»» Columnists

New Proposed Law Would Restrict Public Abortion Funding to Victims of ‘Rape-Rape’

video

by Tommy Christopher | 2:30 pm, February 2nd, 2011

» 29 comments

People of every political persuasion were rightly outraged when, in 2009, Whoopi Goldberg presented the odd defense of Roman Polanski that his crime “wasn’t rape-rape.” A new law, introduced by a GOP congressman and lauded by House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), seeks to similarly redefine the circumstances under which public funds may be used to fund abortions by replacing the current “rape or incest” exemptions with something they call “forcible rape.” So far, the outrage is a bit one-sided.

The bill, “H.R. 3: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” was introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), and has 173 co-sponsors, including ten Democrats. Not only does it change the longstanding “rape or incest” exemption to “an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest,” it also contains provisions that could well lead to the end of abortion coverage by private health insurance plans.

Critics of the bill argue that the “forcible rape” language is ambiguous at best, and could exclude drug-induced rapes, since there is no federal legal definition of “forcible rape.” While this ambiguity is alarming (for reasons that Sady Doyle lays out very effectively), most current legal definitions of “forcible rape” include such rapes. Daring this bill’s authors to define “forcible rape” is the wrong approach.

While the US Criminal Code doesn’t define “forcible rape(the code places all forms of rape, including statutory, under the umbrella of the term “Aggravated Sexual Assault”),” federal crime-reporting standards do, and while they include rapes due to temporary or permanent incapacity, they specifically exclude one particular kind of rape:

Agencies must not classify statutory rape, incest, or other sex offenses, i.e. forcible sodomy, sexual assault with an object, forcible fondling, etc. as Forcible Rape (2a or 2b). The UCR Program applies the following definitions:

Statutory rape-nonforcible sexual intercourse with a person who is under the statutory age of consent.

Incest-nonforcible sexual intercourse between persons who are related to each other within the degrees wherein marriage is prohibited by law.

This exclusion is also found in most states’ definitions of “forcible rape,” where such definitions exist. So, while HR 3 might exclude drug-induced rapes (but likely would not), it definitely excludes statutory rapes, the type that Whoopi Goldberg also didn’t consider “rape-rape.”

While attempting to narrow the definition of rape is, itself, outrageous, the fact that the only unambiguous exclusion here will be little girls who are impregnated by adults is truly revolting. One of the bill’s Democratic co-sponsors, Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-Il), assures TPM that this wasn’t his intent:

“The language of H.R. 3 was not intended to change existing law regarding taxpayer funding for abortion in cases of rape, nor is it expected that it would do so,” Lipinski said in the statement. “Nonetheless, the legislative process will provide an opportunity to clarify this should such a need exist.”

That’s hard to swallow, given the fact that aside from the “forcible rape” change, this provision is triple-redundant. Rep. Bart Stupak famously spurred President Obama to issue an Executive Order reinforcing a prohibition that already existed in federal law. Stupak, who ironically accepted abortion money for his campaign, was called a “baby-killer” for his trouble.

So, why do 164 Republicans and 10 Democrats hate little girls, unless they’re raped by a close relative? My initial read of this bill is that they don’t, that what they really want to do is promote the notion that , absent this “forcible rape” language, women will just go around “crying rape,” a popular myth in American rape culture. Rape is actually a woefully underreported crime.

This is reinforced by the reductive attitude that abortion rights opponents take toward “health of the mother” exemptions, best exemplified by Sen. John McCain’s air-quoted suggestion, in a 2008 presidential debate, that such concerns are merely pretext to secure taxpayer-funded abortions:

The condescension drips like the back end of a Tijuana air conditioner, and is of a piece with the anti-woman thrust of this bill.

Either way, it’s not a very pretty choice. Time will tell if Smith & Co. generate as much outrage as Whoopi Goldberg did.

A little over a week ago, Rachel Maddow talked about this bill with Rep. Jan Shakowsky (D-Il), and while they missed the “forcible rape” language, they did talk about the bill’s many overreaches, most importantly this section:

SEC. 303. PROHIBITION ON TAX BENEFITS RELATING TO ABORTION.

For taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this section

(1) no credit shall be allowed under the internal revenue laws with respect to amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or with respect to amounts paid or incurred for a health benefits plan (including premium assistance) that includes coverage of abortion,CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(2) for purposes of determining any deduction for expenses paid for medical care of the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse or dependents, amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or for a health benefits plan that includes coverage of abortion shall not be taken into account, and

(3) in the case of any tax-preferred trust or account the purpose of which is to pay medical expenses of the account beneficiary, any amount paid or distributed from such an account for an abortion shall be included in the gross income of such beneficiary.

