Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Abortion bill co-sponsored by Jenkins draws fire for changing “rape” language

February 2, 2011

Advertisement

— U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Topeka, is a co-sponsor of a bill that abortion rights supporters say would make it more difficult for some women who have become pregnant after being raped to end their pregnancies.

H.R. 3, called the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” would make permanent the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funds for abortions except in cases of rape, incest and or the life of the mother is threatened. Currently, the amendment is subject to annual review.

But H.R. 3 also changes the “rape” exemption to “forcible rape.” Abortion rights advocates say using the term “forcible rape” could exclude statutory rape or rapes where the victim was drugged, unconscious or verbally threatened.

U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schulz, D-Fla., called the bill “nothing short of a violent act against women.”

H.R. 3 has been co-sponsored by 173 House members, including Jenkins, and U.S. Reps. Mike Pompeo, R-Wichita, and Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler. U.S. Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Overland Park, whose district includes east Lawrence, is not listed as a co-sponsor of the bill.

Jenkins represents the 2nd Congressional District, which includes west Lawrence.

When asked why Jenkins supported H.R. 3, her press secretary, Sean Fitzpatrick, said, “Congresswoman Jenkins has a long history of opposition to taxpayer-funded abortions and has joined 173 colleagues from both sides of the aisle to co-sponsor H.R. 3.” Of the 173 co-sponsors, 163 are Republicans and 10 are Democrats.

When asked why she supported the change in terms from “rape” to “forcible rape” in the bill, Fitzpatrick referred to a statement made by the lead Democratic sponsor of the bill, U.S. Rep. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois.

Lipinski stated: “The Hyde Amendment allows for taxpayer funding of abortion in very limited cases, including if the pregnancy is the result of rape.

“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. Nonetheless, the legislative process will provide an opportunity to clarify this should such a need exist.”

The bill would also prohibit employers and those who are self-insured from using tax breaks to buy private health insurance that covers abortion.

Comments

BloodBot 3 years, 10 months ago

Again, why do irresponsible people want taxpayers to fund the killing of their unborn child?

Mike Wasikowski 3 years, 10 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 10 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

TopJayhawk 3 years, 10 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 10 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

imastinker 3 years, 10 months ago

TO be fair, the article specifically said that it's not messing with funding for forcible rape. Regardless of what it said, drugging someone is a forcible rape.

That only leaves statutory rape. All consentual statutory rape cases involve at least two irresponsible parties.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 10 months ago

"consentual (sic) statutory rape"

That's an oxymoron.

imastinker 3 years, 10 months ago

Only you would think that. The law may state that those under a certian age cannot legally give consent, but that does not mean that the act wasn't consentual.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 10 months ago

"Only you would think that."

Given that there is a legally prescribed age of consent, I'm hardly the only one who thinks that.

And there has been many a rapist convicted for coercing young teens and pre-teens into having sex.

BTW, the correct spelling is "consensual."

Scott Bonnet 3 years, 10 months ago

This seems an awfully simplistic view of the issues. I would ask, why do people expect me to adhere to their religious beliefs?

livinginlawrence 3 years, 10 months ago

I sincerely hate to burst your bubble, but the Bible is not a book of facts. It's a book of stories, of which all individuals (especially those in a free country such as our own, wouldn't you agree?) are free to interpret as they wish. And though I wish not to derogate the bible per se, I must caution you against allowing an eons-old document (written by who? who knows) to be the basis upon which you view the world. What, you may ask, might I propose as an alternative? Empiricism of course. Only through such means can you truly get a feel for the impact of a multifaceted matter such as abortion. And what, you might ask, can empirical methods tell us about abortion? Well for one, it affords us the fact that its legality can be thanked for a massive decline in crime in the USA that came in the 1990s (Don't believe me? Check out the economist Steven Levitt's "Freakonomics," a fascinating read). In this life, we can confront our problems in an endless variety of ways. One way is through attempted adherence to an ideology. An example of this would be to pigeonhole all individuals who seek an abortion into a category of "sinners." Another way is to be pragmatic. An example of this would be accepting the possibility that, whether you agree with another individual's choice or not, there just may be some merit to what they're doing. And then you move on with your life. On this little planet of ours, life happens in such abundance that we wind up killing each other over space. I'll apologize in advance for putting it bluntly (sorry), but why waste our collective breath squabbling over dime-a-dozen clusters of cells that, should they be brought to full term, are unwanted from the moment they take their first breath of air?

nepenthe 3 years, 10 months ago

My goddess is older than your god anyway.

pace 3 years, 10 months ago

So how far does this definition go? The maxfactor heir, Luster drugged his victims. Many rapists use the date rape drug, is this to be a new legal standard. Those rapes would not be considered rape? The abortion foes have declared war on women. If someone breaks into your home and puts a drug in your soda, waits, then rapes, is the rapist now just a friend?

deec 3 years, 10 months ago

There are no pro-abortion people. There are pro-choice people. How many so-called pro-life people support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? I think its highly likely some pregnant women have been killed during these wars.

pace 3 years, 10 months ago

Do you have an opinion on how rape is being redefined? Are you saying if someone uses a drug to rape someone that it isn't rape?

