmmm....perhaps those who claim that the language of "forcible" rape in the bill would have no effect wouldn't mind if the language were removed to simply refer to rape? Why not remove the language as an issue in the bill and let it stand on its own merit?

 

[Lemon law]

But wait, the GOP opposes abortion, all abortion. Pregnancies resulting from rape are acts of GOD and thus divinely inspired, silly dimorats, opposing the will of GOD. Females are made to be fucked. After all, does not God say, be fruitful and multiply. Some females choose to not do so and that is why God made rapists.

This whole idea that women should have any civil rights and any free will control of their own bodies is simply a retarded 20'th century idea to be thrown into the scrap bin of history.

God bless the GOP that now needs to marry their conviction to a new courage of decriminalizing rape and make it into a GOP political sacrament. Think of all those prison beds we can free up and all those tax payer bucks we can save.

Don't all you all girls agree with me, please PM me ( or PMS me ) if you want to join the the Lemon Law Harem. Ages 7 and up acceptable. Bring your own Burka, Lose your shoes, because barefoot and pregnant is your expectation. And more than a first grade education is unacceptable, or you will certainly be more educated than me.

 

[PeshakJang]

Hmmm....perhaps those who claim that the language of "forcible" rape in the bill would have no effect wouldn't mind if the language were removed to simply refer to rape? Why not remove the language as an issue in the bill and let it stand on its own merit?

Because it specifically differentiates between "true" rape, and statutory rape. The bill as is, would exempt victims of forcible rape, but would not provide federal taxpayer money to consenting parties who happen to be of less-than-legal age.

As the law is now, if a 15 year old has consensual sex with an 18 year old, and gets pregnant, that is statutory rape. The bill's aim is to block federal funds from going toward the abortion.

Now, if the girl is of such a young age that it is determined that she could not have possessed the mental capacity to knowingly consent, such as a 8 or 9 year old having sex with an 18 or 19 year old, the law often defines that as forcible rape.

So, bottom line, the law attempts to allow the funding in cases of true, non-consensual, coerced, or violent sexual acts, while blocking the use of funds in cases of "rape" defined by age, in some cases.