PDA

View Full Version : Boehner Paves The Way For More Rape, No Jail Time



Gayle in MD
02-03-2011, 07:06 AM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>John Boehner's push to redefine rape</span>

Feminists have opposed legal restrictions to abortion funding for as long as there have been legal abortions. Roe v. Wade was only allowed to exist for three years before the first anti-funding measure, the Hyde Amendment -- its name is uttered in certain circles in much the same way people in Harry Potter movies say always say "Voldemort" -- cracked down, prohibiting federal funding for low-income pregnancies. As part of last year's healthcare struggle, we got the much-loathed Stupak-Pitts amendment, which served the same purpose. In both cases, there was a huge outcry; in both cases, the amendments went forward with only minor changes.

And now there's H.R. 3. The "No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act" is bad in all the ways that Hyde and Stupak-Pitts were bad, but it's worse, too: It seeks to make Hyde federal law. Like previous measures, H.R. 3 would have been widely decried, regardless of anything else it contained. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>But it just so happens to contain one clause that makes it worse than all of those previous measures. It just so happens to redefine rape.</span>

Whereas Stupak-Pitts provides an exemption if "the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest," and Hyde contains exemptions that are similar, H.R. 3 <span style='font-size: 14pt'>only provides exemptions if the pregnancy results from "an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest."</span>

<span style="color: #990000"> All Rape and Incest, isn't "Forcible Rape?" I'm sure the pedophiles all over this country, wioll enjoy getting off in courts around this country, for incestuous RAPE, COMPLIMENTS OF KNUCKLE DRAGGING, MISOGYNISTIC NEANDERTHALS, who seek to devalue Wmen's rights to exist as other than CHATTEL, without personal rights... </span>

There's no way this change is accidental. And there's no way it's minor. Dan Lipinski, one of the few Democrats co-sponsoring the bill, insists that "the language of H.R. 3 was not intended to change existing law regarding taxpayer funding for abortion in cases of rape." At best, he's tragically misguided. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>This is a calculated move, which will make exemptions for rape and incest survivors practically unenforceable.</span>


First, there are the people who would be overtly denied coverage, as outlined by Nick Baumann at Mother Jones. Those who were raped while drugged or unconscious, or through means of coercion, would not be covered. Survivors of statutory rape would not be covered: "if a minor," one is only covered in case of incest. And if one is a survivor of incest, and not a minor, that's also not covered. Studies of how rapists find and subdue victims reveal that about 70 percent of rapes wouldn't fall under the "forcible" designation.

Which leaves us with those rapes that could be construed as "forcible." Except that this clause doesn't guarantee an exemption for them, either. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The term "forcible rape" actually has no set meaning; legal definitions of "force" vary widely. And every survivor who finds herself in need of abortion funding will have to submit her rape for government approval.


</span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>H.R. 3's language brings us back to an ancient, long-outdated standard of rape law: "Utmost resistance." By this standard, a rape verdict depended not on whether the victim consented, but on whether outsiders thought she resisted as hard as humanly possible. Survivors rarely measured up.</span>

There's an example of how "utmost resistance" worked in the 1887 text Defences to Crime. In this case, a man was accused of raping a 16-year-old girl. (A minor, but not incest: Already convicted by current standards, not enough for H.R. 3.)<span style='font-size: 20pt'> The attacker held her hands behind her back with one of his hands. I asked my partner to test this move's "forcefulness," by holding my wrists the same way; I was unable to break his grip, though he's not much larger than I am, and it hurt to struggle. The attacker then used his free hand and his leg to force open her legs, knocked her off-balance onto his crotch, and penetrated her.

His conviction was overturned. Because the girl was on top.</span>

Then, there were the witnesses: One man watched it all, and noted that "though he heard a kind of screaming at first, the girl made no outcry while the outrage was being perpetrated." The physician who examined her testified that "there were no bruises on her person." It was therefore determined that the encounter was consensual. In the words of Defences to Crime, "a mere half-way case will not do ... this was not the conduct of a woman jealous of her chastity, shuddering at the thought of dishonor, and flying from pollution." Stopped screaming eventually? You wanted it.

