My Twitter Feed

September 1, 2014

New GOP House Majority Tries to Redefine "Rape" and "Incest"

Well, that didn’t take long. The new House GOP majority has stepped out with a bold new plan for the American people, specifically women. The limits on federal funding for abortion except for the cases of rape and incest, are now under assault by definition.

For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.

Before we decide if you’ve even been raped, what is “rape” exactly? According to the House Republicans, it shouldn’t really count rape unless it’s forcible. And it’s not really forcible if there is no fighting or struggling or saying ‘no’ involved. You know, like when the woman has been drugged for instance.  Then, you’re OK.  She didn’t protest, so what’s the problem?

And then there’s statutory rape. That’s not really “rape” either, according to the House majority. I mean if you have a 13-year old who consents to sex with a 40-year old, can you reaallly call it rape? I mean, come on. Once again, no struggle – no problem. All you moms and dads agree with that one, right?

And the whole “incest” thing really shouldn’t apply once a girl turns 18. So, good news abusive dads, for all the sex that happens in the last part of senior year, you’re off the hook because it’s not really “incest.”

And since the bill is so inclusive, it also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, so parents wouldn’t be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure for their child who was “raped.”  And deducting the cost of the procedure, or the insurance that paid for it as a medical expense? No dice.

John Boehner, the new House Majority Leader has said that this bill is a “top priority.”  Now, mind you, if they have their way, once that baby is born don’t expect it to get health care, or scholarships, or social security when the little tyke turns 65. If Junior joins the army, don’t expect decent veteran’s benefits. And the unions will be gone by the time s/he gets older, so forget stable good-paying jobs with stuff like health care.  Birth is mandatory, and living a happy healthy life? Well, that’s not only optional, but the Republican party will do its darndest to actually make it hard.

Don’t worry though. If you’re rich, none of this affects you.  And just think of how this struggle will build the character of the working class! Welcome to the mindset of your new majority.

I think Nancy Pelosi needs a giant “Miss Me Yet?” billboard.

Comments

comments

Comments
63 Responses to “New GOP House Majority Tries to Redefine "Rape" and "Incest"”
  1. Nomad says:

    Wait a sec. Aren’t these the same people who called Assange a sex criminal? For a broken condom? He wasn’t even charged, tried or convicted.

  2. Casandra says:

    The GOP has demostrated that rape is of no consequence to them- when it happened overseas, the work of Halliburton-30 of the 40 GOP Senators sided with Halliburton, against the right to a day in court for the woman. They were furious that Sen. Franken had ‘taken them on”.

    Now this hideous bill, which would have such societal impact in such a regressive way, is an affront to anyone female and a real concern to anyone with a conscience. Nothing explains away forcing a child or woman to have a child while the GOP busily cuts off any programs that would have assisted a new mother without resources. Talk about big, despot of a government-that would be it.

    The ramifications of such language are unthinkable. Would a woman have to have a camera like the police have just to show what kind of hideous crime takes place?

    The GOP would exert this control just to satisfy their self righteous party tenet of no abortion, regardless of collateral damage. Once the child is born, they vote against healthcare, want to reduce/eliminate social programs-”we are broke’ has become the theme.

  3. kathy67 says:

    what I find really unfair is that men can get viagra covered by their insurance, but their wives, or daughters can’t get birth control covered in many places. And some states don’t allow (or make it very hard to get ) abortions. I have even read of drug-stores refusing to fill perscriptions for birth-control because the pharmacist was pro-birth!!!! And the person than needed to drive many miles to find someone to fill the perscription.

    And too many men think that “No, really means yes”; and that women need to be put in their places; in the kitchen, bare-footed and pregnent; and OBEY all male members around them.

    It’s an additude from the past that needs to finally come into the 21st century.

    Sorry for the rant, but we seem to be going backwards intstead of forwards.

  4. DF says:

    While I hear your entire argument here, I particularly jumped on board in that second to last paragraph — what, as a nation we are willing to pay for vs what we are NOT willing to pay for. Unfortunately, it’s not a debate that comes up often in the topic of abortion. But, I’m proud to say that I wrote a speech in college more than 40 years ago that reflected some of these views. Of course, there is much more to the abortion issue that doesn’t cross most of our doorsteps but the irony in spending should not be lost.

