Welcome to PatsFans.com

Republicans want to deny abortions to victims of statutory rape

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Jan 29, 2011.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    Think the Republican Congress isn't nuts? Think again. They are introducing legislation that would permit federal funding of abortions for only forcible rape. Thus, when a little girl is a victim of statutory rape, not only will Medicaid not cover an abortion, she won't be allowed to use here healthcare savings account, or deduct the cost from taxes. So, old men, if you want a kid, trick a little girl into consenting and, in some states the worst that will happen to you is a year in jail.

    The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape | Mother Jones

    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.
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2011
  2. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    Is statutory rape always defined as consentual?
  3. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,229
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -3





    This sounds like a dishonest article. SInce a minor cannot consent the sex is forceable by definition, the article also says the minor couldn't use their MSA account how many minors have MSA's ?

    Fear mongering by the left not suprising.
  4. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    It said the parents' HSAs couldn't be used, 13.

    Dishonesty indeed...

    Are you able to look at any issue with even a minimal degree of objectivity?
  5. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    Statutory rape is considered coercive rape, not forcible.

    Statutory rape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Statutory rape differs from forcible rape in that overt force or threat need not be present. The laws presume coercion, because a minor or mentally challenged adult is legally incapable of giving consent to the act.
  6. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    Not everywhere, it's not.

    Forcible Rape, by UCR definition, it the carnal knowledge of a person forcibly or against that person’s will, or when a victim is mentally or physically incapable of giving consent. Attempts to commit rape are included in this category. One offense is counted for each victim of rape. Statutory rapes and other types of sexual assaults are not counted as rape under the UCR program.

    FORCIBLE RAPE
  7. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    My guess is it's not so nuts to those who see abortion as killing a baby.

    Statutory rape is when one person is underage or a minor right?
  8. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ---- JAG ----- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,492
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +24 / 1 / -0

    #87 Jersey

    The title is misleading in this thread. the debate is over federal funding
    ... not the denial of certain kinds of rape.

    Apparently an effort to keep taxpayer dollars from paying for abortions ... some states are doing this as well.

    Here are some stats on American opinions on the general topic.

    http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/fact_Planned_Parenthood_polling_memo.pdf

    Very tough choices are going to be made over the next few years in attempts to reign in government spending ... some are not going to be very popular. You cannot possibly feel bad for every American while at the same time reducing the deficit. The left will be more angry than the right - in the end the American voters will decide if the proper choices have been made.

    Obama has done nothing to ease the deficit and has in fact increased it exponentially. Pelosi's Congress also did not decrease the deficit ... I think we need to see how the next few years go overall. Being angry at every cut is what we are going to be seeing in the media - getting the public angry is how we have bloated the budget since Bill Clinton left office.
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2011
  9. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Its cute the way Icy calls the title of this thread misleading and then goes on to imply that this awful bill would have some sort of noticeable effect on the national debt.
  10. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ---- JAG ----- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,492
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +24 / 1 / -0

    #87 Jersey


    1: It is misleading ... the bill is about federal funding and the title says "deny abortions" ... they are not denying abortions - it is a bill about who will pay for some of them.

    2: noticeable? Did I say that or are you trying to get the thread onto a different path because you have nothing of substance to add to what I said?

    Noticeable ... good try SD ... but try harder next time without inventing untyped words or meanings.
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2011
  11. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    In practice, if you don't have money, you'll have a more difficult time getting abortions. One way to deny someone an abortion is to block its funding. It's a shame that Republicans believe that a young raped girl should be forced to carry a fetus to term if she's too poor to pay for abortion out of pocket. Imagine the stigma of a 13 year old, seduced by an older man, walking around pregnant. Think she'll last in school? Think she'll have much of a future?
  12. Triple-T

    Triple-T Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Yep, I can't see anything as a more pressing issue than this. First, stop federal assistance for statutory rape abortions, then we fix the economy, solve the debt, end our oversea wars, etc, etc, etc.

