Pubbies come out as the pro-rape party

[Steely Glint]

The point isn't how much time I have or don't have, the point apart - apart from the basic principle that people making an argument should provide any links they need to support that argument themselves, not ask people to go off googling for it themselves - is that if you link to me the document you're actually talking about then we're both on the same page about which piece of information we're discussing. If I go off and do some googling myself and find something about American rape laws that doesn't show what you say it shows, and I go "nurrhh" then you're quite likely to just say "that's not what I was referring to", then the same things happens again and again, and it's always this mysterious other document out there somewhere which is supposed to prove your point which you won't even name, let alone link to.

This is why I have such little time for people who allude to information online which they won't provide. At this point I just assume that people who do that are just full of shit until they actually provide the specific document they are talking about, not just claim the information is out there somewhere in some nebulous google search. By hiding it or being evasive about it, as you are now and as you make a habit of doing, you're denying everyone else in the thread the chance to look at the same information you're looking at and see if the way you're interpreting it is actually justified. Which just leads people to think that it probably isn't, and that if we saw what you're talking about we'd see that very quickly and that's the reason you won't say what it is that you're referring to.

Since the point of contention here is this new word "forcible" and how that was intended and how it's going to be interpreted should the bill be passed, I somehow doubt just a bunch of data on US sexual assault laws by state is going to help much on by itself. Doubtless you have some chain of reasoning to go with it, but since you are obviously far to impressed with yourself to share it with us peasants it doesn't really count for much, does it?

[RandBlade]

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?!

We do, we just ignore them. They're an extreme nutjob minority that get only an extreme minority of support in Parliament were such issues are also long and traditionally viewed as "conscience" (non-party) issues. Eg MP can vote with his/her conscience and besides a few Catholic MPs virtually all are on the side of sanity.

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.

Well said

[LittleFuzzy]

Will removing federal funding for some abortions make it more difficult for some women to get abortions, or won't it?

If the law passed, it looks like it will primarily make it harder for pregnant teens to get an abortion.

[Aimless]

If the law passed, it looks like it will primarily make it harder for pregnant teens to get an abortion.

Yeah, and therefore I'm not sure what to make of Dread's comment:

It doesn't restrict anyone from getting an abortion, just restricts what will get covered by federal funding.

It's sorta true, but sorta not.

[Aimless]

PS. There is something slightly insane about taking Mother Jones at face value while giving Fuzzy shit for, well, beign Fuzzy at the same time I note that at least arizona defines "forcible rape" in a pretty narrow way, so...

[Ominous Gamer]

Morning after pill is £20 here.

The pill abortion clinics use is a little different, and works during the first 9 weeks (morning after is 5 days). It causes contractions, so you can dispose of the fetus at home, and an insane amount of cramping. Medical name is mifepristone.

[LittleFuzzy]

Since the point of contention here is this new word "forcible" and how that was intended and how it's going to be interpreted should the bill be passed, I somehow doubt just a bunch of data on US sexual assault laws by state is going to help much on by itself.

I very much doubt it will do a damn thing to convince you either.

Doubtless you have some chain of reasoning to go with it, but since you are obviously far to impressed with yourself to share it with us peasants it doesn't really count for much, does it?

Why do I have the feeling I'm being set up to be nitpicked to death? Christ.

Ok. There is NO federal rape statute and little reason for one. Most criminal law, particularly for violent crime, is handled by the states. Since rape is basically always going to be a local issue *no multi-state crime rings, goods crossing state borders, so on and so forth* this is completely unobjectionable. Next, the law now or in the future requires rape to take place for any of this to matter at all, right? Forcible or otherwise, we're talking about federal funding of abortions for victims of some kind of sex crime. Since there is no federal criminal statute for this *and even if there was, the funding wouldn't be limited to federal cases* that means that however the Feds want to restrict things, they're limited by how the various states handle these crimes. Implementation is predicated on state law. The distinctions between cases are going to be made by state law, because they're the ones making the records and setting up the categories. If the Feds aren't defining what "forcible" means, then the states are creating that definition in the field.