Rape law is filled with cases like these. Definitions of "force" are still used to make highly subjective judgments that minimize actual violence. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>H.R. 3 leaves every survivor open to a decision that her attacker wasn't forceful enough, or that she didn't scream enough, or that she didn't struggle enough. "Forcible," like "utmost resistance," can be redefined by anyone in a position to apply it. Under H.R. 3, there is no guaranteed exemption for any survivors; everyone's coverage depends on the case-by-case judgment of a government working from a hugely flawed, inevitably subjective standard.</span>

Which is intentional. Exemptions for rape and incest are a known target of antiabortion groups. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>John Boehner, who named this bill a top priority for the new Congress, is endorsed by the Republican National Coalition for Life, which requires candidates to prove they "do not justify abortion for innocent babies who are conceived through rape or incest." By my count, 34 co-sponsors of the bill were also endorsed and/or funded by RNCL. It shouldn't be shocking: The goal is no abortions for rape survivors. Because the goal is no abortions, for anyone.</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Still, no one wants to be the guy who stands up and says that he's eliminating medical coverage for molested children. For some reason, that's an unpopular stance. Which is why the 183 politicians who sponsor H.R. 3 aren't saying it: They're just quietly changing the language. They want to appear to be preserving exemptions, while eliminating them in practice. They probably hoped no one would notice.

In that case: Whoops. There's been widespread public outcry. There's been massive scrutiny of the clause. There's an ongoing protest, online; I know about that one, because I started it. It's tagged #DearJohn on Twitter, and it includes a campaign to target each and every representative, especially those connected with the bill, and explain to them why it's unacceptable both in terms of rape survivors' rights and in terms of the right to abortion. Even Fox News won't touch it. This push to eliminate victims' rights is a big, messy, costly embarrassment, even for the <span style='font-size: 26pt'>extremist groups </span>this bill represents.</span>But it's part of a long history. Feminists have been opposing restrictions to abortion funding for as long as there have been legal abortions. The biggest fear of everyone involved is that things will proceed the way they always do. There's a widespread outcry. We get one concession -- full rape exemptions. And then the bill moves forward, according to plan.

More: Sady Doyle
Close





<span style="color: #990000">I suppose the ONLY hope for women to be protected from rape, to at least see their rapists go to jail, in a time when one in every four women are raped before they graduate from college, is More Gang Rape, on men, by men.

I'm quite sure, if that occurance became far more freguent, Republicans like John Boehner, wouldn't be trying to prove that all Rape, isn't forced rape.

Republicans prove once again, that they think they are ABOVE the law, and can destroy through convoluted legislation, EVEN Supreme Court decisions.

But, we've seen that, over and over.



</span>




http://www.salon.com/news/abortion/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/02/01/hr3_abortion_rape

LWW
02-03-2011, 07:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Boehner Paves The Way For More Rape, No Jail Time </div></div>

Your headline makes a claim that is wholly unsupported by your own link and concurrent rant.

Not that anyone should be surprised at that.

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-03-2011, 08:45 AM
Jason Linkins jason@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting
What's Behind The Drive To Redefine Rape In New And Insane Ways?



The recent drive behind H.R. 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," is animated by one thing and one thing only -- the deep and abiding belief among its cosponsors that women are chattel. Not even that "babies are great" -- many of the same cosponsors are those who'd all but wash their hands of the responsibility of ensuring those children got affordable health care. But what's getting all of the attention in the bill is the part where legislators have banded together to mansplain the various shadings of the crime of "rape" to America.

'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.


That portion is what the Washington Post's Jonathan Capeheart calls "the scary part" of the bill. I sort of think that the whole idea of government intrusion for the purpose of turning women into brood-mares is pretty much "the scary part," but I'll allow that the above terrifies on a whole new David Cronenberg-esque level. Essentially, it makes allowances for abortions only in the case of "forcible rape."

(I'd be worried about that second clause, as well, seeing as we live in a world where Bill O'Reilly, anti-abortion warrior, has apparently never heard of an "ectopic pregnancy" or "pre-eclampsia.")

What's off the table? Well, if you are a woman coerced, drugged or otherwise incapacitated by a rapist, too bad! Also, if you are a young child, statutory rape is off the table, too, unless incest is involved. (The incest exception lapses for adults, crazily.) Per Nick Baumann:

For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)
Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense.



