I am completely stunned and horrified.

  • Free 3 Day Shipping with Orders $75+

I am completely stunned and horrified.

Angel deSanguine Angel deSanguine
I just caught wind ofthis bill. I suggest paying special attention to Sec. 309.

Are these people not aware of the ramifications of this wording?? What the fuck?? What this means is this- If you are drunk and you say NO and they do not honor that IT IS NO LONGER RAPE unless they use force (under this bill, worded as it is.) If you are a child and you do not know that what your family member is doing to you until you get older, you just know they're an elder and you are taught to respect them so you don't resist IT IS NO LONGER ASSAULT (under this bill, worded the way it is.)

So now NO isn't enough?? There's got to be force as well??
01/28/2011
  • Buy 2 Toys for 70% Off
  • Save 80%. Limited Quantity
  • Save 20% on Luxury Toys
  • Add Some Buzz To Your Favourite Toy & Save 60% On Kit
  • Pick Any 2 E-Stim Toys, Get 60% Off A Kit
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
All promotions
PussyGalore PussyGalore
Did we read the same thing?

(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;


No where in there is a definition of what forced rape is and it says if the pregnancy is a product of incest...I don't see anything that says incest is no longer assault.

Please, point out to me where this information is in Sec. 309?
01/28/2011
Angel deSanguine Angel deSanguine
Quote:
Originally posted by PussyGalore
Did we read the same thing?

(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;


No where in there is a definition of what forced rape is and it says ...
When forcible is added as a precursor to rape is where I have a problem. Rape is rape. A violation of someone's word- NO- is rape. There need not be force involved. According to the wording of this bill:

if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape

In order for the victim pregnant with a rapist's child to have an abortion with any government funding there must be use of force. If she is unknowingly drugged and cannot resist there is no need for the use of force. If she were to become pregnant as a result of said rape according to the literal wording of this proposed bill she in ineligible to receive government assistance if she needs it to terminate the pregnancy.

You are correct about incest. I was so upset and shocked by the first portion that I misread the second part.
01/28/2011
Rockin' Rockin'
I think the act of raping someone should be considered a use of force in itself.
01/28/2011
PussyGalore PussyGalore
Quote:
Originally posted by Angel deSanguine
When forcible is added as a precursor to rape is where I have a problem. Rape is rape. A violation of someone's word- NO- is rape. There need not be force involved. According to the wording of this bill:

if the pregnancy occurred because ...
Until the definition of forced rape is defined by Congress under this bill, I think it's a little early to draw conclusions of what all forced rape entails.

I would imagine drugging someone without their consent would be considered forced. Scouring the internet in a quick search, I see no legal definition of forced rape but if there is a reliable source of this definition that is not based on jurisdiction I would be happy to see if it changes my answer.

Under this bill, would the rapist have to be formally charged and convicted for federal funding to be allowed for the abortion? That's rather unclear.

Whatever the case, I am sure this bill has a long long long way to go before it ever hits the floor with both Democrats and Republicans making major changes.
01/28/2011
Angel deSanguine Angel deSanguine
Quote:
Originally posted by Rockin'
I think the act of raping someone should be considered a use of force in itself.
I agree. From the way this is worded, however, someone(s) must not think so. Or else they just prefer to be redundant.
01/28/2011
Angel deSanguine Angel deSanguine
Quote:
Originally posted by PussyGalore
Until the definition of forced rape is defined by Congress under this bill, I think it's a little early to draw conclusions of what all forced rape entails.

I would imagine drugging someone without their consent would be considered forced. ...
I understand it has a long way to go as it was just introduced. I mention it because if no one does then it just flies under the radar which, to me, in unacceptable.

My exact issue with its wording are precisely what you are pointing out- it is open to interpretation. It is unclear. It is not defined here or anywhere else. In anti-abortion states like those in the South where I live they will happily interpret this as restrictively as they can (read: literally) for the very reasons you mention and be damned who has to live with the consequences. There are very few people that I feel the government owes something to. Victims of rape are one of them.
01/28/2011
Tuesday Tuesday
You're right. This appears to be an attempt to limit the number of abortions that qualify for federal funding.

Pregnancy from drug-assisted rape or statutory rape? No help for you with this bill.
01/28/2011
Angel deSanguine Angel deSanguine
Quote:
Originally posted by Tuesday
You're right. This appears to be an attempt to limit the number of abortions that qualify for federal funding.

