>
![]() |
| He’s not crying for pregnant rape victims. |
Let’s take a brief break from the man boobz on the internet to look at the man (and some women) boobz in Congress, specifically the Republicans (and a handful of Democrats) who are trying to push through a truly odious bill, The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, designed to make it harder for women who have been raped to get abortions. Here’s how the SF Chronicle sums it up:
Current law allows federal funds (usually for Medicaid) to be spent on abortions only for women who have been raped or are the victims of incest. We think those restrictions are bad enough, but the new class of House Republicans want more. The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would outlaw the use of federal funds for abortion except in the case of “forcible rape.” The incest exemption would only apply to minors.
“Forcible rape” doesn’t have a legal definition, but in general the idea is to exclude pregnancies that result from date rape, statutory rape or rapes that happen when women are physically incapacitated.
So if you’re drugged and raped, and you get pregnant, too bad. If your father rapes you, and you get pregnant, too bad. Those rapes apparently don’t count.
As Amanda Marcotte puts it, the bill’s sponsors apparently
believe the misogynist stereotype that all women, especially those who claim to be ill or victims of crimes, are lying whores until proven otherwise. Or just lying whores, regardless of the evidence they produce. And so, to make sure those lying whores don’t get their hands on those delicious, orgasm-inducing uterine scrapings, the bill has language in it that, in essence, assumes that 70% of rape victims weren’t really raped. The exception is only for “forcible rape”, which is vaguely defined, but in practice tends to mean that anything short of getting your ass beat down means you weren’t “really” raped. Even if you’re a 13-year-old who was impregnated by a 30-year-old. Also, if you happen to get pregnant by your abusive, rape-y father on your 18th birthday, you will get no funding to make sure you don’t give birth to your own brother.
In Salon, Sady Doyle puts the Republican push for the bill in a larger context, noting that the bill’s reference to “forcible rape”
brings us back to an ancient, long-outdated standard of rape law: “Utmost resistance.”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.
Meanwhile, Time magazine’s Amy Sullivan tried to figure out if there really were a lot of “false rape claims” being by made by wily money-hungry young pregnant women in an attempt to bilk the government out of money. The answer, of course, is no.
Eligibility rules … differ by state, but many states are like Tennessee, which requires a doctor to certify that “there is credible evidence to believe that the pregnancy is the result of rape” and to attach “documentation from a law enforcement agency indicating the patient has made a credible report as the victim of incest or rape” before Medicaid will consider issuing payment for an abortion procedure. …
So that scourge of false rape reports–or even, let’s say, “non-forcible” rapes? It doesn’t exist. I couldn’t find numbers more recent than 2001, but these shocked me. In that year, the total number of abortions covered by Medicaid was 56. That’s all abortions for cases in which the mother’s life was in danger, the pregnancy was a result of incest, or in the case of rape. Another 25 were covered by state Medicaid programs. Even assuming that every single one of those abortions was to end a pregnancy caused by rape, that’s 81 abortions paid for in part with taxpayer dollars. Nationwide. That’s roughly $32,000 total for first trimester procedures.
So, yeah, this is not exactly what is busting the budget. Indeed, I imagine there are many rape victims who choose to pay out of pocket for an abortion, even if they can’t really afford it, rather than going through the humiliation of trying to prove they’ve been raped to the satisfaction of government bureaucrats.
UPDATE: The Republicans have removed the “forcible rape” language from the bill. But there is still plenty about the bill to hate.
If you’re American, and want to do something about this bill, here’s one practical suggestion: There are a number of Democrats who have signed on to co-sponsor the bill. I suggest you contact them and let them know how you feel. You can find info on how to contact them on Pandagon.
Or you can contact your representative by clicking on the banner below:
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.




>Reminds me of a story told by a male judge at a class I attended once.A woman came in asking for an injunction against harassment from the guy who raped her. The judge turned her down because she could not show a "series of events intending to harass the plaintiff" which was the legal standard at the time. Her question to the judge was "so I have to be raped more than once?"
>And if you're the unborn child, too bad for you.
>Sorry, John. You can't be "pro-life" unless you can bring yourself to give two shits about a baby after it's been born as well as before. Until then, anything you say is hypocritical bullshit. So, really, nothing new on that front.
>And if you're the unborn child, too bad for you.You care about an unthinking clump of cells, but not about a living, thinking, feeling woman?That's just cold, man.
>Triplanetary-not like she has any right to demand consideration. She is only there to incubate the male child.
>Also, it's not like men go around raping women who don't deserve it. If she got knocked up, she was obviously asking for it. You know, even if she was a thirteen year old girl coerced by her older brother.
>If she got knocked up, she was obviously asking for it. If she didn't fight back hard enough, she secretly wanted it.Plus she was clearly seducing him, doing sexy stuff like taking off her jacket.Okay, I'm making myself ill here, I'm going to stop.