So, there is a definition, it's just not right in front of you. How do the states deal with it? Well, the only consistent category of non-violent rape across all of the states is statutory rape, defined as being a sexual assault solely by dint of the victim being beneath the age of consent *some states actually still have sodomy or anti-gay statutes and such still on the books which could also be classified as statutory rape, but since those can't involve pregnancy, they don't really matter* Most, probably all, states have drugging someone and any physical coercion fall within their "generic" rape offense which includes the violent assault kind. All those are forcible. It's how the state treats them and so it's how the Feds have to treat it unless they set up an entirely different framework for administrating this intersection of state and federal power, no hint of which is in that proposed federal law. Child molestation frequently gets its own sexual assault category *not always, some states make no distinction between molestation and just being beneath the age of consent, those are not good states for college freshmen to have sex with high school girls* Variations go on, some states have as many as five or six categories for rape and sexual assault, most of which are for violent crimes, usually those states are ones which have mandated sentencing, they have to codify every nuance to get the results they want.

You want a link? Here A summary. Let me know which page you reached before you got tired of going over those, since almost all of them require further research to determine how they fit into this discussion.

Oh, and Minx? I think you're looking at how Arizona mandates a life sentence for aggravated sexual assault. See statute definitions and their general sexual assault statute. Steely, do take note of that definitions link for another example of a state which lumps "immediate use of force" with "incapable of consent by reason of. . . drugs, alcohol. . . or any similar impairment."

[RandBlade]

The pill abortion clinics use is a little different, and works during the first 9 weeks (morning after is 5 days). It causes contractions, so you can dispose of the fetus at home, and an insane amount of cramping. Medical name is mifepristone.

No doubt. Probably cheaper to use condoms or the morning after pill if "the condom breaks".

[RandBlade]

The pill abortion clinics use is a little different, and works during the first 9 weeks (morning after is 5 days). It causes contractions, so you can dispose of the fetus at home, and an insane amount of cramping. Medical name is mifepristone.

No doubt. Probably cheaper to use condoms or the morning after pill if "the condom breaks".

[Ominous Gamer]

The effectiness of condoms isn't perfect. I remember something claiming under regular use (not perfect lab use), its 79-90% effective. Even under perfect lab use its not 100%

[LittleFuzzy]

The effectiness of condoms isn't perfect. I remember something claiming under regular use (not perfect lab use), its 79-90% effective.

That sounds low, closer to the effectiveness numbers for anal sex.

[RandBlade]

The effectiness of condoms isn't perfect. I remember something claiming under regular use (not perfect lab use), its 79-90% effective. Even under perfect lab use its not 100%

I'd heard 97%, either way still more protection than not using it. Even if the condom fails, then not every act of sex would result in pregnancy anyway so its even more effective than that. There are too many idiots out there who don't bother with any form of birth control unfortunately ... I have no ethical problems with abortions and think they should be available "on demand" but they can mess up with a woman's head/body. Better to be the last resort than first line of defence.

No form of birth control is 100% perfect.

[Ominous Gamer]

I'd heard 97%,

Thats the in lab results. The article I remember went into how actual condom effectiveness is much lower because the lab testing doesn't refect real life interaction. According to the research cited in this book, pregnancy rates, among condom users, varied from 10-18%.

[Dreadnaught]

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.

Umm, dude? You are saying it's about the trivialization of rape. Because all rape is forced.

This isn't about abortions, it's about the trivialization of rapes which don't involve violence as not "serious" enough to merit federally funded abortions

***

The critical point is that 'forced' is not the same thing as 'forcible', but you keep trying to use them in the same way.

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.

Jesus, why are you making these unsubstantiated and non-sensical assertions about laws you haven't read?

Both conceptually and legally, all rape is forced. It doesn't matter if someone uses the threat of force or a drug. Forcible sex is basically the definition of every type of rape besides statutory rape (IE consensual sex with an underage person).

If you had arsed yourself to look into this stuff before ranting at me and Fuzzy with your false assertions, you would have stumbled upon a few facts:

1) There is no legal definition for the word "rape" in our federal statutes.

2) Our federal laws call it "sexual assault", and it's defined as any unwanted sex act that is conducted with the use of force, the threat of force or anything that renders someone unconscious or unable to give well-minded consent.

