Printable View
The Republicans are doing two things to appeal to their far right contingent: Get people stoked up about the health care bill (The government will fund abortions! Repeal the health care bill!) Get people stoked up about women's reproductive rights (The government is killing babies instead of being pro-life! Repeal Roe v Wade!)
Using rape and incest to push their agenda is.....well it's disgusting. They did the same thing with Death Panels and Killing Grandma. :down:
Most Americans don't have much knowledge of the law either. What I'm assuming and telling you is the only way it can work into the framework of existing state laws and the intersections between state and federal interaction on funding as it relates to criminal reporting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I can barely pay my $340 rent each month. I have less than $10 in my savings at the moment because I just put down a payment for a tuition bill. Of course, I have my parents to fall back on if I run out of options, but many people don't have that. Not that I'll ever be needing an abortion, but $300 - $1000 is quite a lot of money to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
It was $460 in tampa 6-7 years ago. Didn't matter if you went with the take home pill or the in house procedure.
No, its not cheap, not by a long shot. Especially for people already able to admit they aren't able/willing to raise a child.
Morning after pill is £20 here.
I feel that, once again, any abortion topic is incomplete without me telling people to read The Cider House Rules. There's a line in this (fictional) book that says what was wrong with the fictional abortionist who actually did safe abortions as opposed to the butchers most women turned to when abortion was legal was the exorbitant price.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
It's true even today, with legal abortions. It's more expensive at places where you don't want to be treating like an object.
What I still don't get is why the government would rather pay for a poor woman to raise a child instead of for her to abort it. The price of 1 month of my daughter's medications (ADHD, allergy, and asthma - and she only uses ADHD medication on school days) would pay for an abortion. If I were on Medicaid, the government would be paying for these instead of me. Is this really economically sound, just looking at it from an economic point of view? The problem is that the Republicans pander not only to fiscal conservatives, but religious nutjobs as well.
And Liberals hate babies.
I'd report you for being a jackass, but no one would listen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Anyone who finds abortion morally objectionable and doesn't want to pay for morally objectionable practices is a religious nutjob? Out of curiosity, if one applies that definition, how many religious people aren't nutjobs.
So can someone tell me why again a small government is so bad? Such issues wouldn't exist if the government only existed for the sole purpose to guarantee/protect peoples civil rights. It involves itself enough in peoples private lives and I don't see how many of you would decry a small government system because of some stupid reason as 'welfare' or 'discrimination', yet endorsing a big government opens the door to ludicrous bills such as this one.
I think that war is morally objectionable and the government shouldn't pay for it. You see how well that goes. What's the difference, exactly?
Besides, I know plenty of religious people who may even personally think abortion is morally objectionable, but still have no problems with it being legal (and I assume this would also extend to it being covered by Medicaid/other government funds, although I admit I have not asked). There are a huge number of people who don't think their moral standards should apply to everyone.
Would you call a pacifist who tried to pass a law that made individual contributions to pay for the military voluntary a nutjob?Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
There's a big difference with being ok with an immoral practice being legal and being forced to pay for said immoral practice (from the point of view of a religious person).Quote:
Besides, I know plenty of religious people who may even personally think abortion is morally objectionable, but still have no problems with it being legal (and I assume this would also extend to it being covered by Medicaid/other government funds, although I admit I have not asked). There are a huge number of people who don't think their moral standards should apply to everyone.
I'd call him or her a panderer, if nothing else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I don't know. I'd be willing to believe a lot would look at the bigger picture.Quote:
There's a big difference with being ok with an immoral practice being legal and being forced to pay for said immoral practice (from the point of view of a religious person).
What an absolute baby you're being. I've never been attacked like this for explaining a law that I don't even support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
This bill is about funding for abortions, not defining or trivializing rape. For fuck's sake, click on the link and read parts of the bill. EG
Quote:
‘No funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for any abortion....
‘The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--
‘(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or
‘(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
Can you please explain where you see the trivialization of rape? Or are you just going to keep on ranting incoherently about how I am pro-rape or something? It's quite offensive for you to be acting like this.
Despite your aversion to democracy, because this is a federal law the actual interpretation would ultimately fall to federal judges who are appointed by our President and confirmed by our Senate. And the ultimate questions of access to abortions generally falls in the Federal realm. Local judges would not make a final decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dattu
So should the government pay for your rent, Dattu?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
We can go in circles about whether it's right for government to pay for this. I'm ambivalent to supportive of the government making that kind of payment. But that doesn't mean that "rape is being re-defined".
I agree that this is my main objection to funding these programs. It politicizes issues I don't like to see politicized in this manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco
That would be a more valid label than nutjob.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
Blame the voters, not the politicians.Quote:
I don't know. I'd be willing to believe a lot would look at the bigger picture.
