House Abortion Bill 'Violent Act Against Women'

Started by outdoors, Feb 03, 2011, 10:50 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

outdoors

Wasserman Schultz: House Abortion Bill 'Violent Act Against Women'
Evan McMorris-Santoro | February 1, 2011, 4:50PM


Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) is not happy with the controversial new abortion bill her Republican colleagues are hoping to push through the House. In an interview with Raw Story, Wasserman Schultz -- not known for biting her tongue -- called the new bill "absolutely outrageous."

"I consider the proposal of this bill a violent act against women," she told the website.

The House bill, known as the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, seeks to make permanent the existing federal ban on abortion funding and prohibit employers and individuals purchasing health insurance from obtaining existing tax breaks if the policies cover abortion. But the bill changes even the existing law on abortion funding by only allowing an exception to the ban for women who are victims of "forcible rape" and those who are underage victims of incest.

At least one anti-abortion advocate argues that that language change would not make any difference to existing federal policy, though he acknowledges that H.R. 3 changes the rape and incest exceptions currently written in the Hyde Amendment.

Wasserman Schultz told Raw Story that the law will fundamentally change the way the federal government provides funding for abortion coverage in the very rare cases that it does.

"It really is -- to suggest that there is some kind of rape that would be okay to force a woman to carry the resulting pregnancy to term, and abandon the principle that has been long held, an exception that has been settled for 30 years, is to me a violent act against women in and of itself," she told the website.



http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/wasserman-schultz-calls-house-abortion-bill-violent-act-against-women.php


Mr. X

While I don't think we should be paying for abortions through tax dollars (or any other medical procedure for that matter), the gov has no business telling private insurers what they can cover.

Women can have choices, they just can't make me pay for them.
Feminists - "Verbally beating men like dumb animals or ignoring them is all we know and its not working."

The Biscuit Queen

So, once again, quit your whining and go build your own abortion fund.
he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

outdoors


So, once again, quit your whining and go build your own abortion fund.


you sound like my mother  :toothy9:

Mr. X


So, once again, quit your whining and go build your own abortion fund.
Great point! If they want paid for abortions, build up a voluntary fund that woman can contribute to for these abortions. Or maybe the truth is a lot of women also don't want abortions or at least pay for them.

This sounds the same as voting. We hear women complaining women are not in the white house and bitch about it like men are supposed to vote for women YET women don't even vote for women.
Feminists - "Verbally beating men like dumb animals or ignoring them is all we know and its not working."

outdoors

House GOP Caves On Redefining Rape Bill
-- By Siddhartha Mahanta
| Thu Feb. 3, 2011 6:55 AM PST.


Last week, Mother Jones' Nick Baumann broke the story on Chris Smith's "No Taxpayer for Abortion" Act, which would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape. For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. But Smith's bill contained a provision that would limit the rape exemption to "forcible rape," ruling out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases--such as statutory rape--in which force was not involved or could not be proved. "It is absolutely outrageous," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.). "I consider the proposal of this bill a violent act against women."

Now, Smith has retreated, excising the "forcible" rape language from the bill, reports Politico. "The word forcible will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment," Smith spokesman Jeff Sagnip says, referring to the ban on the federal government paying for abortions that's been in place since 1976.

The GOP effort to rewrite the meaning of rape incited a Twitter campaign of protest (using the hashtag #dearjohn). Editorial pages and columnists protested. Progressive groups initiated a crusade to kill the bill. And The Daily Show, of course, got in the act (around 9:15) too. MoveOn.org launched a petition against the bill, saying Smith's legislation would "set women's rights back by decades...As far too many women know, bruises and broken bones do not define rape--a lack of consent does." EMILY's List, issued its own petition, declaring war on the bill and one of its most prominent proponents: Speaker of the House John Boehner. Its website, BoehnersAmerica.org, urged "Boehner and his cronies to stop using rape victims as political pawns." The group said, "it was known from the beginning that Boehner and his boys would fight to take away women's freedoms whenever possible."

Smith's bill did unsettle some GOPers. Differentiating between types of rape, Politico reports, befuddled Republican aides. "Such a removal would be a good idea, since last I checked, rape by definition is non-consensual," one GOP aide says.



http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/smith-caves-defining-rape-abortion

The Biscuit Queen

Yeah, and are they going to provide proof of rape?

Are they going to note that this will up the amount of false allegations if they require formal charges made?
he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

outdoors


Yeah, and are they going to provide proof of rape?


what? their word isn't enough?

Quote
Are they going to note that this will up the amount of false allegations if they require formal charges made?


 more $$$ for the "system"

and didn't i just hear somewhere(couldn't find it) that?

"just because there is no evidence doesn't mean that a rape didn't happen".


oh ya...hmmmm...that canadian woman in mexico that claimed she was raped


thats where i seen it


neoteny

The message is pretty clear: not giving money to women when they ask for it is violence against them.
The spreading of information about the [quantum] system through the [classical] environment is ultimately responsible for the emergence of "objective reality." 

Wojciech Hubert Zurek: Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical

The Biscuit Queen

I guess due process is an antiquated patriarchal vestage of oppression.
he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.


BRIAN


While I don't think we should be paying for abortions through tax dollars (or any other medical procedure for that matter), the gov has no business telling private insurers what they can cover.

Women can have choices, they just can't make me pay for them.


Yep.

No governmental medling in the free market please.
You may sleep soundly at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who seek to harm you.

Go Up