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 10 months ago

"I'm not talking about victims, though I would prefer even they give the child life, as the unborn child is innocent." A fetus is neither guilty nor innocent. Forcing a rape victim to continue a pregnancy that she doesn't want that never should have happened in the first place is victimizing her twice over. It's the mentality of raiding Vikings, Goths and Serbs who deliberately raped and impregnated women to force the population into subjugation.

TopJayhawk 3 years, 10 months ago

A fetus is totally innocent. Go to bed Cait, it is getting late.

imastinker 3 years, 10 months ago

I define innocence as the absence of guilt. How do you define it cait?

troll 3 years, 10 months ago

I agree, this bill has really brought the pro-abortion people to a head against the pro-rape people.

Olympics 3 years, 10 months ago

Of course you are talking about the victims.

Take the black and white glasses off for a minute. Grow up.

keith manies 3 years, 10 months ago

I am so ashamed that Lynn Jenkins, reich-wing conservative, is my congress person. It is obvious she has little compassion for the victims of rape and is willing to throw them under the bus to make a misguided political point. It is especially sad being she is a woman.

Beth Bird 3 years, 10 months ago

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION!!! This is redefining rape on a whole new level. No means NO - and if you are unable to consent, that is a NO! This makes me sick......

tomatogrower 3 years, 10 months ago

How is a victim of rape responsible? Are you from the middle east where rape is sanctioned and considered the woman's fault?

gudpoynt 3 years, 10 months ago

Your small mind makes me sad. Your big mouth just pisses me off.

Mike Ford 3 years, 10 months ago

europeans must love watching supersticious, fear mongering, religious politicians manipulating laws involving choice and responsibility. they're probably glad that they sent all of the judgemental paranoid people here to stick their noses in other people's business. If you want to stone people and act religious with witch hunts, one can turn on the tv and see the result of this along the mediterranean. why do religious zealots and their lackey politicians here think they're acting any differently?

TopJayhawk 3 years, 10 months ago

Yes, we have seen the "wisdom" of European leaders quite a bit over the last one hundred yrs. They don't seem that wise to me. Several wars. Millions dead. Bankrupt economies and retirement plans. Kow towing to Islamisists as they did to Hitler. Yes, that is the role model to follow.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 10 months ago

Where were you going with this, Pampers? You finally out convoluted me.

ivalueamerica 3 years, 10 months ago

So, clearly, if you are well heeled, you can have an abortion if you are raped, but if you are poor, you must have the baby or the Republicans will yell at you and say bad things about you.

But again, if you are poor and a victim of a rape and the choice to have a baby or not was taken away from you and you can not afford it, the republicans will still yell at you if you ask for food stamps or support for your child calling you irresponsible for having one when you can not afford to.

The common theme here is, the GOP hates poor people.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 10 months ago

"The common theme here is, the GOP hates poor people." Well, duh!

TopJayhawk 3 years, 10 months ago

Go to bed Cait. Take a Lortab, all will be better in the morning. sheesh.

Liberty275 3 years, 10 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

jafs 3 years, 10 months ago

Like Van Gogh, Mozart, etc.?

That's pretty harsh.

kansanbygrace 3 years, 10 months ago

Yet another tempest in a teapot. The Hyde amendment has been law for a long time, and it continues to have broad bipartisan support. This redundant action, like all the other silly wasteful nonsense the new House is hammering out, is all about appeasing ignoramuses and guaranteeing that next election cycle, they'll be able to campaign on the same old nags they've used election after election for forty or so years. And doing nothing about it. Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

pace 3 years, 10 months ago

To call an actual change in how rape is defined as a tempest in a teapot is ignorant about rape and law.
Do you really think this new definition does not mean anything. I hope you aren't a shyster who tell his clients next time they need to use drugs on the girls so it won't fall in the forcible rape category. Categories such as this will snake through law and social mores.

