-Jonah, Knocked Up
There's a lot of furor up in the air about the republican house bill number 3, section 309. In this section, the definition of rape becomes Only defined as forcible rape. This would exclude other forms of non-consent, such as statutory rape, mental incompetence to consent, and drugged rape. Now, the title of the bill is "No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act" which sounds enticing.
I'm personally not stoked about the amount of my money that goes towards therapeutic abortions. I love the tiny life growing inside of me, and to me it is already my child. I knew it was there before it had even implanted in my uterus. I feel its energy as distinct and different from my own. I know it is alive, and that it is a tiny person (even if it looks like a sea monkey).
I'm in no way a personal supporter of abortion. I don't feel like it's my right to take away something else's life. But this life taking issue is also why I (personally) am not a hunter, or a veterinarian. I still eat meat. I still talk to veterinarians who preform what I consider to be unnecessary euthanasia. I even usually leave the bugs in my house alive, unless they seem to be bent on hanging out on my person or bed. Life is sacred to me.
The "No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act" is playing on this life loving emotion while doing something entirely different. Currently, the US government money (aka taxpayer dollars) is only used in the case of rape, incest, and danger to mother's health. This is the definition of therapeutic abortion- killing the child to preserve the mother (psychologically or physically). What this bill proposes is that the only rape that qualifies as serious enough to receive funding is forcible rape. Incest will only be covered to age 18. Danger to mothers would be left alone. Also, this bill would prevent tax-free health savings accounts (personal money) from being used to fund the abortion procedure.
This basically means that if a 20 year old mentally challenged girl was taken advantage of by a family member, not only would federally funded health care not pay for the abortion, neither would the girl's parents be able to use their own savings to pay for the abortion. It's also possible, using this new legal loophole, that the sexual predator would not be convicted because the girl was over 18 and no force was used.
Think of the number of sexual predators that would no longer be convict-able. Think of the ruined lives resulting from that alone, even if no pregnancy resulted from the rape. Think of the step backwards civil rights would take. Think of the broken hearts, that their rape wasn't "severe enough" that the courts would justify it.
Defeating this bill does nothing to the current rate of abortion. Everything stays as it is- therapeutic only- and rape is not legally redefined. The choice would remain, to be able to say no to abortion.
This is the site where you can add your voice to the others who don't see rape as a negotiable term: don't redefine rape
I'm personally not stoked about the amount of my money that goes towards therapeutic abortions. I love the tiny life growing inside of me, and to me it is already my child. I knew it was there before it had even implanted in my uterus. I feel its energy as distinct and different from my own. I know it is alive, and that it is a tiny person (even if it looks like a sea monkey).
I'm in no way a personal supporter of abortion. I don't feel like it's my right to take away something else's life. But this life taking issue is also why I (personally) am not a hunter, or a veterinarian. I still eat meat. I still talk to veterinarians who preform what I consider to be unnecessary euthanasia. I even usually leave the bugs in my house alive, unless they seem to be bent on hanging out on my person or bed. Life is sacred to me.
The "No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act" is playing on this life loving emotion while doing something entirely different. Currently, the US government money (aka taxpayer dollars) is only used in the case of rape, incest, and danger to mother's health. This is the definition of therapeutic abortion- killing the child to preserve the mother (psychologically or physically). What this bill proposes is that the only rape that qualifies as serious enough to receive funding is forcible rape. Incest will only be covered to age 18. Danger to mothers would be left alone. Also, this bill would prevent tax-free health savings accounts (personal money) from being used to fund the abortion procedure.
This basically means that if a 20 year old mentally challenged girl was taken advantage of by a family member, not only would federally funded health care not pay for the abortion, neither would the girl's parents be able to use their own savings to pay for the abortion. It's also possible, using this new legal loophole, that the sexual predator would not be convicted because the girl was over 18 and no force was used.
Think of the number of sexual predators that would no longer be convict-able. Think of the ruined lives resulting from that alone, even if no pregnancy resulted from the rape. Think of the step backwards civil rights would take. Think of the broken hearts, that their rape wasn't "severe enough" that the courts would justify it.
Defeating this bill does nothing to the current rate of abortion. Everything stays as it is- therapeutic only- and rape is not legally redefined. The choice would remain, to be able to say no to abortion.
This is the site where you can add your voice to the others who don't see rape as a negotiable term: don't redefine rape
And in closing, here is a comment on another person's shared (same) link:
"They'd just argue they aren't taking the choice away, though. They'd say they just don't want to pay for it.But with all the restrictions already in place, women are still driven to people like the butcher in Philadelphia. And that was a man who operated for decades in a country where abortion is nominally legal. His clients were teenagers who couldn't ask their parents, immigrants, and women who couldn't get the money together to pay out of pocket until they were late in their pregnancies.This is where hurdles and restrictions lead us, but choking off access is the only thing these assholes can do as long as Roe stands.
That they're so willing to throw rape victims under the bus to do it just proves how much this is about hating women and the under privileged. Because let's not forget: even if Roe were overturned tomorrow, wealthy women would still have access to safe abortions. They did before, they will after."
-N.Johnson
so think about it. And think about the implications of that one tiny sentence, wrapped in appealing pro-life terminology.
No comments:
Post a Comment