Pregnancy from drug-assisted rape or statutory rape? No help for you with this bill.
Yeah, that's what I'm seeing.
01/28/2011
Gallowraven Gallowraven
not only is rape defined as the crime of forcing a woman to submit to sexual intercourse against her will. I don't feel that they should remove financial aid for those who need an abortion at all. while it still allows for victims of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is threatened. I get the feeling that if this bill passes, things could end up looking like the 70's all over again. with coat hanger abortions. *shudders* I'd rather my tax money go to help pay for some girl to get a proper abortion than to think of the possibility that she is so desperate to risk her life trying to do it herself. Some people may not agree, and I respect that.
01/28/2011
PussyGalore PussyGalore
Quote:
Originally posted by Angel deSanguine
I understand it has a long way to go as it was just introduced. I mention it because if no one does then it just flies under the radar which, to me, in unacceptable.

My exact issue with its wording are precisely what you are pointing out- it ...
This absolutely should be brought to the attention of the American people, but if people had been paying attention they would know this is something that has been in the works for a very long time now; I believe since King Bush I.

There's a growing number of women in Congress who will defend the definition of rape to the nth degree.

I am pro-choice and protection of rape victims but I also understand the government's point of view. There is a portion of the population that will take anything they can from the government. What's to stop a woman from claiming she was raped because she had consentual sex and is pregnant but is worried about being shamed by family, losing her job, or willfully didn't use birth control because public assistance was there. Don't get me wrong, there will even be the occasional medical practitioner who will find a loophole and call it something that it's not to cover the cost.

I really have a hard time not seeing both sides of the coin. An abortion is between $350 and $500 dollars. There are a lot of clinics that receive grants from non-federal sources that offer vouchers for assistance through these grants for women in desperate need.

Hey, here's an idea! They should draft a bill requiring the offender to pay for the abortion, forced or not. That should make everybody happy right? With federal funding available if the offender cannot be identified through a police investigation.

Now I'm curious to see the statistics on the number of date rape, drugged rape, incest, forced rape pregnancies that were aborted.

I don't think there's a win-win here at all. There are so many Americans who believe that conception through whatever means is a divine thing and should be carried to term. And there are those who simply believe it isn't any of the government's business one way or another. And there are those like us who believe there should be a safety net.
01/28/2011
Angel deSanguine Angel deSanguine
Quote:
Originally posted by PussyGalore
This absolutely should be brought to the attention of the American people, but if people had been paying attention they would know this is something that has been in the works for a very long time now; I believe since King Bush I.

There's ...
The woman that committed fraud should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The victim should not be deprived of resources for the actions of a criminal. That's getting onto very shaky territory that I'm not even going to touch on except to say I've got a major problem with victims being punished for a crime in which they did not commit which is, in its essence, what that is.

Our government is founded upon the separation of church and state. The mixing of the two resulted in things like the Bush administrations. Religion is entirely too involved in our politics- and I say this speaking as a Christian. I am free to exercise my beliefs as I see fit but those in a government office have made a commitment to keep the two separate.

The offender paying for the abortion is an interesting idea but once they are arrested the taxpayer is paying their wage and this it is, at the end of the day, the same dollar being spent. Also, look up the backlog of rape kits in any state in the US. The pregnancy would be to term and the kid in school before the seal in the kit was even cracked.
01/28/2011
PussyGalore PussyGalore
Quote:
Originally posted by Angel deSanguine
The woman that committed fraud should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The victim should not be deprived of resources for the actions of a criminal. That's getting onto very shaky territory that I'm not even going to touch on ...
You don't have to be religious to not support abortions through tax payer money. At the end of the day, what should truly be happening, is a vote by the American public. I'm a little tired of Congress writing up bills on what I can and cannot do with my money, or in my home, or making up absurd stipulations for how and when someone should receive care. What a politician says on the campaign trail is never what they support in policy and therefore is a misrepresentation of the wants of the American Public. WE are supposed to be in charge here, not them. They are supposed to design policy around our wants, not what creating policy can do for them politically and financially.

I think every member of Congress should have to take a master's level ethics course before running for office and not be allowed to serve more than two consecutive terms and no more than four non-consecutive terms in office. Once the term limit has been reached, the former Congressional member will receive a meager yearly salary of $20,000. None of this $100,000 a year for life crap they've got going on now. If the government really wants to know where their money is going they should look at the members.

And I think regardless of the bills they draft for the session each and every one of them, with full disclosure, should be put up to vote by the American public. I think logistically it's a frightening endeavor and even more frightening for existing members of Congress who are piggy-backing and riding coat tails.