That means anyone who has an insurance plan that covers abortions, even a single man who will never have an abortion, will be denied any health care related tax benefits. That would even apply to dudes who work for the RNC, whose health plan covers elective abortions.

The likely result of this will be that group health insurance plans will stop covering abortions altogether.

Here’s the clip from the January 24 edition of The Rachel Maddow Show, from MSNBC”

Chris Smith, Daniel Lipinski, HR 3, Jan Shakowsky, John Boehner, Rachel Maddow, Roman Polanski, Sady Doyle, Whoopi Goldberg

roxsteady

This is why John of Orange and his wingnut brigade will be bounced ouf of office. Mr. Boehner, WHERE ARE THE JOBS? This will likely be the shortest reign as Speaker in recent history.
Tommy is Spenc

Tommy Christopher Wrote:
“it also contains provisions that could well lead to the end of abortion coverage by private health insurance plans.”

-Just curious Mr. Chrisopher but instead of just dropping such claims can you provide proof of “…that could lead to…” I mean how ambiguous is that?

Also, I thought this site was about the media, yet this article is clearly another one of you Op-ed pieces. I mean with such statements as:
“Daring this bill’s authors to define “forcible rape” is the wrong approach.”

Clearly this is not really about media or media personalities.
Tommy is Spenc

Roxsteady wrote:
“WHERE ARE THE JOBS?”

Maybe you should ask that dude in the White House as well. He’s been there for over half a term.
The_Reasonable_Lib

Congratulations, GOP and right-wing zealots, you have officially lived up to my every expectation. You even redefine rape. Next you will attempt to make it so that even forced rape abortions are illegal. (waiting for somebody to pick upon this)
Arch

Why are they wasting cycles on veto-bait? Get something done! Govern!
CosmosDan

So does it seem like they want less government encroachment on private individuals and private industry, UNLESS IT”S A REASON WE AGREE WITH.

And why now, when it obviously isn’t a priority. To appease the religious right? How will this play out to the dependents who voted them in.

And, because I really don’t know, How is FOX covering this?
http://www.snowspot.net Snowspot

So I guess.. the poor can just have unlimited children now? Mexicans too? You know if there is no immigration reform but they make abortions illegal, the country will be flooded with non-American citizens… because they tend to have a lot of children.

I actually look forward to a more spanish America…

OLE!
BlackWidow

Women that choose abortion will find a way. Regardless of insurance coverage or not. They are making it more difficult. In the old days (before it was legal) women found a way and they will do that again but at least it will be a much safer a process.

Republicans make me laugh because they are pro-life but when women have children they are unable to take care of then OH MY GOD we don’[t want to help them. They can’t have it both ways. Yes, it is a problem and there is no one more against having children they can’t take care of than me. BUT it is the reality of today. No one wants to pay for sex education or birth control or abortions. If I thought for a moment that standing on street corners passing out condoms would help I would be more than glad to spend my time doing that.

I loved Snowspots answer to this. Right on the money.
tatboy

Tommy: “My initial read of this bill is that they don’t, that what they really want to do is promote the notion that , absent this “forcible rape” language, women will just go around “crying rape,” a popular myth in American rape culture. Rape is actually a woefully underreported crime.”

Really???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case

Tommy… I can not tell you the number of guys on college campuses that are accused of rape EVERYDAY that didn’t nothing but screw while drunk at a party and the girl freaked out the next day when she realized what she had done. I never experenced this as I was in a serious relationship all through college and med school but many of my guy friends went through this. I don’t think you’re being realistic.
BlackWidow

Arch said:
Why are they wasting cycles on veto-bait? Get something done! Govern!

You go guy/girl!!! I agree.
BlackWidow

Tommy is Spenc said:
Roxsteady wrote:“WHERE ARE THE JOBS?” Maybe you should ask that dude in the White House as well. He’s been there for over half a term.