§ 2241. Aggravated sexual abuse

(a) By Force or Threat.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act—

(1) by using force against that other person; or

(2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

(b) By Other Means.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly—

(1) renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or

(2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby—
(A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and

(B) engages in a sexual act with that other person;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/us...I_20_109A.html

More history:http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/sa.shtml

We also have state-level laws that say that any sex without consent is rape, and also say that any kind of impairment makes consent null and void. It's effectively illegal in some parts of the US for two drunk people to have sex because the first drop of liquor someone has makes them possibly unable to consent. Obviously it happens, but many kids are taught this when they enter college.

Our laws make it very clear that sexual coercive sexual acts can be forced by a variety of means. This proposed bill is sloppy for actually using the word "rape" in the first place. But it's nonetheless not the nightmare you're asserting.

So please actually research this stuff before basically saying that members here are enabling rapists, re-defining rape and "trivializing" non-violent forced sex. Shame on you.

[Omega]

Yo Dread, I wanna let you finish, but what if I spiked your daughter's drink and fucked her silly? Should I be held accountable? I mean no force was involved.

[Nessus]

Will removing federal funding for some abortions make it more difficult for some women to get abortions, or won't it?

Hundreds of thousands of women in the US have no de facto access to abortions as is, let alone federally funded ones, so

Maybe it's a moot point? Rape babies are a part of the American dream, and the Pubbies are just extending the dream? I don't know either, man, but the right-wing dildos in this thread are awful.

[RandBlade]

I wouldn't call this a "right-wing" issue, you don't get much more than right-wing on the forum than me and I'm very against this.

[Steely Glint]

Why do I have the feeling I'm being set up to be nitpicked to death?

Projection?

So, there is a definition, it's just not right in front of you. How do the states deal with it? Well, the only consistent category of non-violent rape across all of the states is statutory rape, defined as being a sexual assault solely by dint of the victim being beneath the age of consent *some states actually still have sodomy or anti-gay statutes and such still on the books which could also be classified as statutory rape, but since those can't involve pregnancy, they don't really matter* Most, probably all, states have drugging someone and any physical coercion fall within their "generic" rape offense which includes the violent assault kind. All those are forcible. It's how the state treats them and so it's how the Feds have to treat it unless they set up an entirely different framework for administrating this intersection of state and federal power, no hint of which is in that proposed federal law. Child molestation frequently gets its own sexual assault category *not always, some states make no distinction between molestation and just being beneath the age of consent, those are not good states for college freshmen to have sex with high school girls* Variations go on, some states have as many as five or six categories for rape and sexual assault, most of which are for violent crimes, usually those states are ones which have mandated sentencing, they have to codify every nuance to get the results they want.

The most important words in this paragraph are "consistent" and "most".

Oh, and Minx? I think you're looking at how Arizona mandates a life sentence for aggravated sexual assault. See statute definitions and their general sexual assault statute. Steely, do take note of that definitions link for another example of a state which lumps "immediate use of force" with "incapable of consent by reason of. . . drugs, alcohol. . . or any similar impairment."

Actually, what's interesting about the statute definitions you linked to isn't the fact that they include rape facilitated by drugs, alcohol &c, but what they don't mention. Specifically, it doesn't actually mention rape through violence. It mentions "The victim is coerced by the immediate use or threatened use of force against a person or property.", which is, by my reading, subtly different. As per the document you finally deigned to link to, Arizona does have a separate and more serious offense of violent sexual assault. Which is defined thus:

A. A person is guilty of violent sexual assault if in the course of committing an offense under section 13-1404, 13-1405, 13-1406 or 13-1410 the offense involved the discharge, use or threatening exhibition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or involved the intentional or knowing infliction of serious physical injury and the person has a historical prior felony conviction for a sexual offense under this chapter or any offense committed outside this state that if committed in this state would constitute a sexual offense under this chapter.

Another example is Louisiana, which has an actual offense called forcible rape, as opposed to simple rape. Forcible rape in Louisiana does include both date rape and rape through threats of violence rather than actual violence, but does not include cases of rape where the victim was incapacitated by some agency other than the offender, i.e. passed out drunk at a party. I'm not wasting any more of my evening looking up US state rape statutes, though there are a number of other examples throughout the document you linked to where states explicitly define violent/forcible rape as a more serious form of sexual assault. For most states, the situation you described seems to pertain, but the idea that the distinction between sexual assault using force and without using force doesn't exist in US state law and that the use of the word forcible might not have actual consequences in at least some states is clearly fictional.