    Good comments, AKM.

  5. Ali girl says:

    I say my body is my responsibility. It is up to me to say who can enter. It is not an open invitation for anybody to think it is theirs for the taking.

  6. This makes me so incredibly angry that I can’t even see straight. Please let us know when and where we can donate to make the general voting public aware of this latest travesty by the republicans.

    The campaigned on the economy and THIS is what they come up with? How the hell does this create jobs!

    I had a college friend who was raped in her apartment after we all graduated. She lived on the ground floor and had a window next to her door. He broke the window and unlocked the door. He held a knife to her throat and raped her. I don’t think she had bruises. I would assume that if she had fought back, he would have killed her. Is that what they really want? I am so disgusted with these idiots. Voting them out of office in 2012 can’t come soon enough.

  7. WinBeach says:

    Since when did this become a high priority among Republicans? I don’t recall them campaigning on this. Did any of you?

    With a horrible war and financial situation facing us, can’t they stick to what is really important. They will never stop abortion, but they are trying, yet we still have Roe v Wade no matter how hard some states are trying to side step it.

    What I fear most is that this will simply revitalize back alley abortions–because as I said, nothing will stop the need for, nor the desperate depths to which women will go in order to get abortions. We all should do our best to stop this stupid bill, but also contribute to Planned Parenthood’s special program to help those who can’t afford an abortion.

  8. Jay says:

    What a horrifying legislation to propose. When is the vote?

  9. Alaska Pi says:

    Please read this:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/opinion/30sun1.html?ref=opinion
    (look at how it is expected to impact insurance and PP )
    and add to the list of analyses of this proposed bill.
    This is far, far more than a mere (and repugnant ) redefinition of rape and incest to suit obscurantists who could care less about human suffering in the face of their twisted morals,
    This is a “starve the beast” tactic by those who are well studied in how to remove money and appear to be just and moral doing it.
    Please do not get lost in wondering why there are women sponsors. It is a waste of time to ignore the simple fact that women can be as stupid, or more so, than men when it comes to upholding some notion of home and family in the face of the facts that their lil fancy safe world is not available to all.
    Add in the repeated-until-it-makes-me-want-to-hurl mantra about personal responsibility coming from all these yahoos and this mess is as toxic as it gets.
    These nasty self satisfied creatures will NOT address issues such as this :
    http://www.ajpm-online.net/article/PIIS0749379798000178/abstract

    but they will try to ram through legislation which adds further insult .

    This site is full of info – well beyond the link I’m leaving.
    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

  10. A fan from CA says:

    Another aspect of the awful bill is that it will make any insurance policy that includes coverage for abortion services non tax deductible. For those who pay any portion of insurance and then take the deduction it will be gone. Alternative will be to get a policy with no abortion services and then that policy will be deductiable.

    What this means is that most employers will probably drop the service from the policies.

    So let’s not forget Sarah’s own story about her second pregnancy. When the fetus died the treatment she chose was an, wait for it, ABORTION. You just can’t white out this stuff.

  11. beth says:

    I have a family member who whole-heartedly supports this bill…as she does any bill, rule, regulation, restriction that would, in essence, make abortions so difficult to get, that a female –no matter their personal circumstance– wouldn’t even try.

    This family member also insists she is totally PRO-female.

    She sees not one one iota of conflict between her adamant stance against –in all cases– abortion and her adamant insistance that she always –and only– has the best interest of females foremost in her thoughts, words, and actions.

    As she will tell you (at every opportunity) her being pro-female is unequivocally proven by her unwavering stance against all abortion: “Anyone who says they are pro-female and doesn’t stand against abortion, is a damned hypocrite; female fetuses are killed by abortion.”

    Her mind is set — there is no room for any other information, and heaven’s forbid, for any contrary-to-what-she-believes, input. And that is that.

    I would imagine many of the sponsors and supporters of H.R.3 would argue the exact same convolution and cr@p as does my family member. It’s enough to drive anyone with an ounce of compassion and sanity, stark raving, feckin’ mad! beth.

