Printable View
How in the world could any intelligent woman be a republican after they attempted to do this? We know they do nothing for you unless you're white and christian and oh yeah, male. But this is flat out disgusting, pisses me off too, wow.
The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape | Mother Jones
thats absolutely revolting. Shakes me to the core. Thats quite possibly the most disgusting thing ive ever read.
give me a fucking break. and these same people tell ME im going to hell??
In my research, it needed to be a more defined term. Different states seem to have a different interpretation of forcible rape, but only a few actually use that term. In about all cases, minors no matter what the situation, fell under that term. It generally included females who were drugged and such also. Had it been defined more clearly, maybe it would have been a applied, maybe not. Either way, now its not happening.
They aren't attempting to change anything because it's some loosely based term, it's for one purpose, to prevent any kind of funds to go to an abortion in any way. Various fed/state programs will pay for it in cases of rape, they can't change that, so they try to change the fucking definition of rape for that very reason. They've been on this crusade for awhile, even though there's this little thing called the Hyde Amendment, but this goes way too far. One of the most disgusting legislative attempts I've ever seen, a new low for them, I hope every dem in 2012 house races makes this a point so no one forgets.
Well, I am fine with them limiting the reasons abortions are paid for by federal funding. Basic birth control abortions by those who want live their life loosely with no accountability should not be funded by federal money IMO.
Uh dude we're talking in cases of rape, you don't support funding for that? Or other reasons, and no, we're not talking about anything close to using it as BC. Are you saying you support changing the definition of rape to just prevent those cases?
I know you're pretty far right, but I've always seen you are rational, but lately with issues like this I'm starting to think otherwise. Just my opinion and I know you don't care, but really.
Your reading comprehension skills seem to be deminishing also. I am not trying to change the definition of rape, but instead make sure there isn't a broad reaching flexibility to allow federal money to be used for abortions. What is going to define whether or not a rape took place that allows them to get a federally funded abortion? Just going to a hosptial or police? An investigation? A conviction (which we all know would take too long to be feasible). I just dont want it to be something that can easily be abused that is my point.
But in this situation, is erring on the side of caution not the right path?
I could not possibly advocate allowing even one rape victim to not get an abortion if thats her wishes because some government official has a different definition of rape.
Caution is one thing. Loophole that funnels massive amounts of unnecessary federal money toward abortions due to people who do not want to take responsibility for their actions is another though.
The Hyde Amendment does close down that for the most part, but it has been modified many times over the years by both sides. Also, it could be repealed at anytime, and I would prefer that specific legislation be attached to this, in case the Hyde Amendment was repealed.
Do you have any proof of that happening? I have not seen anything to suggest that massive amounts of federal money was going to abortions in non-rape scenarios.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1inStripes
Nothing in the research or anything suggest that massive amounts of money are funding birth control abortions.