Umm, dude? You are saying it's about the trivialization of rape. Because all rape is forced.

Ah, I see we've reached the "la la la la la can't hear you" stage. Am I going to have to start keeping a count of the number of times I have to make a point before you actually acknowledge it, like with Hazir and that football thing?

#1 All rape is forced. Not all rape is forcible. The words mean different things. The law used the word forcible.

Jesus, why are you making these unsubstantiated and non-sensical assertions about laws you haven't read?

Just as an example, you'll note that what you quoted doesn't include circumstances where someone is already unconscious, because they're, e.g. drunk, conscious but severely impaired because of drink or drugs they willingly took themselves, where they pretend to be the person's partner (there was an actual case where this happened, before you dismiss it as implausible), or where the person is not mentally capable of consenting due to a learning defect or medical condition.

You'll also note that those circumstances are covered under the separate offense (non-aggravated) sexual assault:

(2) engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is—
(A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or
(B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

So please actually research this stuff before basically saying that members here are enabling rapists, re-defining rape and "trivializing" non-violent forced sex. Shame on you.

I never accused you of trivializing anything, that's a charge I'm aiming the people who wrote and sponsored this law. I'm accusing no one at all of enabling rapists. I'm so pissed off with you because of your dishonest behavior in this thread. No, I don't think is especially clever that you persistently and willfully confused the words "forced" and "forcible". I'm fed up with you blatantly ignoring what I said to you and then acting as I've I said something else, the piece of text I'm responding to here being a prime example. Suddenly, I'm accusing you of "enabling rapists" now? Fuck off. Never said that or anything like it. I'm fed up with seeing you twist language and abuse reason just to explain away whatever the latest example of repulsive behavior by the GoP is, and the bit where you tried to say that this piece of shit bill is actually the fault of Democrats, because they dared suggest the government might provide healthcare for people who can't afford it? That's basically on the same level as members of the gun control lobby going on a shooting spree in a mall, then saying "well, it never would have happened if hand guns were banned". Again, fuck off.

[Dreadnaught]

Hundreds of thousands of women in the US have no de facto access to abortions as is, let alone federally funded ones, so

Maybe it's a moot point? Rape babies are a part of the American dream, and the Pubbies are just extending the dream? I don't know either, man, but the right-wing dildos in this thread are awful.

Kindly grow up my dear. You posted an article making an inflammatory accusation. You disappear for a few days while some people (who don't even support the law) pick apart and cast doubt on the inflammatory accusation.

Then, instead of actually addressing these issues you come back and call everyone "right-wing dildos", even if they don't support the bill. With that level of candor and attention to detail, somehow you revere yourself as some kind of scientist?

Ah, I see we've reached the "la la la la la can't hear you" stage. Am I going to have to start keeping a count of the number of times I have to make a point before you actually acknowledge it, like with Hazir and that football thing?

#1 All rape is forced. Not all rape is forcible. The words mean different things. The law used the word forcible.

Just as an example, you'll note that what you quoted doesn't include circumstances where someone is already unconscious, because they're, e.g. drunk, conscious but severely impaired because of drink or drugs they willingly took themselves, where they pretend to be the person's partner (there was an actual case where this happened, before you dismiss it as implausible), or where the person is not mentally capable of consenting due to a learning defect or medical condition.

You'll also note that those circumstances are covered under the separate offense (non-aggravated) sexual assault

What is this bullshit? As you get pushed into a corner on this, you pull out increasingly arcane scenarios in which someone could be raped. You've not emphasized this whole scenario of finding someone passed-out somewhere and having sex with them. You've specifically brought up the threat of force and the administration of date rape drugs, which Fuzzy and I covered.

Fuzzy and I have both said that the wording of the law itself is sloppy, but also borderline irrelevant given how these issues are treated in our legal system. Yet you dishonestly continue to change what you're "actually" saying is so terrible about the irrelevant wording of the proposed law.

