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? less

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. less

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. less

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. less

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. less

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. less

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. less

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. less

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. less

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?? less

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. less

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. less

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. less

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. less

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. less