The people (you) wern’t happy with what and how he was doing so they elected YOUR people to take over and do better. So let us see if Boner can do better. So far NOT SO MUCH!
BlackWidow

tatboy said:
Tommy: “My initial read of this bill is that they don’t, that what they really want to do is promote the notion that , absent this “forcible rape” language, women will just go around “crying rape,” a popular myth in American rape culture. Rape is actually a woefully underreported crime.” Really???http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case Tommy… I can not tell you the number of guys on college campuses that are accused of rape EVERYDAY that didn’t nothing but screw while drunk at a party and the girl freaked out the next day when she realized what she had done. I never experenced this as I was in a serious relationship all through college and med school but many of my guy friends went through this. I don’t think you’re being realistic.

Oh of course it is the women’s fault!!
BlackWidow

Tommy is Spenc said:
Tommy Christopher Wrote:“it also contains provisions that could well lead to the end of abortion coverage by private health insurance plans.” -Just curious Mr. Chrisopher but instead of just dropping such claims can you provide proof of “…that could lead to…” I mean how ambiguous is that? Also, I thought this site was about the media, yet this article is clearly another one of you Op-ed pieces. I mean with such statements as:“Daring this bill’s authors to define “forcible rape” is the wrong approach.” Clearly this is not really about media or media personalities.

Welcome to Mediaite!!
tatboy

BlackWidow said:
Oh of course it is the women’s fault!!

Did I say that??? And what abou the Duke Rape Case I linked??? Whose “fault “was that??? I stated that men can and ARE falsely accused of rape everyday. Very few have the money and privilege to prove their innocence like those men did.
Nacho

When a republican rapes somebody they want to be able to keep their product, like the Founding Fathers.
kvon

tatboy said:
Did I say that??? And what abou the Duke Rape Case I linked??? Whose “fault “was that??? I stated that men can and ARE falsely accused of rape everyday. Very few have the money and privilege to prove their innocence like those men did.

One example of falsely accused rape TOTALLY makes rape a non-issue…COMPLETELY. Rape, not an issue anymore at all guys because one lady cried wolf. Tell the papers, tell everyone.

You’re a piece of shit my friend. A complete, woman hating, piece of shit.
CosmosDan

tatboy said:
Tommy… I can not tell you the number of guys on college campuses that are accused of rape EVERYDAY that didn’t nothing but screw while drunk at a party and the girl freaked out the next day when she realized what she had done. I never experenced this as I was in a serious relationship all through college and med school but many of my guy friends went through this. I don’t think you’re being realistic.

I believe he’s talking statistically speaking. He’s not saying false accusations don’t happen.

I have to wonder how many cases like the ones you mentioned actually get to a trial or a police record. It’s awfully hard to prove rape at a drunken party.
Judge Mental

BlackWidow said:
Republicans make me laugh because they are pro-life but when women have children they are unable to take care of then OH MY GOD we don’[t want to help them. They can’t have it both ways. Yes, it is a problem and there is no one more against having children they can’t take care of than me. BUT it is the reality of today. No one wants to pay for sex education or birth control or abortions.

I guess you’re not familiar with the concept of personal responsibility. Why should I have to pay for someone else’s lack of responsibility? And, BTW, there’s a third option that you fail to mention: adoption.
Gasket

Idiot Republicans. Nothing more to say here.
Tommy Christopher

tatboy said:
Tommy… I can not tell you the number of guys on college campuses that are accused of rape EVERYDAY

Exactly…you can’t tell me how many. I can tell you how many rapes go unreported (see the link I provided), and the myth of rampant false accusations contributes to that sad stat. Also, you’re taking your “guy friends” collective word for it that they all had consent. Another reason rape is underreported.
Tommy Christopher

Tommy is Spenc said:
-Just curious Mr. Chrisopher but instead of just dropping such claims can you provide proof of “…that could lead to…” I mean how ambiguous is that?

Well, there’s this:

SEC. 303. PROHIBITION ON TAX BENEFITS RELATING TO ABORTION.
For taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this section
(1) no credit shall be allowed under the internal revenue laws with respect to amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or with respect to amounts paid or incurred for a health benefits plan (including premium assistance) that includes coverage of abortion,CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) for purposes of determining any deduction for expenses paid for medical care of the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse or dependents, amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or for a health benefits plan that includes coverage of abortion shall not be taken into account, and
(3) in the case of any tax-preferred trust or account the purpose of which is to pay medical expenses of the account beneficiary, any amount paid or distributed from such an account for an abortion shall be included in the gross income of such beneficiary.
That means anyone who has an insurance plan that covers abortions, even a single man who will never have an abortion, will be denied any health care related tax benefits. That would even apply to dudes who work for the RNC, whose health plan covers elective abortions.