Ken Lassman 3 years, 10 months ago

Give her a break. What makes you think she reads the bills that are handed down to her from the rubber stamp factory that she seems to be on the production line for? Can anyone give me an example of where she wavered even a little bit from the party line?

puppyfeathers 3 years, 10 months ago

Your wife, girlfriend, sister, mom... daughter, is out for a fun evening with some friends. She hooks up/catches up with an old friend from school or work and passes all the social tests from her peers. "Friend" drives her home, after drugging her drink, and proceeds to rape her for a couple of hours in his van, home or alley. He kicks her out close to her house and she wakes up on the lawn, porch or even couch. She ends up pregnant with confirmation of her suspicions coming true of the father not being you but the "friend". Low on cash, the both of you seek assistance in pregnancy termination from any means possible. The state tells you to get bent because it's gods will for what ever reason and you will be fined/imprisoned for seeking help in moving on from some personal violation. Back alley abortion starts to sound pretty reasonable compared to 18 years of resentment and subconscious hatred towards a forced pregnancy term. Nothing fills a soul faster than stating that, "I'm glad I was born because my mom was drugged and raped."

Armored_One 3 years, 10 months ago

This is probably going to get my house firebombed, but what would be the harm in legalizing abortions, across the board, BUT they are not covered by insurance in any shape, form or fashion?

A rape pregnancy... well, the rapist, IF they are caught and found guilty, is forced to pay for it. If not, and only if the pregnancy can reasonably be proven to be a bi-product of a rape, then the state can pick up that bill, or the feds, or something to that effect.

The pro-life crowd gets a win because they aren't being forced to pay for all these horrid (tongue-in-cheek) abortions, the pro choice (yea us) get a win because it shuts everyone else up, at least to a point, taxpayers get a win and women win.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 10 months ago

What you just described is the current legal situation. Private insurance may cover an abortion but no state or federal money ever goes for an abortion that doesn't involve rape, incest or saving the mother from death or substantial harm. In fact we do not have "across the board" abortion even paid for privately as abortion is outlawed past the 20th week unless it (again) involves threat to the life or threat of substantial harm to the mother. (Even past the 20th week it's outlawed in cases of rape/incest.) It's not an issue of "the taxpayers". They don't really care about the money. They are using that as an excuse to limit availability to abortion and stick their heads in the crotches of women.

Richard Heckler 3 years, 10 months ago

Women know, bruises and broken bones do not define rape - a lack of consent does.

Federal dollars can't be used for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger.

But the Smith bill would narrow that use to "cases of 'forcible' rape but not statutory or coerced rape."

Sign the Petition: http://pol.moveon.org/smithbill/?id=25965-1285051-G49etwx&t=3

( YOUR new senator Jerry Moran does not accept petitions because he doesn't believe we adults actually would attach our names knowingly to such. )

lawslady 3 years, 10 months ago

Sorry, but the truth is that there are very few politicians that pay one whit of attention to mass petitions like this. The groups sponsoring them are giving people a way to easily express themselves, even if it is often VERY ineffective in accomplishing anything more (but it does give the sponsoring group more names etc.).

If people REALLY truly want to make their view points known (on any issue and to any politician) and have it "count" with the recipient, they will have to take the time to INDIVIDUALLY write a letter (or send an email). THAT is much more likely to make a difference! Yes, it takes more time and trouble. And that is why it is much more effective.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 10 months ago

Hate to tell you this, lady, but even that doesn't do anything. I wrote a letter to Brownback when he is in Congress in support of aid for contraception in third world countries. What I got back was a preprinted form letter that had nothing to do with the issue which I had written about. I have no doubt that some staffer sent it to the circular file so that Brownback wouldn't have to sully his eyes with it .

jaywalker 3 years, 10 months ago

"But H.R. 3 also changes the “rape” exemption to “forcible rape.” Abortion rights advocates say using the term “forcible rape” could exclude statutory rape or rapes where the victim was drugged, unconscious or verbally threatened."

Well then, don't go nutso, just work out the definition of the language. Check me if I'm wrong, but isn't ALL rape 'forcible' by definition? There should be NO language that hinders a woman who's been raped from receiving the medical attention she desires. Period.

tomcats 3 years, 10 months ago

Rape is Rape no matter what weapon the rapist use.

Bob_Keeshan 3 years, 10 months ago

Pro-life = Pro-rape.

Good to know. So what is Sam Brownback really saying when he speechifies about a "culture of life" coming to Kansas?

HIde your kids, hide your wife, and hide your husband too cuz they rapin everybody.

Aimee Polson 3 years, 10 months ago

Perhaps this has already been discussed, but exactly when are abortions paid for with taxpayer money?

werekoala 3 years, 10 months ago

If Jenkins et.al. were honest, what they would really be pushing is this:

"Sluts don't get to have abortions to get out of the consequences of their slutty actions. (But if a good little girl makes a mistake, well, she shouldn't have her life ruined....)"

