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

Richard Heckler 3 years, 2 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

0

pace 3 years, 2 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.

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 2 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

0

MyName 3 years, 2 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?

0

geekin_topekan 3 years, 2 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.

0

deathpenaltyliberal 3 years, 2 months ago

"Liberty_One (anonymous) says… Taking away funding doesn't force the victim to continue the pregnancy. However using public monies is forcing some people to pay for something they find immoral."

I object to paying for health insurance for politicians, especially the ones that campaigned on repealing the Health Care Bill. That's immoral.

0

Kirk Larson 3 years, 2 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!

0

ivalueamerica 3 years, 2 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?

0

Paul R Getto 3 years, 2 months ago

" However using public monies is forcing some people to pay for something they find immoral..." ===That's a slippery slope indeed, L_O. I object to the immoral wars we are fighting and the immoral use of agency funds to have hearings to do away with environmental regulations that protect our water and our air. Where do I sign up?

0

Liberty_One 3 years, 2 months ago

cait48 (anonymous) replies…

"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."

Taking away funding doesn't force the victim to continue the pregnancy. However using public monies is forcing some people to pay for something they find immoral. A woman has the right to choose, but that means a right to not have the government interfere, not a right to support.

0

BloodBot 3 years, 2 months ago

How is it all these kind, tolerant, open minded Liberals keep getting all their posts dumped?

0

Agnostick 3 years, 2 months ago

If "certain users" had their way, this is the type of person they would like to penalize... pour salt on the wounds by forcing this victim of sexual assault to carry a pregnancy to term:

0

jjt 3 years, 2 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?

0

Agnostick 3 years, 2 months ago

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

0

seriouscat 3 years, 2 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.

0

Agnostick 3 years, 2 months ago

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

0

nepenthe 3 years, 2 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.

0

werekoala 3 years, 2 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.

0

CorkyHundley 3 years, 2 months ago

" you know," "slip her a little something"...

I've seen your hands Agnauseum. You shouldn't be so hard on yourself.

0

deathpenaltyliberal 3 years, 2 months ago

"ksrush (anonymous) says… Shocker to see the D behind Debbie Wasserman whatever. Why don't you libs admit you want abortions on demand and everyone else to pay for your lack of resposibility. "

Hah, hah. Why don't you cowardly conservatives admit that you want the government to control everything?

0

Aimee Polson 3 years, 2 months ago

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

0

Bob_Keeshan 3 years, 2 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.

0

deathpenaltyliberal 3 years, 2 months ago

"BloodBot (anonymous) says… I'm referring to pro-abortion people who want taxpayers to pay so they can kill unborn children. Those opposed to this bill want abortion on demand, and they want taxpayers to pick up the tab. I'm not talking about victims, though I would prefer even they give the child life, as the unborn child is innocent. Two wrongs do not make a right."

The predictable use of standard wingnut tallking points makes me wonder if this "poster" is a computer program or a real person? If this is a real person, no doubt there are many authoritarian states, like N. Korea, Iran, Libya, etc., where you would be more comfortable.

0

tomcats 3 years, 2 months ago

Rape is Rape no matter what weapon the rapist use.

0

jaywalker 3 years, 2 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.

0

Richard Heckler 3 years, 2 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. )

0

Armored_One 3 years, 2 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.

0

puppyfeathers 3 years, 2 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."

0

Agnostick 3 years, 2 months ago

I'm reminded of this rather infamous case:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19921028&slug=1521150

Had Jenkins been on the first grand jury, I can easily see her acquitting the rapist. Heck, I can see Jenkins acquitting the rapist the second time around, as well!

0

Agnostick 3 years, 2 months ago

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

0

kansanbygrace 3 years, 2 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.

0

ivalueamerica 3 years, 2 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.

0

CorkyHundley 3 years, 2 months ago

What does Andy, bless her soul, say about rape?

"Andrea Rita Dworkin (September 26, 1946 – April 9, 2005) was an American radical feminist and writer best known for her criticism of pornography, which she argued was linked to rape and other forms of violence against women, and for statements that were interpreted as claiming that all heterosexual sex is rape, an interpretation she rejected.

An anti-war activist and anarchist in the late 1960s, Dworkin wrote 10 books on radical feminist theory and practice. During the late 1970s and the 1980s, she gained national fame as a spokeswoman for the feminist anti-pornography movement, and for her writing on pornography and sexuality, particularly in Pornography: Men Possessing Women (1981) and Intercourse (1987), which remain her two most widely known books."

0

Mike Ford 3 years, 2 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?

0

ophiuchus 3 years, 2 months ago

(Setting aside my perspective on abortion, which certainly transcends the scope of this petty legislative issue), the insight into a "conservative" mindset afforded by this development is, IMNSHO, invaluable. Apparently, to the minds of the unwound, rape attains a degree of legitimacy, so long as blunt force is not involved. Rape, within contexts of ignorance, incoherence, or even unconsciousness, simply is unworthy of acknowledgement or recourse.

0

ksrush 3 years, 2 months ago

Shocker to see the D behind Debbie Wasserman whatever. Why don't you libs admit you want abortions on demand and everyone else to pay for your lack of resposibility.

0

Beth Bird 3 years, 2 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......

0

keith manies 3 years, 2 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.

0

Olympics 3 years, 2 months ago

Of course you are talking about the victims.

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

0

BloodBot 3 years, 2 months ago

I'm referring to pro-abortion people who want taxpayers to pay so they can kill unborn children. Those opposed to this bill want abortion on demand, and they want taxpayers to pick up the tab. I'm not talking about victims, though I would prefer even they give the child life, as the unborn child is innocent. Two wrongs do not make a right.

0

pace 3 years, 2 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?

0

BloodBot 3 years, 2 months ago

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

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.