    Exactly! The nuts part is equating an embryo with a baby. Next stop "Save the Sperm!" The catholics have been fighting that battle for a while now, except in cases of child molestation, then it's "waste away!"

    FYI...this woman is a despicable monster.


    GOOD LORD REPUBLICANS!!!! IS THIS REALLY THE ONLY ISSUE YOU CAN EVER SEE?!?!?! HOW ABOUT FOCUSING ON MAKING SURE THE LIVING HAVE A DECENT LIFE AND FUTURE?!?!?!
  13. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    This thread title is misleading, the Republicans are misleading, and the protests are misleading.

    Bottom line, Federal funding of any abortion, or any medical treatment is a huge over-reach of the Federal government under the Constitution. Period.
  14. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ---- JAG ----- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,492
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +24 / 1 / -0

    #87 Jersey


    Bravo ..... :rocker::rocker::rocker:
  15. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    shirtsleeve and icy: so you guys want to do away with medicare and the VA?
  16. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Yes. Hell yes. The veterans worked for our government, and as such and part of their contract, they are entitled to be insured by the government. Give them vouchers.

    Medicare would also need to be phased out over time, whereas many people have become "vested" in the system. For those 50 and older, like Social Security, its too late for an alternative. Ditto for the disabled.

    But vouchers for insurance should be paid to those over 30 and under 50 who have contributed heavily to medicare already. The eventual obvious replacement is tax exempt personal savings account for disability and senior medical insurance.
  17. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    unwanted pregnancies=unwanted children, many of which have special needs=increased burden to the states and agencies that will necessitate involvement.

    Children who are not wanted during a pregnancy often have poor prenatal care, and can be rejected when born... overall they suffer the consequences of the poor decision making of the adult involved.

    There will be those that say adoption is the answer, however a closer look at any of the state adoption agencies are flooded with special needs children.. and further in life crime will increase as will our jailed population. Would like to see any of the congressman involved in stopping this funding to each pledge to take home a special needs child.
  18. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    *sigh*

    That is NOT the issue. The fact that any debate of Federal funds is taking place is the point.

    Is unwanted pregnancy an issue? Yes. Does it need to be discussed and redressed? Yes. Is this in any way a Constitutional responsibility of the Federal government as laid out by our founders? Hell, NO! This is one of those areas that is specifically reserved to the states.
  19. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    if I'm reading your post correctly, you do want to get rid of the VA but still have the Federal government pay for vets' healthcare -- is that correct? Should Fed funding apply to all Fed employees, not just vets?

    --------------

    By the way, I'm not sure your claim re its constitutionality is correct. It's certainly a good argument, but at the same time, the "general welfare" language is pretty broad -- perhaps intentionally so?
  20. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,502
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    It's disgusting, it reminds me of women being Raped and not being able to find out if the guy that raped her had HIV, the pigs that make these laws should be shot dead.

    After a women carry's a fetus into late term they should not be allowed to have abortions, a women should only be allowed to have two early term abortions if she comes back a third time they should scoop her out with a stainless steel garden trowel then tell her she is free to go out and f-ck until the cows come home.

    America should have Abortion Clincs in all Wal Marts & Home Depot's to perform the above under those strict rules.

    Imagine if your wife was raped and you wern't allowed to know if The Raper had AIDS.
    Jesus Christ




    :bricks:
  21. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The government has a contract with every soldier, part of that contract is for veteran health care. The Constitution is clear about interfering in contracts. That doesn't mean that the government needs to be involved directly in providing the care, via the VA. Abolish it, and give vouchers so the soldiers can choose their own health care in the state in which they live.

    Should Fed funding apply to all Fed employees? What are the conditions of their hire? Do they have a contract? Were they extended insurance? Thats a pretty broad question. The Fed is not bound to provide it more than any other employer. (at least until the monstrosity passed last year), Yet if they need to provide these benefits to attract quality employees, then the Congress should not involve themselves in interfering with those agreements and contracts.
    edit.
    Oh, I missed the second part. I thought it was sig at first.