    [Suffice it to say, said family member tends to make my blood boil; for the sake of my mental and physical health, I avoid her as much as possible. Arrrgh! b.]

  12. ks sunflower says:

    Thank you once again, AKM, for educating people about this bill and for encouraging discussion of it.
    I sense every reader here will do something to stop this horrendous bill from every seeing the light of day as law.

    I encourage everyone here to also visit Immoral Minority, Gryphen’s blog because there are several deeply moving posts by someone called Doubting Thomas. Her first is a poem written about her nightmare gang rape in 1979 as an 18-year-old medic in the Army. She said it was the first time since it happened that she has been able to talk about it. I think that because two major Alaskan political blogs airing the same topic on the same day made a tremendous difference. Other rape victims also told their stories and every comment on both blogs should be mandatory reading for the co-sponsors of this bill.

    Please also see the subsequent comments by Doubting Thomas because she gives us crucial insights into the truths about women in the military regarding sexual abuse and rape. Did you know, for instance, that 40 percent of all victims presenting to the VA hospitals for help with military sexual abuse trauma are men? Read and learn. Her voice has the ring of truth about it and can be verified easily enough. We all need to know about this and work to change the policies that condone it.

    https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=9361564&postID=825531264774039223

    AKM, I hope you don’t mind me encouraging others to go over to read the comments on IM, because, honestly, the stories there will tear your heart to shreds but validate every word of outrage in your post. Thanks again, for posting about this hideous bill and thereby, hopefully, stopping it from becoming law.

  13. Dagian says:

    Hey! While they’re satisfying the angriest constituents, what are you willing to bet they’ll try to get rid of marital rape too?

    This won’t pass the House, if it did, it will NOT get past the Senate or get signed. But it’s let everyone in the US know what’s up and coming.

    I’m not generally a one-issue voter, but I am on THIS issue. I was too young to have friends seeking an illegal abortion and I want it to stay that way. This particularly chaps my ass because so many of these same people are against CONTRACEPTION.

    Does anyone know if the super-glue vasectomy has gained any traction? I remember reading a snippet about it somewhere. It was cheap, effective and completely reversible too. Maybe it wasn’t as good as initially thought to be?

    • Jen in SF says:

      This sounds like it tosses martial rape out the window. ‘Hey, you said “I do”…!

      Splitting hairs in the definition of rape, the backers of this law seem to be willing to decriminalize it by parts. I suspect that the victims not being discussed at all (males, females who do not get pregnant) may not make the cut either as people worthy of mercy.

  14. jojobo1 says:

    It is beyond belief that any woman would support a bill like that.It puts all woman at risk.
    I am with Baker’s Dozen on this one the whole idea of the bill is ridiculous.Maybe it’s time the dems and indies fight fire with fire!!!!!

    • Baker's Dozen says:

      I’ll say it again. The most dangerous enemies to social change are people from the group that will benefit from the change. Either these women don’t think women are the equal of men OR they think they will get personal gain from this.
      Though not nearly as egregious, women in power trying to deny equal rights for other women is like black southerners owning slaves. As low as the men signing onto this bill are, the women are worse, using those that should be able to depend on them for support to bolster their own position and profit.

  15. dreamgirl says:

    AKM, shouldn’t there be a visual warning? Like view at your own peril: Highly advise some sort of SPF for the eyeballs. (Orange-off-optical solution?)(Eww-be-gone?)

    • Sarafina says:

      Paraphrasing Steve Benen at Political Animal, “The new Republican majority is busy building a bridge to the 18th Century.”

    • ks sunflower says:

      Maybe it’s all the tanning spray chemicals soaking into his brain, mixing with all that alcohol from the fundraisers that prevents him from noticing he’s just a shade or two (or three) too orange even for the fruit. He did tone it down a bit for the SOTU appearance, but still, that poor man needs to knock it off.

  16. A Fan From Chicago says:

    Twenty-eight days ago I thought we were celebrating 2011 not 1911. These Republicans, all the crazy factions, have no clue where the American people are on social issues. Sure, they won a bunch of seats in November because of the economy, and the Democrats inability, or fear, to articulate the gains we’ve made since Bush.