Bringing up the political reality of why these personal health care decisions is becoming politicized by anti-abortion zealots is what's known as honesty and realism. I'm not sure where yours went.

[Dreadnaught]

Steely, it occurred to me that it may help to re-state all of this.

Laws passed by a legislature usually need to:

1) Fit within an existing legal framework, OR

2) Establish a new legal framework with specific definitions, parameters and citing specific laws that are impacted/modified by this new law.

This particular bill proposed by the Republican Congressman does neither. It doesn't cite the existing legal framework around sexual assault and rape, nor does it establish new definitions for sexual assault and rape. It merely uses a word ("rape") that doesn't exist in our federal legal code.

Thus, while the intent of the law is clear (no federal money for abortions except in the case of rape), the actual text of the law is so poorly written it's almost meaningless. Because the law contains no definition of "rape" or "forcible rape", it would almost certainly be overturned in the face of a comprehensive legal definition for these things.

This is why the law is literally not "re-defining rape". At the federal level, there is already a legal definition of what we know as "rape". And this law doesn't change that. It's basically a fart in the wind.

That said, this fart in the wind is a specific concern many (including myself) had with our health care law. If a stem cell treatment comes out someday that could save my child's life, but the stem cells come from an aborted fetus, I don't want a religious legislator telling me I can't get that treatment (or that my insurance company legally can't pay for it).

We're on the same side of this, but your unwillingness to chill out and delve into the details and the big picture is devolving your posts into a series of "fuck offs" directed at me and Fuzzy.

[LittleFuzzy]

Projection?



The most important words in this paragraph are "consistent" and "most".



Actually, what's interesting about the statute definitions you linked to isn't the fact that they include rape facilitated by drugs, alcohol &c, but what they don't mention. Specifically, it doesn't actually mention rape through violence. It mentions "The victim is coerced by the immediate use or threatened use of force against a person or property.", which is, by my reading, subtly different. As per the document you finally deigned to link to, Arizona does have a separate and more serious offense of violent sexual assault. Which is defined thus:

That summary of all 50 states lists it as a separate offense. Which demonstrates the limitations of that document because, as an online perusal of the Arizona state legal code as partially shown in those other two links demonstrates that, as I told Minx, it is their aggravated assault law. Note the requirement that the perpetrator had to be a repeat offender for that statute to apply. Violence clearly can included within the bounds of the statute I first linked, and the first violent offense doesn't trigger the one you just linked. Yet you're still trying to insist that Arizona is drawing a distinction which the Feds will take advantage of.

Another example is Louisiana, which has an actual offense called forcible rape, as opposed to simple rape. Forcible rape in Louisiana does include both date rape and rape through threats of violence rather than actual violence, but does not include cases of rape where the victim was incapacitated by some agency other than the offender, i.e. passed out drunk at a party.

Actually, the text used in the Louisiana state code is "intoxicating agent" for simple rape which really does mean it's limited to alcohol, and I believe I mentioned at the very beginning that the interplay between alcohol and rape is an area where there is substantial disagreement still in US law, and repeated it at least once since.

I'm not wasting any more of my evening looking up US state rape statutes, though there are a number of other examples throughout the document you linked to where states explicitly define violent/forcible rape as a more serious form of sexual assault. For most states, the situation you described seems to pertain, but the idea that the distinction between sexual assault using force and without using force doesn't exist in US state law and that the use of the word forcible might not have actual consequences in at least some states is clearly fictional.

What, I'm just supposed to take your word on it? Do the research to support YOUR position? Put up or shut up,you howling, lazy-ass hypocrite. Show us where I'm wrong in the assertions I've made to you, Khend, and Nessus in this thread.

where they pretend to be the person's partner (there was an actual case where this happened, before you dismiss it as implausible),

Are we going to go over that Israeli case again? Consensual sex under false pretenses still does involve consent being given.

[GGT]

See, this is why the GOP's decision to mix rape/incest/abortion/healthcare is so....icky.

Whether you think it's really about redefining rape, incest, or consensual sex, or it's really about abortion with federal funds, or it's really about the healthcare bill, it's got everyone here bickering about all of that.

It's a political tactic, using a trifecta of wedge issues, to get people stoked up. This bill may go nowhere, but their goal of polarization has succeeded.