Then why are they trying to fiddle with re-defining rape as a way to refuse/restrict funding abortions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I can't speak for Steely, but it's offensive to me that the GOP is using rape and incest to move its base to the Far Right, to repeal the health care bill. Rather like that jackass congressman who yelled out "LIAR" during President Obama's speech, saying no federal funds were geared toward health care for illegal immigrants.Quote:
Can you please explain where you see the trivialization of rape? Or are you just going to keep on ranting incoherently about how I am pro-rape or something? It's quite offensive for you to be acting like this.
These are political hot topics and wedge issues. It used to be called the Moral Majority. Wield that with care. :bored:
Don't give Steely erroneous facts. That's just poor form. We've had plenty of threads about Kansas, Oklahoma, Right-to-Life or Pro-Life activists running Planned Parenthood clinics out of town. Even physicians performing legal abortions being stalked at their home, threatened, or shot dead. Pressures to private insurance companies to NOT cover abortions. It's by no means a cut and dry issue in our democracy.Quote:
Despite your aversion to democracy, because this is a federal law the actual interpretation would ultimately fall to federal judges who are appointed by our President and confirmed by our Senate. And the ultimate questions of access to abortions generally falls in the Federal realm. Local judges would not make a final decision.
By the time the Federal realm intervenes to protect a woman's right to choose, it's too late to have an early abortion. Hell, she may even get a prescription for the morning after pill or Plan B, only to find some jerk pharmacist refuses to fill the Rx for "ethical reasons". And that's the only pharmacy in town.
That was Aimless, not Dattu.Quote:
So should the government pay for your rent, Dattu?
Read the proposal, it's trying to re-define rape and incest.Quote:
We can go in circles about whether it's right for government to pay for this. I'm ambivalent to supportive of the government making that kind of payment. But that doesn't mean that "rape is being re-defined".
What's that mean? Abortion has always been politicized in the US. Healthcare has always been a political issue in the US. We've always had a Have None, Have Some, Have All system. yayQuote:
I agree that this is my main objection to funding these programs. It politicizes issues I don't like to see politicized in this manner.
Morning after pill is available "over the counter" at Boots here, no prescription necessary just need a 2 minute consult with the pharmacist.
Maybe you should have been. And the word isn't "explaining" it's "rationalizing", though the part where you tried to blame this on healthcare reform, of all things, was by far the most offensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I did click on the link and read the bill, just to check it said what the article says it said. It did. Fucks sake, yourself. I know the bill is about funding for abortions, but if, in order to achieve it's goals about abortion it says that rape is only really rape if it's forcible than that is just the same, morally, as if that was the reason for the bill. Is that so hart to understand?Quote:
This bill is about funding for abortions, not defining or trivializing rape. For fuck's sake, click on the link and read parts of the bill.
It's not a trivialization of rape, it's a trivialization of rape that doesn't involve the use of force, simply because it says that one is bad enough that the victim should have access to federal funds to pay for her abortion, while the other is "not as serious" and therefore doesn't require the provision of federal funding.Quote:
Can you please explain where you see the trivialization of rape?
It's quite offensive for you, with your bare face hanging out, to make the argument that public funding for medical procedures is actually to blame for this.Quote:
It's quite offensive for you to be acting like this.
Forgive me if I don't just take your word for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Bully for Brits? Looks like you don't have political lobbying groups, funded by those with religious objections, trying to prevent access to post-coital birth control. We do. Yay?! :sour:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Steely, you have to do better than that.
A bill that withdraws funding from abortions but carves out specific exceptions for "forcible rape" isn't some kind of trivialization of rape. It's making an extra effort to shield rape from the restrictions of the bill. All types of rape are by definition forced and not-consensual.
You do realize that the main controversy here is that this prohibits people whose insurance premiums will be paid by the government to get insurance-paid abortions. That, because our government is trying to nationalize health care, politicians are now trying to politicize health care? That our national newspaper editorials are focusing most of the attention on the funding issue and not this made-up "consensual rape" thing?
So far I haven't seen any lawyer criticize the language who isn't from an organization that wants federal funding for all abortions. This debate is entirely about public funding for medical procedures. You're literally being trolled into thinking it's about something more, because the bill is specifically keeping funding abortions as a result of rape.
GGT, see above, it's really not about "redefining rape". It's a hyperventilation that distracts from the real issue of funding.
Those exceptions for rape already exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Only with a very non-standard definition of forcible.Quote:
All types of rape are by definition forced and not-consensual.
You do realize I don't remotely give a shit about the juvenile fear many Americans have of "big government", or the silly debates it results in?Quote:
You do realize that the main controversy here is that this prohibits people whose insurance premiums will be paid by the government to get insurance-paid abortions. That, because our government is trying to nationalize health care, politicians are now trying to politicize health care? That our national newspaper editorials are focusing most of the attention on the funding issue and not this made-up "consensual rape" thing?
