Triggering (Abuse): Republicans redefine rape for abortion laws

[TheBabyEater]

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011...-rape-abortion

So basically if you're drugged it's not "really" rape. I don't care if people are pro-life or pro-choice, but really... Eh. Just wanted to know if my boyfriend and I are alone in thinking it's somewhat ridiculous.

[Megan1]

I think that it should be illegal to abort even if you are raped; but I do agree that it's ridiculous to say that it's not really rape if you're drugged. :/

[Doodle.]

Oh for fuck's sake ¬______¬

That's all I can say to this

[Kitty.]

Regardless of my views on whether or not abortion is right, it's wrong to say that if someone is drugged, it's not rape. It most definitely is rape.

[Gaia]

I know in Britain there are certain times when if the girl has been drinking heavily it may not be considered rape, which I don't necessarily agree with all the time. But I think that was to stop so many girls crying rape. (Shocking to believe that people do that)
I disagree with this entirely, if you get drugged, you're raped. You would have absolutely no control, if anything this would make it more easy to say it was rape as there is evidence of the person being in no control.

[Kumagoro]

Daft. That's all I can say.

[TheBabyEater]

Yeah, sometimes girls at parties or something will go upstairs with a boy to his room after drinking a lot, then say it's rape. Which... I don't always agree with. I mean, what did you think was going to happen in his room girls? A tea party...? This is not to say it's never rape, every case is different. If a girl says no, it's no. Drinking or no drinking, in his room or not. ._.

But still. Drugging is basically screaming "This girl said no so I'm going to go ahead and drug her anyway"

[Acheron]

Just when you thought the Republican party couldn't get any more regressive...

[thebigmole]

I will write an acutal response later, right now I'm too pissed off to write a response without a lot of cursing.

[Heretic]

Surprise? Nah.

Absolute conservatives will do anything to prevent abortion, including eliminating the idea of "victim". Being drugged makes a person incapable of giving consent, and it is therefore definitely rape. This is disgusting and shameful.

[MadPoet]

That really is ridiculous. Personally I am against abortion in all circumstances, but it's just stupid to say that's not rape. They're just desperate to try and stop abortion, and they're trying for that in stupid ways.

[fresco]

Originally Posted by Avada Kedavra

Oh for fuck's sake ¬______¬

That's all I can say to this

Completely agree with this sentiment. No words.

[Strife]

it's definitely rape if you were drugged. but i don't necessarily think it should be rape if: you drank/took the drugs yourself, and regret having sex once you sober up (but agreed to it originally. if youre drunk and say no its no different)

[TigerTank77]

NEWS AT 10- IT ISN'T RAPE IF THE GIRL IS WEARING A SKIRT

NEWS AT 11- RAPE NOW ONLY APPLIES TO HETEROSEXUALS, GAY'S CANNOT BE RAPED

NEWS AT 12- MAJORITY OF REPUBLICAN HOUSE DESTROYED IN LARGE EXPLOSION. NO ONE CARES, EXPERTS SAY.

Seriously, how the fuck did we go from electing Obama to electing these fuckheads?

Edit: Thankfully, there's no god damned way this bill will make it into law. <3 Checks and balances

[Brandon]

Wait, I thought Republicans were perfect? You mean to tell me that it's not just Democrats that do stupid shit? Man...after all this time...this...changes...everything.

[Irinya]

Originally Posted by Avada Kedavra

Oh for fuck's sake ¬______¬

This pretty much sums it up.

[Lizzie]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pepper

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011...-rape-abortion

So basically if you're drugged it's not "really" rape.

Who is saying that? I mean, I know this author is, but he has no sources for this. Read the draft of the bill he links. Here, I will quote the part we are discusing to help out.

The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

So what is under scrutiny in this one section of the bill is the term “forcible rape”. But this is what the author says in his own article:

The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill's authors don't offer their own definition.