The likely result of this will be that group health insurance plans will stop covering abortions altogether.

This provision poisons any insurance product, particularly group insurance, that covers abortion.
Tommy Christopher

Tommy is Spenc said:
Also, I thought this site was about the media

One aspect of media reporting is identifying narratives as they unfold. HR 3 was covered by Maddow a week or so ago, but the “forcible rape” language has just emerged in print and online media in the past few days. As I figured it would, the subject began to get cable TV coverage shortly after I published this piece.
The Tea Weasel

This smells like a law Ann Coulter could get behind. Or some variation of that sentence.
More Liberty3

Tommy Christopher said:
One aspect of media reporting is identifying narratives as they unfold. HR 3 was covered by Maddow a week or so ago, but the “forcible rape” language has just emerged in print and online media in the past few days. As I figured it would, the subject began to get cable TV coverage shortly after I published this piece.

So like he said, it’s really not about media. You just want to push your beliefs.
tatboy

Tommy Christopher said:
Exactly…you can’t tell me how many. I can tell you how many rapes go unreported (see the link I provided), and the myth of rampant false accusations contributes to that sad stat. Also, you’re taking your “guy friends” collective word for it that they all had consent. Another reason rape is underreported.

And your automatic assumtion that a woman is ALWAYS telling the truth almost got those guys at Duke 25 years and a lifetime on a sex offender list. If I were still single I wouldn’t have sex today without a written contract. All it takes is the accusation and a guys life is over.
tatboy

kvon said:
One example of falsely accused rape TOTALLY makes rape a non-issue…COMPLETELY. Rape, not an issue anymore at all guys because one lady cried wolf. Tell the papers, tell everyone. You’re a piece of shit my friend. A complete, woman hating, piece of shit.

Yep… that’s what I said. You bet. Your a moron… and a man hating piece of shit. :).
CosmosDan

tatboy said:
And your automatic assumtion that a woman is ALWAYS telling the truth almost got those guys at Duke 25 years and a lifetime on a sex offender list

Bullshit. That is not being assumed and the Duke case is not a valid example. The DA himself was corrupt which is why their guilt was believed.

tatboy said:
All it takes is the accusation and a guys life is over.

It’s bad when that happens but that’s quite an exaggeration you got there.
tatboy

CosmosDan said:
Bullshit. That is not being assumed and the Duke case is not a valid example. The DA himself was corrupt which is why their guilt was believed.

It’s bad when that happens but that’s quite an exaggeration you got there.

How is it Bullshit??? So I give a perfect example and your only responce is “It don’t count”??? WTF??? It DID!!! And HOW is it an exaggeration??? Once your accused it’s game over… look at Coby Bryant… people still to this day call him a rapist. Think about it, he’s branded for life. The young lady had 0 credibility and for the rest of his life he’s got a Scarlet R on his chest. She f**ked 3 guys in 1 day according to the DNA and all she had to do was say “rape”. No evidence, no force, no nothing. The guy is scum for cheating on his wife. But being accused of rape is the worst thing you can do to a man in the world today. I thank Gawd I don’t have to ever worry about this happening to me, and I feel sorry for single men in the world right now. Don’t f**k over a girl you got with last night she can ruin your life if she chooses.
pakattak

tatboy said:
How is it Bullshit??? So I give a perfect example and your only responce is “It don’t count”??? WTF??? It DID!!! And HOW is it an exaggeration??? Once your accused it’s game over… look at Coby Bryant… people still to this day call him a rapist. Think about it, he’s branded for life. The young lady had 0 credibility and for the rest of his life he’s got a Scarlet R on his chest. She f**ked 3 guys in 1 day according to the DNA and all she had to do was say “rape”. No evidence, no force, no nothing. The guy is scum for cheating on his wife. But being accused of rape is the worst thing you can do to a man in the world today. I thank Gawd I don’t have to ever worry about this happening to me, and I feel sorry for single men in the world right now. Don’t f**k over a girl you got with last night she can ruin your life if she chooses.

I don’t know if you’ve heard or not but “KOBE” (not Coby) Bryant is doing pretty fucking well. I don’t think anyone even mentions his little episode anymore. Branded for life? Please.

False charge rape cases get thrown out all the time. Would you rather the law side more with men in this case? I mean, we males have it pretty good already. (Unless, of course, you’re not white. Sucks for minorities, but this is AMURICA. And real Amuricans are white.)