    But this kind of crap, and other things they’re trying to push, will lose them the independents that went to them in November. The more President Obama stays steady, and moderate and sane, the more I believe what people were saying two years ago: he’s playing chess while everybody else is playing checkers.

  17. Baker's Dozen says:

    I want an amendment added:
    It isn’t murder if the victim is a man shot by a woman and he didn’t say no or struggle.

    Now, of course, I don’t want this really, and I’m not putting cross hairs on anyone. But, dang, it makes just as much sense. I mean, do you really have to tell someone you don’t want to be shot to call it murder? How about if you’re a kid and the perp is an adult? Still have to yell, “no?” What if he sneaks up, grabs you from behind and chloroforms you before you can yell out or struggle? What if you’re a member of a certain segment of society? Do you give up some rights? How about if you’re trying to protect your boss or other people at a meet and greet in front of a super market?
    Whenever they try to take away women’s rights, the bill should include something that takes away men’s rights. And, again, I’m not saying that the law doesn’t sometimes favor women. But those cases are few and far between.

    In addition, how many lives are we “saving” by this? How many abortions fall into this category? How many die in the wars each year? How many die because they don’t have heath care? And how can high schools, let alone colleges, give a diploma to such ignorant fools? I want Boehner’s alma maters to tell me that.

    • If they prevent a woman or girl from getting an abortion because it wasn’t rape, then what will follow is that the rapist won’t be convicted of rape regardless of whether she ends up pregnant. Do these nitwits just not remember what it was like back in the 50s, 60s, and even the 70s for women? Most of them are old enough. It makes me wonder what dark secrets they have that they are now trying to justify by redefining rape and incest.

  18. beaglemom says:

    So far our congressman’s name is not on the list but this morning I sent him an email nonetheless. He is all in support of the “unborn”; it’s the “already born” that he doesn’t like.
    I can remember when it was very difficult to prove rape in this country. A girl or woman had to be practically at death’s door for a rape charge to be proven in court. I thought we had recovered from all of that. If the definition for medical insurance can change so can the definition change for criminal cases. I can see us going backwards as a nation – only too fast.
    I doubt that Republican members of Congress have too many brain cells among them. This is just beyond stupid. How will they define “forcible”? Psychological intimidation? Inability to escape one’s attacker? A slap or two? A few stab wounds? Or does the girl or woman have to die to prove that the attack was “forcible”? Then she wouldn’t need an abortion.
    And to think that any women would join in this travesty is unbelievable to me. I had hoped that the women on that side of the aisle would have said “hey, wait a minute.”
    Why can’t they just sit down, shut up, do their job and help provide for the welfare of the American people like they are supposed to?

  19. These thugs have been redefining terms for a long time. My favorite is when they redefined impeachable offense so they could nail Clinton and not touch Dubya. They wanted to redefine manufacturing jobs when Dubya was potus to include fast food workers,the only jobs Dubya could create. Conflict of interest is another term they have trouble with.

  20. Zyxomma says:

    This will probably be moderated automatically because of its length, but here are all the sponsors and co-sponsors. You will notice that all the women who signed on to this travesty call themselves “Mrs.”

    Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. AKIN, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. AUSTRIA, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. BARLETTA, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. BENISHEK, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. BONNER, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. BROOKS, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. CANSECO, Mr. CARTER, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado, Mr. COLE, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. CRAVAACK, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. CRITZ, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Mr. DESJARLAIS, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana, Mr. DUFFY, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. FORBES, Mr. FORTENBERRY, Ms. FOXX, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. GOWDY, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, Mr. GRIMM, Mr. GUTHRIE, Mr. HALL, Mr. HARPER, Mr. HARRIS, Mrs. HARTZLER, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. HERGER, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. HURT, Ms. JENKINS, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. JONES, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. KELLY, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois, Mr. KLINE, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. LANDRY, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. LATTA, Mr. LEE of New York, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. LONG, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. MARINO, Mr. MCCARTHY of California, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MCKINLEY, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. MULVANEY, Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mrs. NOEM, Mr. NUNNELEE, Mr. OLSON, Mr. PAUL, Mr. PENCE, Mr. PETERSON, Mr. PITTS, Mr. POMPEO, Mr. POSEY, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. RIBBLE, Mr. RIGELL, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. ROKITA, Mr. ROSKAM, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. ROSS of Arkansas, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. SCHILLING, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. SHULER, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. STUTZMAN, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. TERRY, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. TURNER, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. WOLF, Mr. WOODALL, Mr. YOUNG of Florida, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. BOREN, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. CALVERT, Mrs. ELLMERS, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. TIBERI, and Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas) introduced the following bill:

    • Zyxomma says:

      My mistake. There’s actually a “Ms.” in front of Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen’s name. I don’t know who all these women represent, or think they represent. When I was notified of the introduction of this bill yesterday, I got so upset that I had to use holistic methods to heal myself.

  21. Jacob says:

    This bill, should it get out of the House, could be vetoed by the Pres. , right??

  22. Hope says:

    This sounds disturbing, does anyone have a link to their actual bill?

  23. Judi says:

    Oh…did you see where Boehner there will be a keynote speaker at an health insurance conference…he knows where he gets his money and who he is to represent in Congress

    • ks sunflower says:

      I would love to see a code of ethics imposed that required member of Congress to recuse themselves from voting on any bill from which they or any members of their immediate family have or will receive financial benefits, including speaking fees or other valuable considerations. That way, lobbyists would lose some of their ability to influence or buy votes.

  24. Judi says:

    Outraged….as I am on so many of these bills and comments from the far right lately….

    Now where is the bill to provide for the real babies…the ones who are breathing on their own? USA ranks 46th in infant mortality….To me these are the babies that really need our help.

    Why are they so obsessed with abortion and a woman’s right to choose?

  25. North of the Range says:

    So, let me see if I understand. They would be creating in law two classes of rape: a “forcible” kind that is eligible for abortion funding, and an “every other kind” category that is not. So is some bureaucrat going to develop a form that rape victims and their doctors have to sign, attesting to which kind it is, presumably with penalties for applying federal $ to the “wrong kind”? Seriously?

    Idiots. And worse.

    • Jen in SF says:

      Or could this limitation set the stage for redefining rape in other contexts?

      Sounds like the bill states “forcible rape” without actually defining it….. and isn’t rape by definition forcible? (Even for statutory, which argues that any underage person having sex is legally incapable of choosing to do so?) Isn’t obfuscating the crime of rape — which is all about lack of choice for the victim — the furthest you can get from being “pro choice”??

      • Jen in SF says:

        I’m embarrassed; I scrambled “pro choice” with “pro life” in my previous post. I’m on pain meds at the moment, so I’d like to chalk my mistake up to that. #^_^# Sorry, y’all.

  26. beth says:

    Here is the text of [Bill] H.R.3 – No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act: (Synopsis) “To prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections, and for other purposes.” http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3/text

    The following section is the booger-result of the GOTPs quest for complete control of –and intrusion into– female’s lives:
    “““““““““““““““`
    SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.
    ___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.
    “““““““““““““““`
    All three ‘areas’ (via the above link) have a bubble you can click on to make comment. I, personally, am too angered at the moment to make any comment that would be even semi-coherent. beth.

  27. Laurie says:

    This is another one of the things they must do to satisfy their religious base. Since they can’t undo Roe v Wade, they will chip away however they can. We cannot be complacent. My Blue Dog rep’s name is not on the list, but I’ll be calling his office on Monday just the same.

  28. Lee says:

    This is just plain wrong. There is a shortage of common sense in the GOP.

    • Zyxomma says:

      Common sense? I quit expecting that from the House so long ago that it’s getting hard to remember. Common decency is also gone, and that’s even worse.

      So, by their reckoning, all the college and university students who get roofied and raped aren’t really raped because it’s not forcible? Does being unconscious by the hands of someone who spiked a drink count as force? If not, why not?

