For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, with another exemption covering pregnancies that could endanger the life of the mother.
But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to drastically limit the definition of rape and incest in these cases. The bill, with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors, has been dubbed a top priority in the new Congress by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).
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. Rep. Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.
Given that the bill would also forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents would also not 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.
Statutory rape? Too bad...wingers want you to have the kid. So why the "forcible rape" provision?
Laurie Levenson, a former assistant US attorney and expert on criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, notes that the new bill's authors are "using language that's not particularly clear, and some people are going to lose protection."
Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes.
"There are a lot of aspects of rape that are not included," Levenson says.
As for the incest exception, the bill would only allow federally funded abortions if the woman is under 18.
The bill hasn't been carefully constructed, Levenson notes. The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill's authors don't offer their own definition. In some states, there is no legal definition of "forcible rape," making it unclear whether any abortions would be covered by the rape exemption in those jurisdictions.
Ding ding ding! Once again the goal is to make abortions impossible to get under any circumstances. Who cares about the woman being raped? Republicans certainly don't give a damn.
And remember, this is a "priority" now among House Republicans. What happened to jobs, housing, and the economy, guys? Too bad, we've got a whole lot of wombs to regulate!
Posts
6 comments:
Funny how the left has no problem killing babies or with Obamacare government officials telling us who lives and who dies, but screams like banshees when the issue of "reproductive choice" comes up.
Funny how the right has no problem with killing women (via forcing them to carry dangerous pregnancies, forcing them to self-abort, or forcing them to go to quacks like Kermit Gosnell) and insurance company bureaucrats telling us who lives and who dies (for the sake of their profit), but screams like banshees when... well, whenever people decide that this is FUCKING UNACCEPTABLE and start whining about GOD and PRECIOUS BABIES and LAZY and whatever scare words they think of at the moment.
TL;DR: ICP is a crock of shit. But then, this should be pretty obvious by now.
Question: if an adult male has sex with a girl who is a minor, that is a crime in many if not most states, right? If the girl becomes pregnant as a result of the statutory rape, why shouldn't the person who raped her not pay for the abortion if the girl wants one (the rapist would not be allowed to determine where the girl gets an abortion to avoid paying what he would think is too much)? Why should the taxpayers be forced to pay for it? Why should an insurance company be forced to pay for it? After all, only the rapist committed a crime.
If you think about it, why wouldn't any rapist be required to pay for an abortion as a result of his crime?
SteveAR, a good point, but hardly practical. By the time the rapist has been found, convicted, appealed, and so forth, an abortion may not be feasible. And that assumes that the girl has the legal wherewithal to chase the guy for the costs in court, adding extra legal costs into the bargain.
On the other hand, having the insurance/government pay for it, with the ability to get an immediate lien in the case of a rape conviction would seem to be the most practical. Of course, that implies that the lawmakers were keen to work out a practical way to pay for an abortion.
royalblaue_tom:
SteveAR, a good point, but hardly practical. By the time the rapist has been found, convicted, appealed, and so forth, an abortion may not be feasible.
Sure it would. The state government, but not Medicaid, can pay for the abortion if it is determined the girl/woman was raped, the pregnancy resulted from the rape, and the girl/woman wants the abortion. When the perp is caught and convicted, an additional fine to pay for the abortion can be levied as part of the punishment. When let out, the state can then confiscate any earnings the rapist owes the state government, including interest, say at 20% per year (think of it as a payback for the taxpayers loaning the girl/woman money for the abortion). This could work even if the rapist moves out of state.
If the state allowed the abortion to occur at all. As you and others elsewhere have mentioned, many states would likely ban this provision outright in an effort to ban the abortion entirely. Which sort of screws the woman all over again. In addition, I would suspect that any state allowing this provision would require proof of the rape first, before payment.
The second that eggs gets fertilized, the woman is under a fairly strict time constraint, which she may not be initially aware of for some time. She must possess the right to choose to carry or not to carry a child from the outset, or the whole thing turns into a farce. If we add an extra layer of supervision to the whole thing, we make it that much harder for that decision to make.
It's laudable that you've presented an option, Steve, I just don't think any state would consider it and if they did, it would likely face a court challenge and from both sides at that.
Post a Comment