So if there is no current agreed upon definition, or released to the public definition, then where is he getting all of these ideas from? Where does all of this come from:

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.

Uh… excuse me, but what? The article itself says there is no definition of the phrase, so where is he getting these ideas from? I will tell you, he’s getting them from his own opinion, his own point of view. Not fact, not what’s written out in the bill. No where does it say anything about what he just said. It hasn’t been defined yet. Therefore making this article a work of opinion and not fact.


This bill actually is saying if you are forcibly raped, the government will pay for the abortion. That is what the bill is saying. It’s so crazy how authors can word things and manipulate how the public interprets it. Whether its fact or not.

[BigBL87]

FWIW, the bill has not actually been written up and is in its planning stages. It seems to me that the uproar over this is based on vague language that will certainly be clarified as the bill is actually written. The wording of the bill does not specifically rule out rapes as a result of drugging, etc., but because of the vague wording such rapes would be included if it went forward as-is (which I doubt it will go forward with such vague wording).

Considering the language used, it seems that it is more focused on cases of statutory rape in which the younger party is consenting. In such a case, as I am for the most part against abortion (when the mother's life is in danger, I think it is an option) I don't disagree with the idea behind it. Essentially, it's preventing sexually active teenagers from using abortion as a form of birth control on the government's dime, which makes sense.

Again, not saying I support the wording as is, but just pointing out that it's not even a bill yet and that the assumptions being made are from vague language, not specific statements within the bill.

[MegaMadness]

If that is really what they said, that's just stupid.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

I had to read the article a few times because I thought I was still too tired to actually understand it but from what I gather, government assistance is given for "forcible rape". Towards the middle-end of the article, it says the goal is to examine what "forcible rape" means because the term has been used for a while but never gotten a standard definition that was accepted. It seems like a very sneaky way of writing the article because at the start of the article, there is no mention of this, instead it begins by saying what is and what is not supported by the government so the reader already generates strong feelings for/against it. After most of the is over, then it says there is no standard definition used in the federal criminal code despite the fact the article attempts to show there is one. The goal of the article is to show no definition of "forcible rape" is given by applying the unfounded term to several circumstances to show how ridiculous it would be.

Reading through it, it's not just drugged women who in the author's opinion, aren't getting government funding, it's also

" rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes."

I must say though, some parts summarize it up perfectly:

" 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."
...
"Somebody needs to look closely at this," Levenson says. "This is a bill that could have a dramatic effect on women, and language is important. It sure sounds like somebody didn't want [the exception to cover] all the different types of rape that are recognized under the law." "

[MWF]

Oh God... I hate abortion and birth control, but how is that not a rape? Thats stupid.

[Fictional]

*shakes head* How can anyone consider it 'not raped' if the woman is drugged?

[forfrosne]

Nothing less from the Republicans.

[BigBL87]

Again, people need to actually read the article critically. There are inferences being made based on vague wording. The "bill" (which again is not even a bill yet, it is still being drafted) makes no mention of any specifics such as drugged women, etc.. It is just vague language from a document that isn't even a bill yet. It is not that the "bill" says "sexual assault of a drugged woman, drunk woman, etc." is not rape, it is that the term "forcible rape" is left ambiguous. I guarantee the wording will be clarified as the "bill" moves forward.

In parituclar, this quote from the article:

"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."

is making a jump largely based on the author's agenda. Because the language is vague, it is not clear whether these would be included or not, the author writes with the assumptions they wouldn't be base on the agenda he is pushing.

[Kate*]

If there's no definition of forcible rape, why is the term distiguished? Can't we just leave 'forcible' out and say rape is rape?

Here's the definition if anyone needs it
Forcible rape, as defined in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.

Taken from HERE

[Acheron]

Originally Posted by Kate*

If there's no definition of forcible rape, why is the term distiguished? Can't we just leave 'forcible' out and say rape is rape?

Here's the definition if anyone needs it
Forcible rape, as defined in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.

Taken from HERE

This. If the Republicans weren't trying to narrow the definition of rape, at least so far as abortion funding is concerned, they wouldn't need to add any qualifiers like "forcible". And given their track record on social issues, it wouldn't be at all surprising if they were looking to bring back the Old Testament standard. If a woman is raped in the city and doesn't scream, she'll be stoned for adultery. Bit of an exaggeration, sure, but I wouldn't expect sanity from that party.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Kate*

If there's no definition of forcible rape, why is the term distiguished? Can't we just leave 'forcible' out and say rape is rape?

Saying "rape" is "rape" isn't that simple. If I'm a law abiding citizen, I'd like to know what I can and can't do in a clear and simple message. Statutory rape is not the same as forcible rape. If I was a convicted felon, I'd rather be charged with statutory rape than forcible rape. If we just said "rape" in a very generalized manner, I could be a convicted felon for "rape" and people would assume that I took advantage of someone, that I'm a monster according to society, and that I need to be hanged in public. But if it's statutory rape, that implies that...I had consensual sex with an underage female, but it's connotation (or denotation...forgot which one...) is different. I still committed a crime, but it's not AS bad as forcibly raping a woman without consent. So I think that clarification is important. But to be honest...I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.

[BigBL87]

Originally Posted by Kate*

If there's no definition of forcible rape, why is the term distiguished? Can't we just leave 'forcible' out and say rape is rape?

As I mentioned earlier, think about say a 16 year old girl that gets pregnant by a 21 year old guy. If there is no distinguishing, she can decide that she doesn't like the consequences of having sex, have him charged with statutory rape so that she can have her abortion paid for. IMO, the government should not pay for abortion to be used as a form of birth control, and leaving it at just "rape" opens up the door for that to happen.

I personally oppose abortion in any situation except when the mother's life is at danger because abortion ends a human life. That being said, I also understand that that approach will not be taken by the federal government any time soon, but in any event I don't think that the government should be paying for abortions being used as a form of birth control.

[BigBL87]

Originally Posted by Brandon

Saying "rape" is "rape" isn't that simple. If I'm a law abiding citizen, I'd like to know what I can and can't do in a clear and simple message. Statutory rape is not the same as forcible rape. If I was a convicted felon, I'd rather be charged with statutory rape than forcible rape. If we just said "rape" in a very generalized manner, I could be a convicted felon for "rape" and people would assume that I took advantage of someone, that I'm a monster according to society, and that I need to be hanged in public. But if it's statutory rape, that implies that...I had consensual sex with an underage female, but it's connotation (or denotation...forgot which one...) is different. I still committed a crime, but it's not AS bad as forcibly raping a woman without consent. So I think that clarification is important. But to be honest...I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.

Interestingly, on the opposite side, in prison you would want the opposite. Statutory rape is viewed as much worse among prisoners, which is kind of ironic.

[BigBL87]

Also, if we want to get into it about things hidden in bills and vague language leaving great leeway, let's examine the healthcare bill again...

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by BigBL87

Interestingly, on the opposite side, in prison you would want the opposite. Statutory rape is viewed as much worse among prisoners, which is kind of ironic.

What? Among prisoners? I don't get what you're saying.

[forfrosne]

Statutory rape is basically consensual underage sex, right? Remind me why the law has any right to punish that?

[Power Cosmic]

Because a predatory old man shouldn't have sex with a 14 year old, even if she has Daddy issues and consents?

I think it's more protection for minors.

Anyways, about the thing itself, true the wordings unclear, and in theory they'll clear it up in time, but then again, it's something that comes from a Conservative party, which stands for regressive social policies and a banner for fuckheads to flock to, no matter what country it's in.
Quoting Roosevelt here;
"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward."

[BigBL87]

Originally Posted by Brandon

What? Among prisoners? I don't get what you're saying.

In prison, those that are guilt of child molestation and other crimes involving underage victims carry a certain stigma, such that they have a "bull's eye" on them for other prisoners. Alot more violent acts happen to them in prison per capita.

[Hale_Bopp]

im a libertarian. i think that that is absolutely horrible that they are redefining rape laws for this . however, i do think that it is not rape if the girl intentionally drugs herself and she is inebriated but not like passed out. however, that is truely disgusting if they are claiming that it is not rape if a rapist slips someone a drug without their knowledge and has sex with them..

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by The Odinson

Because a predatory old man shouldn't have sex with a 14 year old, even if she has Daddy issues and consents?

I think it's more protection for minors.

they need to address the issues at least then. Because it's abused more than its used properly from what I can see.

Also: Why? Because you dont agree with it?

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by BigBL87

In prison, those that are guilt of child molestation and other crimes involving underage victims carry a certain stigma, such that they have a "bull's eye" on them for other prisoners. Alot more violent acts happen to them in prison per capita.

Okay, but I don't see how that's really relevant to what I'm talking about. It makes sense because it's a lesser offense, which is my point. I'd rather be charged with statutory rape than "rape" in general. I'm a big guy for my height, so people could attack me for dominance issues and such, to feel superior, so it could be that no matter what, I'm still gonna get taken advantage of no matter what. I'd rather be in there for as little as I possibly can, irregardless of how dangerous it would be. I wouldn't want to stay an extra several years just to avoid getting it taken up the butt X amount of times.

[Power Cosmic]

Originally Posted by Matthew

they need to address the issues at least then. Because it's abused more than its used properly from what I can see.

Also: Why? Because you dont agree with it?

The why is that it's exploitation, cold ruthless manipulation, and well, even here on TH itself, I've interacted with victims of such things enough to know the lasting psychological damage that can be caused by such. It's not so much as me not agreeing with it, just that it's...well, not exactly a good thing that some poor teenager is suffering because of some sexual predator. I'd have thought that was obvious.

As for the 'abused more than used' part, well..do you have any proof of that? I mean, you say 'from what I can see', but you don't cite any sort of crime statistics or anything like that, since remember what you see in the media or whatever is just sensationalised reports designed to sell/popularise the media service, usually warped with a bias of some form or another, so it probably distorts the truth.


That said, I don't think there should be legal repercussions for minors having sex with minors.

Originally Posted by Matthew

they need to address the issues at least then. Because it's abused more than its used properly from what I can see.

Do you know how few rape defendants are ever actually convicted? You are from the UK. In the UK we have one of the lowest rape conviction rates in Europe I believe, so I highly doubt its actually particularly abused, and if it is, rarely successfully. And the police handle rape cases infamously poorly. They basically intergergate the victim (I've personally witnessed the police basically telling my friend it was her fault she got raped, and that it really was consentual and she was just feeling regret.), and make it really hard to press charges, if they dont simply brush it off (here's one you should care about, as it probably effects male rape victims). There was meant to be a huge investigation in the way in which our police force investigate rape and handle potential victims, but that got cut by the LibDems.

I'd be more likely to believe it got abused more than not if rape wasn't dealt with so badly. The tabloids like to paint a picture that innocent men are going to jail left, right and centre because girls regret sleeping with them days later, but this is illogical to believe. Particularly as if they aren't rape victims, I see it is even less likely that they'll go get a rape exam before washing, and that there won't be physical marks, eye witnesses, or anything. It's very hard to prove rape, even harder if its not rape.

Also: Why? Because you dont agree with it?

Statory rape is generally there to protect young people being taken advantage of by older people. It's unlikely if they are at least both teens they will ever be charged, even if one is above the age of consent and the other is say, 15. It's essentially to provide protection against abuse. Is that a good enough answer for you? If not, do you think 30 year olds should be allowed to sleep with children? If not, why?

[BabyGirl767]

All I have to say is that if you are drugged and unable to DEFEND yourself and get away from your attacker then it IS rape there is no way that they can say it's not really rape if you were drugged