But "forcible rape" still qualifies, which is good, right? Well, the problem here is that no one can really define what "forcible rape" is. As Sady Doyle points out in Salon today, "The term "forcible rape" actually has no set meaning; legal definitions of "force" vary widely. And every survivor who finds herself in need of abortion funding will have to submit her rape for government approval." Which is, again, crazy.

Doyle has a pretty good idea how the forcible rape standard is going to work, though:

H.R. 3's language brings us back to an ancient, long-outdated standard of rape law: "Utmost resistance." By this standard, a rape verdict depended not on whether the victim consented, but on whether outsiders thought she resisted as hard as humanly possible. Survivors rarely measured up.
There's an example of how "utmost resistance" worked in the 1887 text Defences to Crime. In this case, a man was accused of raping a sixteen-year-old girl. (A minor, but not incest: Already convicted by current standards, not enough for H.R. 3.) The attacker held her hands behind her back with one of his hands. I asked my partner to test this move's "forcefulness," by holding my wrists the same way; I was unable to break his grip, though he's not much larger than I am, and it hurt to struggle. The attacker then used his free hand and his leg to force open her legs, knocked her off-balance onto his crotch, and penetrated her.

His conviction was overturned. Because the girl was on top.


Capeheart says that he's waiting to hear back from anyone who can either set a definition of "forcible rape" or justify leaving out women impregnated against her will as a result of "being drugged, drunk, mentally disabled or date rape[d]." It's likely to be a long wait: having denoted that section as "the scary part," Capeheart has unwittingly suggested that the rest of the law is palatable. That's probably the whole point of "the scary part" -- it's an "Overton Window" game of defining a new frontier in "extreme" in order to make the original "extreme" seem reasonable by comparison. Back to Doyle:

There's been widespread public outcry. There's been massive scrutiny of the clause. There's an ongoing protest, online; I know about that one, because I started it. It's tagged #DearJohn on Twitter, and it includes a campaign to target each and every representative, especially those connected with the bill, and explain to them why it's unacceptable both in terms of rape survivors' rights and in terms of the right to abortion. Even Fox News won't touch it. This push to eliminate victims' rights is a big, messy, costly embarrassment, even for the extremist groups this bill represents.
But it's part of a long history. Feminists have been opposing restrictions to abortion funding for as long as there have been legal abortions. The biggest fear of everyone involved is that things will proceed the way they always do. There's a widespread outcry. We get one concession -- full rape exemptions. And then the bill moves forward, according to plan.


And that's how that is going to work. Of course, one still wonders if the people who dreamed up this bill ever stopped to imagine its potential consequences on their mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters. Maybe they did. Maybe they gave some consideration to the trauma that their mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters would experience if they had to give birth to a child conceived by force or coercion. But in the end, it's immaterial: the people behind the bill are animated by the belief that their mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters are chattel.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/01/whats-behind-the-drive-to-redefine-rape_n_816967.html

Gayle in MD
02-03-2011, 08:55 AM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Debbie Wasserman Schultz: GOP Abortion Bill Is A 'Violent Act Against Women'
</span>

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) on Monday blasted a GOP-sponsored piece of legislation designed to slash abortion access, eliminate federal abortion funding in all forms, and potentially change the definition of rape, as "a violent act against women."

In an interview with Raw Story, Wasserman Schultz called the bill, which controversially includes language to change the instances of so-called "rape" in which women can receive abortions, "absolutely outrageous."

As HuffPost's Jason Linkins reported Monday:

What's off the table? Well, if you are a woman coerced, drugged or otherwise incapacitated by a rapist, too bad! Also, if you are a young child, statutory rape is off the table, too, unless incest is involved. (The incest exception lapses for adults, crazily.)
Wasserman Schultz, a staunch pro-choice advocate, told Raw Story that the potential result of the legislation was unconscionable:

"It really is -- to suggest that there is some kind of rape that would be okay to force a woman to carry the resulting pregnancy to term, and abandon the principle that has been long held, an exception that has been settled for 30 years, is to me a violent act against women in and of itself," Wasserman Schultz said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/02/debbie-wasserman-schultz-gop-abortion_n_817358.html



House Republicans Push Bill That Would Redefine Rape

Drugged, raped, and pregnant? Too bad. Republicans are pushing to limit rape and incest cases eligible for government abortion funding.