  29. Pinwheel says:

    Of the 173 listed co sponsors, 16 are women, that I could tell. Too, also, Heath Shuler, D-NC. Not sure about any other Dems. The Thomas list indicates district numbers. I’m thinking that SD doesn’t list a district number because SD, like AK, may only have 1 Representative.

  30. barbara says:

    this is one i’ll be writing to my lawmakers about, and urge everyone else to as well. it won’t pass if they know the people don’t want it, and you know that the tea baggers and rabid right to lifers will be knocking on their doors, ringing their bills and basically pushing them into this draconian antiquated anti-woman measure. it won’t pass, that’s my prediction. and hope.

  31. Concerned Too says:

    I believe if you go to the link that names the bill you will see all the sponsors, i.e., names of those putting the bill forward.
    Some are identifying the states they are from, some not, but I believe this is the ‘list’ you are looking for.
    There is a “Mrs. BACHMANN” listed but no state ID.

  32. Pinwheel says:

    This is where I found the aforesaid list. Haven’t mastered sending links. Initial search thru Google, US Congress/

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas

    The Library of Congress > THOMAS Home > Bills, Resolutions > Search Results
    Bill Summary & Status
    112th Congress (2011 – 2012)
    H.R.3

    ——————————————————————————–
    Item 1 of 1
    ——————————————————————————–

    NEW SEARCH | HOME | HELP
    ——————————————————————————–

    Print Subscribe Share/Save

    H.R.3
    Latest Title: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act
    Sponsor: Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] (introduced 1/20/2011) Cosponsors (173)
    Latest Major Action: 1/20/2011 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

    ——————————————————————————–
    All Information (except text) Text of Legislation CRS Summary Major Congressional Actions

    All Congressional Actions

    All Congressional Actions with Amendments
    With links to Congressional Record pages, votes,reports
    Titles Cosponsors (173) Committees
    Related Bills Amendments Related Committee Documents
    CBO Cost Estimates Subjects

    Stay Connected with the Library All ways to connect »Find us onSubscribe & Comment
    RSS & E-Mail Blogs Download & Play
    Podcasts Webcasts iTunes U About | Press | Site Map | Contact | Accessibility | Legal | External Link Disclaimer | USA.govSpeech Enabled

  33. scout says:

    Apparently these jack-a-ninnies have never held the trembling hand of a girl that’s been raped. I know a woman they should meet. She was 13 when her Daddy first “schooled her in the ways of womanhood.” Decades later, still haunted with nightmares, these Republicans would seek to redefine her trauma?

    This isn’t about abortion GOTPers, it’s about rape.

    Senator Lisa Murkowski, what say you?

    • Shell says:

      So true, it is about rape. To say that it has to be forceful to be rape is ridiculous. What about a child who has been taught from the age of 3 that incest is normal and good. Whenever she resists there was violence but that was so long ago and there is no evidence of that now. Now at 17 or 18 she does not even resist anymore and so she feels the shame as though she was somehow participating. All she hears how as she looks for help is that there is no evidence. If she were pregnant how could she ever prove that it was incest and/or rape? By the time she finds out she is pregnant the bruises have faded and who is to say her boyfriend or even her brother did not impregnated her?

  34. Pinwheel says:

    I believe it essential that we get those names into the public. I have a dream that the Alaska Delegation stands up together to denounce this. Leesa and Don are willing to repeal Health Care, but could they really, in good conscience, support this. Please, say it ain’t so!!!

  35. RDH says:

    KS Sunflower asks: I hope we can find a list of sponsors to this – GOP and Democratic

    Here you go…..

    Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. AKIN, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. AUSTRIA, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. BARLETTA, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. BENISHEK, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. BONNER, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. BROOKS, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. CANSECO, Mr. CARTER, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado, Mr. COLE, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. CRAVAACK, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. CRITZ, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Mr. DESJARLAIS, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana, Mr. DUFFY, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. FORBES, Mr. FORTENBERRY, Ms. FOXX, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. GOWDY, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, Mr. GRIMM, Mr. GUTHRIE, Mr. HALL, Mr. HARPER, Mr. HARRIS, Mrs. HARTZLER, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. HERGER, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. HURT, