Apparently, focusing on the budget deficit and jobs jobs jobs means redefining rape.So now, the 13-year-old seduced and impregnated by, say, her 20-year-old cousin is shit outta luck unless she can prove that the older cousin was holding a gun to her head. And the 20-year-old college co-ed, drunk out of her mind or deliberately drugged at a fraternity party, who wakes up and finds she's been gang-molested ... why, that ain't rape, honey, that's just boys being boys!
3 comments:
Dude, did you even read the article you linked? Seriously. It says the whole "redefining rape" business is limited to federal abortion funding and specifically designed as a wedge to cut that spending. Go crazy on cutting abortion funding if you want, but at least have the honesty to call it for what it is instead of twisting it into whatever you feel like making snide comments about today.
"The bill would also make it harder for women to obtain abortion coverage from their private insurance companies by eliminating tax exemptions for employers or individuals who purchase health insurance plans that offer coverage for abortion. The rape clause in the bill would deny abortion coverage to victims of some types of rape in which the sexual assault is not accompanied by violence.
"Under current federal law, woman who obtain their insurance through Medicare, Medicaid, the military, the Peace Corps or the Indian Health Services cannot use their insurance for abortions except in cases of rape or incest or if there is a risk to the life or health of the mother."
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/dem-rep-opens-up-on-rape-redefining-bill.php?ref=fpb
It doesn't cut spending at all. It saves each tax payer $.002 a year. In other words, in 80 years I'll save 16 cents. I would rather let the girl that got RAPED get an abortion.
Post a Comment