Log in

No account? Create an account
PARDON MY ANGER - alyburns' (aka sideburns & alyjude) Hiding Place
If you spoke faster than David Hewlett you’d travel back in time: Michael Shanks
If you're my friend and a Republican, this is not aimed at you personally, but at the same time, how can anyone support this:

From the NYT:

"...One bill, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” would eliminate tax breaks for private employers who provide health coverage if their plans offer abortion services, and would forbid women who use a flexible spending plan to use pre-tax dollars for abortions. Those restrictions would go well beyond current law prohibiting the use of federal money for abortion services.

The bill, sponsored by Representative Christopher H. Smith, Republican of New Jersey, has drawn fire over language that undercuts a longstanding exemption on the ban on using federal money for abortions in the case of rape or incest; the measure narrows the definition of rape to “forcible rape,” a term that his office has never defined. Democratic lawmakers and others repeatedly hammered on the term, saying it suggested that victims of statutory rape and other crimes could not get abortions paid for with federal money"

"...Another bill, sponsored by Mr. Pitts, addresses the health care overhaul head-on by prohibiting Americans who receive insurance through state exchanges from purchasing abortion coverage, even with their own money. The bill is essentially a resurrection of a provision in the House version of the health care law but was not in the Senate version.

The bill would also permit hospitals to refuse abortions to women, even in emergency situations, if such care would offend the conscience of the health care providers.

“Both bills are designed to drive coverage for abortion out of health insurance plans, period,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights."

Following the revealing of the wordage, and the subsequent anger, the Republicans removed ONE word from the new law - the word, "Forcible" but are allowing rape via incest to remain (and one would assume, 'date' rape' and 'statutory rape' as well.

No matter how we all feel individually about abortion, we should ALL be united in the definition of RAPE and the Republicans, by trying to put through such a law, is reinventing the word and its meaning. This will have long term effects on women, on court cases. If you've refused to take a stand - no matter your party - now's the time.

Men have NEVER understood rape - hell, they still don't get sexual harassment and we're relying on the worst of the them to make and change our laws. Civil Rights is at risk, the Rights of the Disabled, and the Rights of Women, to name just a few, are at great risk - and if this is the positive proof you need - what the HELL are you waiting for to act?

9 comments or Leave a comment
(Deleted comment)
dimity_blue From: dimity_blue Date: February 10th, 2011 12:28 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: You know me, Aly

And yeah, men really have this thing about being in charge of a woman's body.

Sorry to butt in. I just wanted to say I totally agree with this bit. I think that's what it's all about. And it's offensive on so many levels.
claudia603 From: claudia603 Date: February 9th, 2011 12:26 pm (UTC) (Link)
wow, anyone who has not been on the other end of a man trying to or succeeding in raping her has no clue. Hint: old lawmaker guys probably shouldn't be making those laws.

And define forcible? Does forcible mean that the woman has to have evidence that she fought back, even if there was a weapon involved? Must there be bruises on her body?

From: karieflybabe Date: February 9th, 2011 03:10 pm (UTC) (Link)
I have one question Aly. How many rapes in the last five years have resulted in pregnancy?

I'm not looking for the abortion numbers, just the number of women pregnant.
greenwoman From: greenwoman Date: February 9th, 2011 05:12 pm (UTC) (Link)
I googled that question, karieflybabe, and got very mixed results. Some sites put the figure very high, others said such pregnancies are rare.

Does it really matter?

An unwanted, unplanned, and/or unsustainable pregnancy, *regardless of how it was initiated,* should be (at least in the early stages) a health issue supported by the woman's health program, even as (one assumes) her full-term pregnancy, delivery, and post-partum health care would be.

One citizen group's moral convictions should not be imposed upon, and allowed to impair or eliminate the delivery of health care services to, any other citizen group.

From: karieflybabe Date: February 9th, 2011 05:28 pm (UTC) (Link)
nm, I withdraw the question.
alyburns From: alyburns Date: February 10th, 2011 03:06 am (UTC) (Link)

Just once, why don't you NOT withdraw, sweetie?

Unless you agree *g* - but if you don't, come on, get into it. Healthy discussions are GOOD.
From: karieflybabe Date: February 10th, 2011 03:22 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: Just once, why don't you NOT withdraw, sweetie?

First I withdraw the question because I suddenly got what the real argument was and realized my question was irrelevant to the conversation.

Second, I withdraw because (regardless of greenwoman's intent) I instantly felt on the defensive and then this screwed me up all over the place.

I have a very unique viewpoint that is hard to talk about or swallow, so when you say Healthy Discussions are good, this for me is not a healthy discussion.

I really need to learn to stay out of these discussions as I don't do well with them. I can't make points because I don't know what is best and never will have a firm opinion on it. I'm not like you, or anyone else. (Not saying I'm dumb, just seriously confused.)

Eventually I am going to have to make some sort of decision, but not today. Today I am simply withdrawing.
alyburns From: alyburns Date: February 10th, 2011 03:04 am (UTC) (Link)

You tell me how to answer that.

First: How many rapes go unreported? Answer: 60% If even one of those women (or if even one of the 40% who DO report it) get pregnant, should they have to go through some test to determine if it *was* rape? Forcible rape? Date rape? Incest? And if it was, say, incest (there are far more pregnancies resulting from incest than any other form, with date rape coming in 2nd since the females often don't remember what happened) should those women have the right to an abortion?

Again, this is NOT about abortion, but how rape will be manipulated in order to remove ALL funding for ALL abortions; how rape will be redefined by MEN.

Now a question for you: What if the answer was only ONE woman who became pregnant following a rape, but the definition of rape had been changed to mean ONLY forcible rape and she was the 15 year old victim of her father? If she can't carry that child, if she wants an abortion, would we - should we - deny her?
dimity_blue From: dimity_blue Date: February 10th, 2011 12:23 am (UTC) (Link)
The bill would also permit hospitals to refuse abortions to women, even in emergency situations, if such care would offend the conscience of the health care providers.

I'm offended by this whole thing, but that bit really pisses me off. Someone's right to freedom of religion stops where my body starts. If a health care provider can't do his/her job because of his/her religious scruples, s/he needs to go get another job as opposed to inflicting his/her beliefs on other people.

What next? Jehovah's Witnesses health care providers can deny people blood transfusions because it's against their religious beliefs?

As for the rest of it, the only person who can define what rape means to them personally is that person themself. If someone tells me they were raped, I'm not gonna split hairs and insist that unless it involved being dragged down an alley and beaten to a pulp then it wasn't rape. I'll take their word for it.
9 comments or Leave a comment