Look at their rhetoric. That is what they're saying, in so many words. And notice that there is nothing particularly pro-life about their positions either. A baby is a consequence, a punishment, a mistake. And they sure as fark won't help it grow up healthy, supported, and nurtured.

nepenthe 3 years, 10 months ago

Rape is a lack of consent, not a smattering of bruises and broken bones. If a person says no (or is rendered unable to give consent by drugs, fear, threats, gun or knife to head etc), but the other party proceeds anyway, it is rape.

Rape isn't about sex either, it's about one person having power over another. It's an act of violence. And it does not need to be redefined by people who have obvious agendas.

Ken Lassman 3 years, 10 months ago

wow--death panels dredged up all over again; can you believe it? But come to think of it, I believe that Jenkins used the term quite a bit back in the day before it was so discredited that even she stopped.

bad_dog 3 years, 10 months ago

"What is sad is to see Kathleen 'Nurse Ratched' Sebelius and zerObama set up Death Panels to abort the elderly when they deem them not fit to contribute to zerObama's utopia."

Perhaps changing your user name to "BloodClot" would explain the apparent lack of oxygenated blood flow to your brain. Sorry to be so blunt, but that post is pure off-topic, hyperbolic rhetoric at it's worst.

bad_dog 3 years, 10 months ago

Oh, now I understand the connection. "Nurse Ratched", " zerObama" and Death Panels have so much to do with abortion-in your blood starved brain, of course.

As for what "breed" I am, what does it matter? Are you a canine elitist?

I recommend some baby strength Bayer aspirin for you. It's an excellent thrombolytic.

seriouscat 3 years, 10 months ago

As a person who subscribes to the pro-life view that the most vulnerable members of society ought to be protected and shielded by the rest of us from those who would exploit or discard them, I find this kind of action abhorrent and this kind of backward thinking is why I stopped giving money to so-called pro-life organizations.

Pro-lifers should be pouring all our efforts into a compassionate and positive message to women and children, with personal and legislative actions that are in line with that message. For all the money that they are poised to spend trying to ram through legislation that will do NOTHING to curb abortion or end the exploitation of women and the unborn, and will very likely make it worse, they could help God knows how many desperate young women get out of poverty and moving toward a better future so they wouldn't feel compelled to destroy their own offspring in the first place.

I am appalled and will oppose this legislation as vehemently as any pro-choice voter.

jjt 3 years, 10 months ago

Fact is the anti crowd think that once a woman is fertilized never mind how, then the embryo should be born naturally. They are not prepared to consider if the fertalisation was due to rape or if the foetus does not have a head or is already dead. No, they just say it is gods will and let nature take its course. Never mind the poor woman. How about some practical solutions?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 10 months ago

Probably because along with your usual trolling, to which they unwisely respond, you keep pressing the "suggest removal" button.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 10 months ago

"Taking away funding doesn't force the victim to continue the pregnancy."

Actually, it can and does.

meggers 3 years, 10 months ago

That argument is flimsy at best. There are plenty of things that might be defined by some as immoral, yet are supported by tax monies. Oil subsidies, tax loopholes, war, tax exempt status for religions that promote intolerance, foreign aid for oppressive regimes, cuts to programs that aid the poor, etc. are all things that might be considered immoral my some segments of the population. Yet none of those things are subject to a 'morality exemption'. Abortion should be no different.

Kirk Larson 3 years, 10 months ago

Here, here! My taxes pay for a lot of things I am opposed to. How come I can't pick and choose?

Kirk Larson 3 years, 10 months ago

Sorry, but my point was that we all make some compromises to achieve national goals.

gudpoynt 3 years, 10 months ago

"No one should be forced to pay for anything that they don't want to or agree with."

Nice thought. But not practical. At all.

notanota 3 years, 10 months ago

In this case it goes even further. The law not only has an abhorrently narrow definition of rape, but in this instance it expands "taxpayer funded" to mean that if you get tax cuts or federal assistance for providing your employees coverage, that coverage cannot include abortion, which means it's an overreaching government regulation of the sort of choices employers can make in providing benefits to their employees. It would seem like the sort of thing you'd oppose.

gudpoynt 3 years, 10 months ago

care to explicitly distinguish government regulation from government manipulation, and explain why the distinction is important in your complete rejection of both?

gudpoynt 3 years, 10 months ago

because taking the time to think about a response is healthy for the mind. Similar to keeping a journal, or writing notes to a lecture.

