Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Redefining Rape: The Anti-Choice crowd vs. American women.....Again.














Original artwork by Debbie Buchanan Engle

The text of the bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3

An explanation of the uproar over the rape/incest clause: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/01/whats-behind-the-drive-to-redefine-rape_n_816967.html

"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....

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."

No comments: