House Republican Priorities: Jobs? Nope, Redefining Rape So Poor People Can't Get Abortions

"Redefining" rape? In other words, the Republicans are not going to do a damned thing about cutting spending or creating jobs and they figure a nice fat piece of red meat thrown to the base may be enough to distract them. So these nasty, anti-woman,

"Redefining" rape? In other words, the Republicans are not going to do a damned thing about cutting spending or creating jobs and they figure a nice fat piece of red meat thrown to the base may be enough to distract them. So these nasty, anti-woman, sex-hating perverts want to take it out on the poor and the desperate.

I have a little proposal of my own. If any male member of Congress is found to have paid for an abortion, he should lose his job, his pension and any benefits -- because after all, if he's a federal employee, that's using federal money to pay for an abortion! And I'm willing to help raise money to offer a reward for that verifiable information, because God wants me to help punish these hypocritical transgressors:

Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.

For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. 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.

There used to be a quasi-truce between the pro- and anti-choice forces on the issue of federal funding for abortion. Since 1976, federal law has prohibited the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman. But since last year, the anti-abortion side has become far more aggressive in challenging this compromise. They have been pushing to outlaw tax deductions for insurance plans that cover abortion, even if the abortion coverage is never used. The Smith bill represents a frontal attack on these long-standing exceptions.

About Susie Madrak

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.