That's what the controversy in America might be about, but it's not what the this thread is about. So I don't exactly how you get to stand up and proclaim what 'the debate is'. If you want to do a debate about federal funding of health-care and abortions, why don't you start a thread on it?Quote:
So far I haven't seen any lawyer criticize the language who isn't from an organization that wants federal funding for all abortions. This debate is entirely about public funding for medical procedures. You're literally being trolled into thinking it's about something more, because the bill is specifically keeping funding abortions as a result of rape.
:confused: Those exceptions don't quite exist, why are you making this stuff up? The landscape is a bit complex, but there is pretty broad federal funding for many types of abortion in the US, not just for those being performed in response to a rape.
The point of this law is the narrow the types of abortion eligible for federal funding to only abortions resulting from a rape, IE forced sex. It doesn't restrict anyone from getting an abortion, just restricts what will get covered by federal funding.
Your unjustified rage and unwillingness to back-up for a second is really blinding you. This thread is about a phantom issue in a law that was proposed. Said phantom issue isn't an actual concern. The law specifically doesn't define "forcible", so saying there is a "non-standard definition of forcible" is a complete fabrication.
The reason I'm bringing up the funding aspect is because it's a bill about funding. Do you seriously think someone will get away with rape because of this law? That's silly, wake up and start looking at the context.
If I say I was raped and want an abortion, I shouldn't have to have any other discussions about it, though. Not about if it was date rape or anything else, I shouldn't have to be questioned about why I did or did not report it, nothing.
And if this includes the government paying for my abortion, well, so sorry if there's a woman or two million who lies about being raped for a free or reduced price abortion. You should never be making a woman feel like rape is her fault. Never. So err on the side that's she's telling the truth, particularly in this aspect. You can move onto "prove it" if there are criminal charges involved.
Sorry, badly worded. What I meant was that there is already federal funding available for abortions which result from rape, and this bill isn't adding any kind of protection for rape-abortion funding, indeed it is narrowing it by specifically defining 'forcible rape' as the only kind eligible for federal funding. And I a not saying that this bill is trivializing rape, generally. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop lying about that. I'm saying it's trivializing rapes which do not involve physical violence as not as serious as those that do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
The critical point is that 'forced' is not the same thing as 'forcible', but you keep trying to use them in the same way.Quote:
The point of this law is the narrow the types of abortion eligible for federal funding to only abortions resulting from a rape, IE forced sex. It doesn't restrict anyone from getting an abortion, just restricts what will get covered by federal funding.
Your unjustified rage and unwillingness to back-up for a second is really blinding you. This thread is about a phantom issue in a law that was proposed. Said phantom issue isn't an actual concern.
If one person is forced to have sex with another person, that's basically the definition of rape of any kind. However, if you say that another person forcibly had sex with someone else, that has a much more specific meaning - it means they used violence.
Like, if I force someone to open a door they do I might have do so by pointing a gun at their head. If on the other hand I forcibly open a door, it means I smashed it in. The words forced and forcibly have quite different meanings, so stop conflating the two.
I'm saying it would take a non-standard definition of forcible to make it include things like date-rape, coercive rape, etc. If you were being really pedantic, even rapes accomplished with the threat of violence rather than actual violence are not forcible.Quote:
The law specifically doesn't define "forcible", so saying there is a "non-standard definition of forcible" is a complete fabrication.
No, I think someone who was date raped, or coerced or threatened into sex she didn't want might not be able to get funding for an abortion because of the wording.Quote:
The reason I'm bringing up the funding aspect is because it's a bill about funding. Do you seriously think someone will get away with rape because of this law? That's silly, wake up and start looking at the context.
Then do a quick research pass for fuck's sake. There are several pdfs and sites readily available which list the collective 50 states rape or sexual assault laws. There is no good reason why you should take that article's brief comment over my own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I. . . don't think that's even the current setup.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
I'm pretty sure it is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
It should be, though.
You mean, do the research to support your argument, then not even know if what I've found is the same thing you're referring to, just because you're too snotty to provide a link? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I can't give you proof. I can say, link a .pdf summarizing all 50 states sexual assault laws *plus DC, I think* by felony and misdemeanor class, but it doesn't even give you texts of any of those statutes, or tell you anything about how they actually end up being enforced. And if you don't have a time to do even a quick google, you're not going to have time to go over a 40-page .pdf that only provides part of the picture either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
You take Mother Jones at face value, but you refuse to take me at face value, and you insist on not doing anything to try and get information yourself.
Will removing federal funding for some abortions make it more difficult for some women to get abortions, or won't it?