How 173 Reublicans Are Trying To Redefine Rape


Asher Smith.Editor in Chief, Emory Wheel
Posted: January 30, 2011 08:30 PM

The Republican congressional caucus knew why they were returned to the majority on Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2010: to do the people's work. Turning aside encomiums for his party's dominant election-night performance, the soon-to-be House Speaker, John Boehner (R-Oh.), called the returns "a repudiation of politicians who refuse to listen to the people." Remarked Boehner:

this is not a time for celebration ... not when one in 10 of our fellow citizens are out of work ... not when we have buried our children under a mountain of debt ... not when our Congress is held in such low esteem. This is a time to roll up our sleeves. To look forward with determination. And to take the first steps toward building a better future for our kids and grandkids.

Three months later, what were the top priorities of the new Congress? First, repealing the 111th Congress's health-care reform legislation. Second, re-defining rape.

Since 1976, the use of government money -- from agencies such as Medicare, Medicaid, the military, the Peace Corps or the Indian Health Services -- to subsidize abortions has been limited by federal laws. These laws have typically included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest or in cases where the life of the mother is at risk. The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," which was introduced last week in the House with 173 co-sponsors will ostensibly eliminate the need for numerous annual abortion-funding prohibitions and ensure that no federal agency falls out of the restriction's purview. Another section of the bill, however, would re-write the rape and incest provision. Going forward, if H.R. 3 becomes law, only incest victims younger than 18 could receive taxpayer funding for an abortion. Similarly, the longstanding exemption for victims of rape would be altered to only apply to cases of "forcible rape."

What is forcible rape? The short answer is, it is nothing. As Nick Baumann of Mother Jones notes, the phrase does not exist in the federal criminal code. Nor is it possible to divine any explicit legislative intent here, as the provision contains no definition of the strange term. The authors are drafting based on pure imagination. One cannot know now how precisely such a restriction could be interpreted and implemented. In some states, where no distinction for instances of forcible or violent rape exist, it is feasible that the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" would deny federal funds to all rape victims.

It seems the 173 co-sponsors are attempting to create a federal hierarchy of rape victimhood. Presumably, a victim still bearing the scars of her attack would be eligible. A woman who was drugged would not. A broken bone may be enough for qualification. A woman with limited mental capacity would be out of luck. Physical trauma, claim those 173 congressmen, is to be given priority over mental trauma.

The Clothesline Project is a program started in 1990 to call attention to the sufferers of sexual assault by displaying t-shirts designed by those victims. The shirts, many of which include written narratives, bear witness to the experiences of women (and men) who have been attacked. Blue and green t-shirts represent those who have survived incest and sexual abuse. Red, pink and orange are for survivors of rape and sexual assault. White shirts represent those who subsequently died. Under this new proposal, those individuals would be further divvied up, placed into illusory categories of those who experiences qualify them for assistance and those who fail to measure up to as-yet unclear guidelines.

One shirt from the display, red, reads: "I said 'NO!' Didn't you hear me?" Chances are, that's a rape that would no longer be taken seriously after implementation of H.R. 3. The designer of a green shirt reading "I have the right to refuse sex!!!" could find herself in the same position. An orange shirt that confesses "I was raped by somebody I use[d] to trust" tells a too-common story that could, because of this proposed edit to existing law, no longer qualify a victim for federal support.

The language of this bill is not only out of sync with legal precedent, but with common sense and common dignity. Co-sponsor Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., argues that "the language of H.R. 3 was not intended to change existing law regarding taxpayer funding for abortion in cases of rape, nor is it expected that it would do so." Yet such a reading is at a dissonance with the plain meaning of the words used. If there was no intent to limit the rape exemption, then why doesn't the bill leave the existing language in place?

According to data from the Center For Reproductive Rights, out of the 7.4 million women of child-bearing age covered by Medicaid in 2006, there were only 85 abortions in cases of rape, incest or life-threatening medical conditions. This is not a proposal that would impact the lives of most Americans. What it would do, however, is add to the pain and difficulty of those who are already most vulnerable.

LWW
02-03-2011, 09:07 AM
http://www.smbua.com/umpire.png

<span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 26pt'>STEE-EE-EE-EE-RIKE TWO!</span></span>

LWW