If you draw a distinction between regulation and manipulation, I'm interested to hear what it is.

If you are more fervently against one or the other, I would love to hear your reasoning there as well.

ivalueamerica 3 years, 10 months ago

The GOP spent weeks and weeks so worried about Clinton´s definition of "is" was, but consider it a minor matter to change the definition of rape of a woman.

I wonder where their priorities are?

Kirk Larson 3 years, 10 months ago

I was wondering where the republican priorities were and then it hit me. The anti-choice crowd considers this a jobs bill. Think of all the child care jobs this will create!

Kirk Larson 3 years, 10 months ago

A Libertarian is one of three things: A narcissistic republican, a sociopathic democrat, or just some guy who wants to legalize pot.

ivalueamerica 3 years, 10 months ago

what a stupid comment.

I think our war in Iraq, since it was presented on a bed of lies, is immoral. I think corporate welfare is immoral, I think a lot of things our government does is immoral.

  1. who defines immoral
  2. How can we pick and choose what part of the government we are willing to pay for.

You live in lala land

Peacemaker452 3 years, 10 months ago

If you truly value America, you would probably start with the federal government limiting itself to its constitutionally delegated powers. This would go a long way to reducing the immoral acts of our out of control government and significantly lower the bill we all pay.

ivalueamerica 3 years, 10 months ago

If you value America, you would permit the Supreme´s and not you, individually, to interpret the Constitution. You simply dismiss anything you do not agree with.

There are several decisions I disagree with, The decision for Bush´s election that I felt weighed the system over the voter, for example. Even though the votes in Florida came out in favor of Bush, they should have been counted.

However, once the Supreme Court made the decision, and unless there is any evidence they were coerced or knowing acted against the Constitution, it is my duty as an American to support it. I hated Bush as president, but never said he was not my President.

You, however, could care less about the values of American democracy when you disagree with them and that makes you a traitor.

Peacemaker452 3 years, 10 months ago

Well, we certainly can’t have anyone questioning the government, now could we?

Have you ever actually read the Constitution or do you rely on the government to do that for you? Just in case you were wondering, the Supreme Court gave themselves the sole power to interpret the Constitution, contrary to what the document itself says in the ninth and tenth amendments.

“You simply dismiss anything you do not agree with.” No, but I routinely question actions that I feel are contrary to the Constitution. If you remember, the first amendment covers that.

“However, once the Supreme Court made the decision, and unless there is any evidence they were coerced or knowing acted against the Constitution, it is my duty as an American to support it.” Who decides if there is “evidence”? Who decided that it was a "duty"? Once again, you seem to want to leave all these pesky decisions to the government itself, and once again, I refer you to the 1st, 9th and 10th amendments.

"You, however, could care less about the values of American democracy when you disagree with them and that makes you a traitor." So, not agreeing with the government makes you a traitor? I guess you forgot how the American democracy got started. Were all those pesky founders traitors? They did disagree with the current government and questioned its decisions. Calling me a traitor for disagreeing with the government just shows that our public school system is achieving its goals. Have fun in the gulag, comrade.

geekin_topekan 3 years, 10 months ago

Those wacky Christo-extremists are at it again.

Perhaps if the rape victims turned more toward Jesus, this sort of thing wouldn't;t happen.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 10 months ago

Well that depends. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/oct... I also wonder how the Catholic Church is holding up under all of those civil cases?

MyName 3 years, 10 months ago

Again, why are people under this deluded impression that asking a loaded rhetorical question is a good substitute for having an insightful opinion on the subject?

jonas_opines 3 years, 10 months ago

At least you have the courage to admit it.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 10 months ago

Here ya go, BloodBot. Kristen Schaal explained it in a way I could finally understand what you were saying. It's not RAPERrape! I feel sorry for your Moneyrape though. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-2-2011/rape-victim-abortion-funding

pace 3 years, 10 months ago

the law will they mean the state will not consider rape by drugging as rape. The word " forcible" will be defined. Is it forcible rape if he holds a knife to her neck but doesn't actually stab her? If he holds a gun to her head but doesn't fire? He fires but misses, it is not rape. This is not a slippery slope, it is an avalanche. You might feel justified lying about what rape is if it prevents any abortions. I don't. agree that rape is not rape. This is a politician's lie, I am not nodding, I am not winking.

Richard Heckler 3 years, 10 months ago

Tell your U.S. Representative, Kevin Yoder, that he should protect women's health and oppose this extreme bill.

http://www.workingforchange.com/campaign/stop_hr3/index2.html?rc=homepage

Commenting has been disabled for this item.