>The entire bill is fucked up.Right now some health insurance plans cover the cost of an abortion (mine, for example, pays 50%). It is totally their right to do this and is part of the free market system. But, under this law, individuals and companies can't use the tax deductions for buying health insurance if the plan pays for any part of an abortion except in cases of forcable rape.So, if your boss picked a plan because it had the best coverage and it just happens to also cover abortions… no tax credit for your company. The goal of this is to force insurance companies to not cover abortions at all or force people to have to convince their insurance carrier that they were raped before it could pay for the procedure. And that's what this is- a medical procedure. People have power over their own bodies. Full stop. End of story. For being the party that is about government staying out of people's lives they certainly seem to want to be involved in this. Can we call it a government takeover of healthcare? Don't get me wrong- the rape thing is all types of fucked up. But even if they changed the language this would still be a terrible bill. P.S. I'd love to see David's reaction to http://roissy.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/cheap-and-easy-ways-to-raise-your-value-to-a-girl/ why is it that the MRA guide to getting women is the same as the list of how to be an asshole that nobody likes? I mean, his plan might work but you'll end up attracting women with serious self-esteem issues and deep rooted problems. If you're into people who are emotionally damaged then go for it!
>If you're into people who are emotionally damaged then go for it!And then join an MRA site and complain about it!!
>Every woman impregnated against her will was once an unborn child.
>@ MissySeriously! I saw the headline to Roissy's latest blog post on the Boob Roll and clicked, because I was curious about it. I thought it would be full of things like, "If your buddy has a nicer car than yours, borrow it for an evening," or "Make friends with the waitstaff at a small, classy bistro so you can impress her when you take her there."Instead, I ended up reading something that cross references pretty well with the Abuser Red Flag List put out by Heartless Bitches International: http://heartlessbitchesinternational.com/rants/manipulator/redflaglist.shtml.
>Captain Bathrobe said:"Sorry, John. You can't be "pro-life" unless you can bring yourself to give two shits about a baby after it's been born as well as before. Until then, anything you say is hypocritical bullshit. So, really, nothing new on that front."triplanetary said:"You care about an unthinking clump of cells, but not about a living, thinking, feeling woman?"Wow, the bigotry!Just because John's a man, it's automatically assumed that he may not give a shit about children. heh dumbass feminists
>Missy and Lady Vic: HA! I saw that and said to myself, "oh, more of the same old 'treat them like crap and they'll worship you' PUA crap from Roissy." Maybe I'm becoming jaded. I'll give it another look. ….
>Every woman impregnated against her will was once an unborn child.And I commit genocide every time I wash a load of socks. So what?
>No, Nick, I assume he doesn't give a shit about kids because he strikes me as the kind of person who doesn't give a shit about kids. Most pro-lifers don't–at least not after the kids are born. They shed crocodile tears for the poor baybeez while they're in the womb, then complain bitterly about having to pay taxes to those same kids once they're out. If John is not one of those types then he's free to say so, but I don't plan on holding my breath until he does.
>That should have read: "pay taxes to help those same kids."
>"Every woman impregnated against her will was once an unborn child."That depends on when you believe existence begins. Because there is nothing it is like to be a three-week old fetus, I was not the fetus. I began to exist when I had my first thought and I will cease to exist when I have my last.But even if you believe that existence begins before that, you have the problem of agency. The mother, whose body the fetus feeds off of, has agency over the body. Even if the fetus exists as a person its host has the right to determine if it can continue to exist. You can no more force a mother to allow a fetus to continue to grow in her womb than you could force her to donate a kidney to save another person.
>In most Western countries abortion is not a big issue between feminists and MRAs.Rules in most EU-countries are about as follows:1 – a woman can decide alone – but only up to 12 to 14 weeks pregnancy. At that time, nobody can see and know, that this woman is pregnant. The abortion must be done by a medical doctor, otherwise she would break the law.Often chemical abortion works and no surgery is required.2 – No medical doctor or nurse, neither independent nor as employee in a hospital, can be forced to carry out or to assist for an abortion.3 – After that time, 14 months pregnant, the child must be carried out and after birth it will be taken away (the mother will not see it even for a moment) for adoption. The woman might claim if asked by co-workers etc. that the baby was still-born, she can show even a medical certificate to the employer that she was admitted to a hospital for giving birth and was released from the hospital without the child.What's the problem?Of course laws in EU are not the best solution for feminists, but also not the best solution for anti-abortion-activists, but we all understand, you must arrange something 'in the middle', otherwise this discussion will never finish.it seems, US-feminists with their hateful rhetoric are just not mature enough to find an acceptable solution, even demanding very late abortion – see the following link and comments (by Amanda Marcotte)http://scribe.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/philly-doctor-case-shines-light-access-issuesLATE abortions should be outlawed.
>What's the problem?The problem is that a) third-trimester abortions are sometimes medically necessary, and b) no woman should ever, ever be forced to endure nine months of pregnancy because she was raped. If she chooses to, fine, but she should not be forced. And a woman who can't afford an abortion and can't receive ANY insurance or government assistance is being forced, make no mistake.you must arrange something 'in the middle', otherwise this discussion will never finish.Well, no. When one of the sides is a bunch of authoritarian, moralistic, woman-controlling asses, you don't need a solution that falls "in the middle."
>:(*trigger warning*
>@ David:It'd be interesting to see a comparison between Roissy's advice and Nightstorm's personal list of why having a girlfriend is a pain in the ass.
>If feminists are pro abortion fine. Let feminsts pay for them. Don't make people who hate abortion and have a moral objection to them pay for them. Random Brother
>1. It is not just feminists who are prochoice.2. People who are prochoice believe abortion is a right.
>Yohann's comment is gibberish. Abortion laws vary wildly within the EU, from liberal in the Netherlands to a near-total ban in Ireland. And you can't adopt out a 14 week foetus because it is 3 inches long.
>@ SandyFair enough.Random Brother