Please exuse my rant.
01/28/2011
Angel deSanguine Angel deSanguine
Quote:
Originally posted by PussyGalore
You don't have to be religious to not support abortions through tax payer money. At the end of the day, what should truly be happening, is a vote by the American public. I'm a little tired of Congress writing up bills on what I can and cannot ...
I took your statement of "There are so many Americans who believe that conception through whatever means is a divine thing and should be carried to term." to mean those with a religious standpoint. So in reality you meant personal belief rather than divinity?

Really, the vote took place when the members of Congress were voted into office. Of course the campaign trail is riddled with lies and mudslinging. Before I vote for someone I pull their voting records- readily available online through many resources that will compile the candidates data for you- and read the bills on topics that are of interest to me if I do not already know what they are. It is the voter's responsibility to verify what they say and how they vote. Voting on whim, because mommy and/or daddy voted that way, partisan voting and voting on campaign promises without a political history to match are all follies. I would rather the uninformed not even step into the booth. That's how we wound up with bills like this even being brought up- people buying the pipe dream.
01/28/2011
PussyGalore PussyGalore
Quote:
Originally posted by Angel deSanguine
I took your statement of "There are so many Americans who believe that conception through whatever means is a divine thing and should be carried to term." to mean those with a religious standpoint. So in reality you meant personal belief ...
Right, personal belief. Sorry about that.

I don't believe our government should operate the way it does and I think the way we hold lawmakers responsible is archaic and needs to be addressed. It's practically impossible to impeach on a Federal level. I hold politicians to be what they are - respresentatives. I don't think they should get the final say and it's a good view of the laziness of the American people. It's probably a Utopian dream, but I think if people knew they would get to vote on the measure itself, they would do the research and be more involved because they have a direct impact on how the measure passes instead of relying on a group of people to do it for them. Obviously, we need a body of people representing the American people to draft the bill, but we don't need them to give their final stamp of approval without explicit input from the very people it affects.
01/28/2011
Angel deSanguine Angel deSanguine
Quote:
Originally posted by PussyGalore
Right, personal belief. Sorry about that.

I don't believe our government should operate the way it does and I think the way we hold lawmakers responsible is archaic and needs to be addressed. It's practically impossible to impeach on a ...
People do have a direct impact- voting on the politicians in the first place. If they choose to vote on a candidate without doing research then they have said that they do not care what the government does. It is laziness and/ or naivete on the forefront that puts the politicians in office in the first place to write bad policy!
01/28/2011
ScottA ScottA
Quote:
Originally posted by Angel deSanguine
I just caught wind ofthis bill. I suggest paying special attention to Sec. 309.

Are these people not aware of the ramifications of this wording?? What the fuck?? What this means is this- If you are drunk and you say NO and they do not honor ...
It is still rape - the criminal law defines it as such, and unless this specifically repeals the rape legislation then it will still be an offense. Even if it did specifically repeal any federal rape legislation the state rape legislation would still be in force.
01/28/2011
Emma (Girl With Fire) Emma (Girl With Fire)
I find this to be incredibly unsettling. Does anybody know what the statistics of UNREPORTED rapes are? They are HIGH, and nobody knows exactly how high because they go unreported. This bill sets a standard which denies women who are unable or unwilling to report their rapes the access to abortions. This is absolutely unacceptable. If a woman suffers through the trauma of rape, she should not be forced to make the decision between exposing themselves to more pain than they are willing or capable of exposing themselves to, (including Ids, reliving the trauma in order to make statements over and over again, and possibly facing their rapist in what could be a lengthy trial) or carrying the child of their rapist.
01/28/2011
Angel deSanguine Angel deSanguine
Quote:
Originally posted by ScottA
It is still rape - the criminal law defines it as such, and unless this specifically repeals the rape legislation then it will still be an offense. Even if it did specifically repeal any federal rape legislation the state rape legislation would still ...
As a prosecutable offense, yes. But according to the definition of this bill that allows her access to government funds if she cannot pay for an abortion of her rapist's child it is not. To me it's invalidating her, the victim, the person that has been wronged. It also concerns me because the wording on one item need only change for the a defense attorney to latch on to it and go 'well X doesn't say so is it REALLY??' I don't want for there to be even a remote possibility that could be brought up.
01/28/2011
Angel deSanguine Angel deSanguine
Quote:
Originally posted by Emma (Girl With Fire)
I find this to be incredibly unsettling. Does anybody know what the statistics of UNREPORTED rapes are? They are HIGH, and nobody knows exactly how high because they go unreported. This bill sets a standard which denies women who are unable or ...
YES! This!
01/28/2011
Xavier7 Xavier7
Quote:
Originally posted by PussyGalore
This absolutely should be brought to the attention of the American people, but if people had been paying attention they would know this is something that has been in the works for a very long time now; I believe since King Bush I.