    The entire purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was not to limit or control, the states, towns or the people. Rather, it was to limit the Federal government in its scope and power, always deferring to the states and the People.

    The Federalist papers, which are the founders' arguements for ratification by the people is crystalline on these issues.

    The entire purpose of the Constitution, of American Exceptionalism (our system, not our people is exceptional), and the American experiment is that man can govern himself and be responsible for himself, without a distant government interfering in his lawful life. Its the whole point of this country.

    To use the "general welfare" clause in such a manner is to twist the document to negate its entire purpose.
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2011
  22. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,029
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    If they are paid for, will the clinics comply with the mandatory reporting requirement to notify authorities of the statutory rape (i.e. if a 30 year-old dirtbag brings his 15 year-old "girlfriend" in to get rid of the problem). I think we have seen some evidence that they do not and will not over the past few years.
  23. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    So the answer was yes.


    But you're ok w/it -- that's all I was asking. (Sorry if I wasn't clear on that one)


    As I said, I think your argument is a good one, and I happen to agree with it. But you can't paint it as black and white, as you try to here. The Constitution says what it says, and there are parts that are open to interpretation.
  24. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    Sorry to bore you with the reality of this type of decision making.. some people deal in the abstract, some deal with the reality.
  25. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Exactly. I deal in the reality of our founding documents. You deal in the abstract of a Euro cetric fantasy socialized system resulting in riots in the streets.
  26. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    So, I gather you believe, as I do that states and towns should not be allowed to default on government pension plans, but instead should be forced to raise taxes (or cut their budgets) to meet the contractual obligations they negotiated. That's an awfully liberal position of yours.

    No, the Constitution was an early attempt to protect human rights, not states rights, and the history of states rights really begins in the South with the defense of slavery prior to the Civil War. But, perhaps that's your point.

    The supremacy of the the federal government dates back to almost the beginning of our nation:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

    Now, I'm not denying there was a lot of debate about the issue early on, but ultimately the history of our nation is the triumph of human rights by the federal government against the will of the states (slavery, women's vote, worker's rights, child labor laws, gay rights, civil rights, etc.). Those who favor states rights are consistently on the side of bigots, whether they intend to be or not.
  27. patsboy44

    patsboy44 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2010
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Completely and utterly nuts.
  28. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ---- JAG ----- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,492
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +24 / 1 / -0

    #87 Jersey


    Post count where you need it yet?
  29. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,229
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -3

    Rebuttal of the NARAL allegations from NAtional Right to life:



    "But Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, says that’s not the case, and told LifeNews.com the bill “would codify the substance of the policy that was in place from 1993 on” when Congress added rape and incest exceptions to the Hyde Amendment.

    “We do not believe that the Hyde Amendment has ever been construed to permit federal funding of abortion based merely on the youth of the mother (“statutory rape”), nor are we aware of evidence that federal funding of abortion in such cases has ever been the practice,” Johnson explained. “It is true that the new bills would not allow general federal funding of abortion on all under-age pregnant girls — but this is no change in policy.”

    “In falsely claiming that it is a change in policy, the pro-abortion advocacy groups really are engaged in a brazen effort greatly expand federal funding for abortion. They want to federally fund the abortion of tens of thousands of healthy babies of healthy moms, based solely on the age of their mothers,” Johnson explains. “We would oppose such an expansion of federal funding of abortion.”



    Pro-Abortion Groups Mislead in Rape Attack on Tax-Funded Abortion Ban | LifeNews.com



    Perhaps the Pro Baby killers are upset that polling as showing that 60% of Americans oppose abortion.
  30. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    Yes, how "brazen." I like how he views the fact that a pregnant girl may be only 13 as a minor factor.

    I've got to think he actually opposes rape and incest exceptions, as well -- though I can actually understand the viewpoint (while completely opposing it).


    "Pro baby killers"... kind of like claiming you and Johnson are pro child rape.

    Extremists like you and those on the other side who think that all that matters is the woman's body are an embarrassment.


    I would think far more than 60% oppose abortion.

Share This Page