>
 |
| 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brings us back to an ancient, long-outdated standard of rape law: “Utmost resistance.”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.
>Elizabeth said… I feel like fainting-does anyone notice that Yohan is being, for once, rather sensible about an issue? Well, the legal situation about rape/abortion is also an important issue for MRAs, concerning especially married men and father's rights. Can you imagine, you are married, with wife and children, and some gangsters are attacking your wife and she gets pregnant because of that?How can this family be forced to accept this child among their other children? How can you be a father for this unwanted child? Generally, I think, 12 – 14 weeks should be OK to regulate such sensitive issues regarding abortion for any woman. I consider 3 months as a good time-out. The woman should decide alone during this time, no questions, no objections.However if feminists argue, it's OK for the girl because her boyfriend disappeared to demand an abortion after being 8 months pregnant AND even is demanding the health care should pay for that because she is now psycho – that's an absolutely NO. She should give birth and go ahead with adoption in such a situation.
>Yohan-what I said was a joke. You were supposed to laugh and go "whatever."John-I addressed your concerns and by the way, in my view, the woman outranks the fetus. She gets consideration before the fetus does. That said-I fully support both comprehensive sex ed including teaching that sex can wait for BOTH genders and empowerment for both genders in learning to say no when they are not ready, as well as prenatal and post natal assistance for women of all levels of society.
>That is why I am shocked you are being reasonable about this Yohan-most of what you are saying is a compromise between the extreme of John in saying NO WAY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE and the opposite of THE WOMAN DECIDES WHENEVER SHE WANTS TO.
> jupiter9 said… (Yohan) Anyway, distances between EU-countries are short, so what you cannot get in one country you get in another even without a passport…1. She has to pay to travel, pay for the abortion, pay to return.You can nowhere in this world expect, that any medical care you request is 24/365 available in front of your house free of charge.There are plenty of people who pay for any kind of medical care. Are all dental works free of charge? Do you not pay for your eye-glasses? You want to remove a scar or wart? What about visiting a spa for elderly people who are suffering of rheumatism?Do they not travel? Do they not have various expenses in relation to their medical problem?Even with health care insurance you have to pay sometimes for certain expenses at least a part by yourself.
>Elizabeth said… That is why I am shocked you are being reasonable about this Yohan- MRAs are not all the same, some are religious, some are not – some are from USA, some are from Europe or elsewhere, etc. etc.Some men will be even very happy if their girlfriend agrees with abortion – not all men (and not all women) like a family with children…Opinions of men regarding abortion are very much divided. Just my opinion: Men cannot know easily, if a woman is pregnant within the first 3 months. – So why to create legal problems for her which are unnecessary?
>"I believe that every parent is morally obligated to protect and provide for their offspring, and I believe that a fertilized egg is every bit as human as a fully-grown adult (it's certainly not a cow or a chicken; it's manifestly human). The difference is only a matter of development."A tumor is human and alive. You must allow it to grow freely, then, right?Your belief that a fertilized egg is equal to a fully-grown adult isn't shared by everyone.
> 1 -JohnDiasI believe that a fertilized egg is every bit as human as a fully-grown adult 2 -jupiter9A tumor is human and alive. You must allow it to grow freely, then, right? These are truly best examples for explaining the extreme point of view from both sides.1 -Something must be wrong here, but I do not know really how to explain it. Let me try.I do not think, a human fertilized egg is as human as a fully-grown adult.It's about to say a chicken and an egg is the same food.What is next? PETA telling me not to eat chicken because chicken are smart, and in future PETA will tell me not to eat eggs, because they are as animals as chicken?2 -To compare a human foetus with a malicious tumor is bizarre. It is also highly derogatory towards pregnant women who do not consider an abortion and are looking forward to birth.Pregnancy is NOT an internal ailment.
>John DiasJust to clarify:Does this mean you support demands that fathers pay child support
>@jupiter9:"A tumor is human and alive. You must allow it to grow freely, then, right?"No tumor will ever become an adult human being over time. But a human child will most certainly grow into an adult, given time and nourishment. The fact that the child is not an adult does not strip the child of its humanity."Your belief that a fertilized egg is equal to a fully-grown adult isn't shared by everyone."I quote the great Morpheus, from the Matrix:"My beliefs do not require them to." :-)Nevertheless, when Roe v. Wade is overturned, the states will once again have legal authority to set abortion policy by the will of the people, and in several states at least, this will in fact reflect the majority view of the people. Speaking of majorities, according to a Zogby poll, a majority of people surveyed support legal restrictions on abortion with the exceptions of rape, incest or threat to the mother's life. [Source]
>@Kave:"Just to clarify, does this mean you support demands that fathers pay child support?"Why should you have to pay child support if you're a fit parent who legally has at least 50% parenting time? So to sum up, NO.
>@ClarenceComments:"John Dias: You totally forgot about the whole 'bodily autonomy' thing, didn't you?"See the second comment in this thread, written by me. I most certainly respect the unborn child's right to bodily autonomy. (And yes, I realize that your question emphasizes the mother's point of view, but I prioritize the right of the child as highest except in cases where the pregnancy threatens the mother's life, such as with an ectopic pregnancy).
>Kave said… Kave said… John DiasJust to clarify:Does this mean you support demands that fathers pay child support @KaveDo you support jail sentences for dead-beat mothers, who fail to pay child-support to fathers if the children are living with him and not with her?
>John Dias: Speaking of majorities, according to a Zogby poll, a majority of people surveyed support legal restrictions on abortion with the exceptions of rape, incest or threat to the mother's life. Interesting reading about the situation in USA,these results are a surprise as you might expect the entire female population is with vote for the feminists.I see, my opinion, 3 months legal, is truly an outsider opinion without any hope of majority, but I am not living in the USA.Abortions legal for any reason during first 3 months 25%It would be interesting if there are some new data available, this poll is from April 2004, about 7 years ago. Also typically for the USA, different regions often show very different results.In EU and and in some Asian countries, most people have no problem with the 'first 3 months regulation'.About Europe, I found this link posted by MissPrism as very informative. She does not share my opinion about the abortion issue, but this is another matter. 12-14 weeks is very common.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6235557.stm
>John Dias said:I believe that every parent is morally obligated to protect and provide for their offspring.Unless their a dad. For the record I believe if a bio dad does not choose to be one he should not be forced.
>Here is the thing about the 50/50 custody arguement. If the children are old enough to take care of themselves then it works fine. But if they are young someone has to stay home with them. Why would I pay 14$ an hour to hire a full-time nanny when their mother is there? Parenting is a full-time job. If you have a full-time job then someone else needs to be there for the kids.
>@Kave:"Why would I pay 14$ an hour to hire a full-time nanny when their mother is there?"Because in divorce, the Family Court could see this as a sign that you're de-facto ceding your parenting time to the other parent, and this will give the other parent the right to demand that you lose whatever percentage of parenting time that the other parent was exercising during your time (even though you were paying her).It's all about court-imposed obligations. The divorced mother shouldn't be exempt from being just as much of a financial provider as you are. In my state, California, you're entitled by statute to submit a motion to the family court to order the other parent to seek full-time work, and in the alternative to impute income to the other parent. A divorcing providing father should definitely utilize his rights to obligate the other parent to provide an equal financial share, hopefully to whatever degree that the net child support obligor ends up paying close to zero to the other parent. If you both have equal parenting time percentages, then you should both be providing and parenting equally; child support obligations (and the related penalties for not paying child support, such as incarceration, wage garnishments and loss of driving license) should be out of the picture entirely.
>"No tumor will ever become an adult human being over time."You haven't met my ex-boyfriend.Many fertilized eggs don't become adult human beings, either. Estimates are that about half of them just don't make it, for various reasons.If God/Nature/chance throws away half of them, what's the big deal if we throw away a few more? They're apparently not all that valuable.An unwanted pregnancy and a tumor are equally valuable to the woman carrying them.
>jupiter9 said… An unwanted pregnancy and a tumor are equally valuable to the woman carrying them. What an ugly despicable view about human life -what else can we expect from feminism?Pregnancy is NOT an internal ailment!
>@jupiter9:"An unwanted pregnancy and a tumor are equally valuable to the woman carrying them…"But the intrinsic value of an intact living human being vastly exceeds a that of unliving flesh that — in itself — is not now, nor ever was, an intact human being. The intrinsic value of human life is not nullified simply because a particular child is callously not wanted by its mother. Subjective valuations of human life are transitory anyway; what if the mother values the baby long enough to give birth, but thereafter stops wanting the baby? Does that justify her (or anyone else) dismembering the baby in cold-blooded murder? In any humane and decent paradigm, not at all."If God/Nature/chance throws away half of them, what's the big deal if we throw away a few more?"Untold legions of born people die for various reasons every day, all over the world — whether due to acts of God, nature or chance. Are you suggesting that it's no big deal if a few more not only die, but are intentionally butchered through dismemberment or chemical burning? There's simply no morally justified defense to your reasoning; in my view it's completely indefensible.Yohan wrote:"What an ugly despicable view about human life- – what else can we expect from feminism?"It's not just feminism that reasons this way, but any belief system that reduces the perceived inherent value of a human being to that conferred upon it by one specific other. But yes, to the degree that the feminist ideologue places such a low value on the life of a defenseless baby that she supports dismembering and/or chemically burning that baby for completely elective reasons, feminism loses all moral credibility in my view.
>jupiter9 said… An unwanted pregnancy and a tumor are equally valuable to the woman carrying them It's a big difference between an UNWANTED pregnancy done out of consensual sex resulting of missing contraceptives and condomes – or a pregnancy due to FORCED sexual contact against the will of the woman (violent rape).MOST unwanted pregnancies are NOT forced and can be easily avoided if proper prevention is taken seriously by the woman.Growing of tumors, an internal ailment, cannot be avoided by swallowing a pill or using condoms.To compare cancer with a pregnancy considering both to be equal annoyances – that's truly feminist cruel mindset.
>http://www.thelocal.se/19392/20090512/Sweden rules 'gender-based' abortion legalSwedish health authorities have ruled that gender-based abortion is not illegal according to current law and can not therefore be stopped I personally find gender-specific abortion especially despicable.First check out the gender of the foetus, the future 'mother' (I do not call this monster to be a mother!) expects a girl, and it is a girl, that's OK. And if it is a boy, it's for abortion.Even medical doctors in Sweden were expressing concern, as they feel pressured to examine the foetus’s gender without having a medically compelling reason to do so, according to this article.In Sweden legal, up to 18 weeks and the health insurance pays. – What a shame – that's feminism at its finest.
>Actually Yohan, a pregnancy can kill a woman. So it can be considered an ailment.
>"But the intrinsic value of an intact living human being vastly exceeds a that of unliving flesh that — in itself — is not now, nor ever was, an intact human being. The intrinsic value of human life is not nullified simply because a particular child is callously not wanted by its mother."How far can we take this?If you rape a woman and get her pregnant, then that pregnancy could result in a miraculous, wonderful baby and human being! Not only do you have a responsibility to stop women who were raped from getting abortions. You have a moral duty to impregnate as many women as possible, regardless of their desire to be pregnant or be a mother.Yohan: "It's a big difference between an UNWANTED pregnancy done out of consensual sex resulting of missing contraceptives and condomes – or a pregnancy due to FORCED sexual contact against the will of the woman (violent rape)."They're both people though! No abortion can be allowed, all women who get abortions should be charged with murder! It doesn't matter how she got pregnant. Right?
> …. No abortion can be allowed, all women who get abortions should be charged with murder! It doesn't matter how she got pregnant. Right? No, this is not my opinion, if you read back.I said several times in this thread, as an MRA from Europe living in Japan, I consider abortion, 12-to-14-weeks (3-months)/the pregnant woman decides/no questionsas it is done in many EU-countries (Germany, Austria, Italy, France and also in some Asian countries etc.) as the best solution. I consider it to be somewhere in the middle between pro-life and pro-choice and the best solution I have seen so far. Nowadays abortion is not a big issue in most parts of EU and Japan, Singapore etc…How far can we take this?If you rape a woman and get her pregnant, then that pregnancy could result in a miraculous, wonderful baby and human being! It matters a lot for many married MRAs (like myself), how their wives got pregnant and who is the father. Why should I support a child – in case of rape but also paternity fraud – despite I am not the biological father?You should understand that not all MRAs are from USA and/or are not always religious motivated like Muslims or Catholics.Among MRAs the opinion about abortion is divided, and not only among MRAs.I doubt if all feminists agree to gender-specific abortion (girls OK, boys away) or to abortion a few weeks before birth, because a woman is suddenly getting psycho because she regrets her one-night-stand 7 or 8 months ago.
>Elizabeth said… Actually Yohan, a pregnancy can kill a woman. So it can be considered an ailment. A pregnancy/birth is a natural condition for a woman serving reproduction of humans and is not an ailment.Medical checkups are recommended of course to monitor pregnancy and to discover any problem as soon as possible.I do not know about any country, any government, any social framework in this world, where pregnancy is considered to be an illness beginning with the first day of conception.Conception = sexually transmitted infection?Women are waiting frequently for sperm from donors, does that mean they PAY to be infected with a sexually transmitted deadly disease?Feminists are even attacking MRAs are cruel, as we are strongly against sperm-donorship out of many reasons.