[Dreadnaught]

That's ridiculous -- they are explicitly leaving rape out of the picture. The Democrats are the ones mixing these issues with healthcare by inserting government funding into the picture. This bill explicitly leaves intact funding for abortions resulting from rapes.

The goal if this isn't polarization. If you don't support abortion, you don't want your federal tax dollars paying for abortions. Just like if you don't support corn being mixed with fuel (instead of food), you don't support corn ethanol subsidies.

What the hell would you expect an anti-abortion legislator do? Just let the federal government fund things he/she opposes? The wedge issue is, was and remains the health care bill.

[GGT]

Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense.

There used to be a quasi-truce between the pro- and anti-choice forces on the issue of federal funding for abortion. Since 1976, federal law has prohibited the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman. But since last year, the anti-abortion side has become far more aggressive in challenging this compromise. They have been pushing to outlaw tax deductions for insurance plans that cover abortion, even if the abortion coverage is never used. The Smith bill represents a frontal attack on these long-standing exceptions.

.....

As for the incest exception, the bill would only allow federally funded abortions if the woman is under 18.

.....

The bill hasn't been carefully constructed, Levenson notes. The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill's authors don't offer their own definition. In some states, there is no legal definition of "forcible rape," making it unclear whether any abortions would be covered by the rape exemption in those jurisdictions.

The main abortion-rights groups despise the Smith bill as a whole, but they are particularly outraged by its rape provisions. Tait Sye, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, calls the proposed changes "unacceptable." Donna Crane, the policy director of NARAL Pro-Choice America, says that making the "already narrow exceptions for public funding of abortion care for rape and incest survivors even more restrictive" is "unbelievably cruel and heartless."

Dread, you can't say the GOP is leaving rape or incest out of this. This whole thing is obviously set up by pro-life and anti-abortion groups. By hook or by crook, their goal is to limit and/or outlaw abortions, group by group, bit by bit.

Don't be crass by comparing corn subsidies to women's reproductive health, please.

What the hell would you expect an anti-abortion legislator do? Just let the federal government fund things he/she opposes? The wedge issue is, was and remains the health care bill.

And what would you expect a pro-choice legislator to do? Criticize the bill and call foul. Abortion (and fetal stem cell research) has always been a politicized wedge issue. GOP is simply using the health care bill to activate their pro-life constituents, two birds with one stone.

[Dreadnaught]

That Mother Jones article is garbage, their analysis is not credible at this point.

[GGT]

What about H.R.3 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act?

[Dreadnaught]

I don't support it, but I understand why some people want it passed.

[GGT]

I don't support it, but I understand why some people want it passed.

Those "some people" would the far right, pro-life, anti-abortion groups. The same groups who don't want public schools teaching sex-ed, state health departments offering free condoms, tax-deductible HSAs being used for abortions, abortions performed in clinics that receive federal funding (or tax breaks), etc.

The GOP did the same thing with reimbursing physicians for end-of-life care. They called it Death Panels and Killing Granny. They'll use any hot-button wedge issue for their own purposes. Sure, all politicians do that, but Republicans seem to do it with a particular flair. They tend to connect the 2nd Amendment to just about everything, too.

[Dreadnaught]

GGT, that's patently absurd. Just because someone is anti-abortion doesn't mean they are against public schools teaching sex-ed, free condom distribution, etc. Had a convo with a friend of mine over Christmas visiting from law school. She's a left-winger like the rest, but she confessed that she's recently started to doubt whether abortion should be legal.

You may as well say that someone who was against the Iraq was a fan of Sadaam using chemical weapons on Shiites. You're indulging in some really groggy political hate. Goodnight.

[GGT]

GGT, that's patently absurd. Just because someone is anti-abortion doesn't mean they are against public schools teaching sex-ed, free condom distribution, etc. May as well say that someone who was against the Iraq was a fan of Sadaam using chemical weapons on Shiites.

It's not absurd at all, we've had these discussions at great lengths over time. Maybe you've forgotten them.

You're indulging in some really groggy political hate. Goodnight.

It's not hate, simply my perspective of American politics, which many others share.

I'm not groggy, either. But if you are.....night night.