There's ...
THE OFFENDER SHOULD PAY FOR THE ABORTION! I AGREE!
01/29/2011
PussyGalore PussyGalore
Quote:
Originally posted by Xavier7
THE OFFENDER SHOULD PAY FOR THE ABORTION! I AGREE!
Logistically, it would probably be a red-tape nightmare.
02/02/2011
Chilipepper Chilipepper
Seems the Repubs don't want to deal with our bitching about it anymore.

link
02/03/2011
Angel deSanguine Angel deSanguine
Quote:
Originally posted by Chilipepper
Seems the Repubs don't want to deal with our bitching about it anymore.

link
Thanks for sharing this!
02/03/2011
Airen Wolf Airen Wolf
Quote:
Originally posted by Angel deSanguine
When forcible is added as a precursor to rape is where I have a problem. Rape is rape. A violation of someone's word- NO- is rape. There need not be force involved. According to the wording of this bill:

if the pregnancy occurred because ...
Force is defined as any form of coercion which means positional authority (ie: an adult that uses their adult status to rape a child or an employer that uses the threat of firing to rape a subordinate) force has never been solely about physicality but includes any type of threat. Being drugged IS a form of force and in most cases is considered forcible rape. At least it is where I live.

There are other laws available to protect date rape victims and no ethical doctor will withold a morning after pill or abortion from a rape victim. This bill seems to me to be aimed at stopping women from claiming rape to obtain a state sanctioned abortion. THAT I take issue with...no women should have to lie to obtain an abortion.
02/03/2011
~LaUr3n~ ~LaUr3n~
Quote:
Originally posted by Angel deSanguine
When forcible is added as a precursor to rape is where I have a problem. Rape is rape. A violation of someone's word- NO- is rape. There need not be force involved. According to the wording of this bill:

if the pregnancy occurred because ...
Stop. Ok. The situation you explained about the child, will always be rape. Children do not have the ability to give consent in the first place.

And I read 309. You are wrong about that too. "Forcible rape" is just what it is called. It doesn't mean force is necessary for rape. Rape implies force. It is just legal jargon, so you can quit worrying.
02/03/2011
Angel deSanguine Angel deSanguine
Quote:
Originally posted by ~LaUr3n~
Stop. Ok. The situation you explained about the child, will always be rape. Children do not have the ability to give consent in the first place.

And I read 309. You are wrong about that too. "Forcible rape" is just what it is ...
I don't know if you read all of my posts but I did indicate in a later post that I misread what was said about incest. Unfortunately I cannot edit my initial post or I would do so because I figured there would be people that read the initial post and nothing more. I didn't want the negative attitude from this nor did I want people to get misinformation if all they read was the first portion of it. I apparently was not the only person concerned about the wording because, according to Chili's link there has been quite a fuss raised about it which I have seen on other sites as well, Jezibel for example.
02/03/2011
Angel deSanguine Angel deSanguine
Quote:
Originally posted by Airen Wolf
Force is defined as any form of coercion which means positional authority (ie: an adult that uses their adult status to rape a child or an employer that uses the threat of firing to rape a subordinate) force has never been solely about physicality ...
Airen- I wish so much that ethics was the driving force behind all doctors but unfortunately it isn't. I live in the Southern US and unfortunately personal beliefs cloud a lot of their decisions. The area that I moved from had one hospital- a Catholic one- and in order to work out of the hospital they were unable to provide abortions. If they did they could not deliver the babies of their patients at the only hospital in the city! The next largest city has 4 hospitals, 3 of them faith based with similar regulations.

There are a lot of pharmacies here that don't even provide the morning after pill because of their religious standing.

I do understand what you are saying with your rape definitions but I hope you understand my concern- if rape is already forcible what is the need to word the bill that way? That leaves it open to too much interpretation for my liking. It allows for misunderstanding and twisting of words.

Fortunately this is being corrected and the wording is being changed to guarantee protection to those that need it instead of trusting that it will be interpreted logically. That is all I wanted, I prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to things such as this. If that makes me look like I'm overreacting, so be it. I'd rather overreact for something I believe in and is important to me than to just sit idly by and do nothing.
02/03/2011
K101 K101
OMG! This horrifies me too! Looks like I might would've fallen under that category when it happened to me as a child that breaks my heart! Sign petitions, send letters, spread the word! That is what will change this. If people want to make a diff. we need to step up and make the diff! Anyone up for it?
05/20/2011
Total posts: 29
Unique posters: 12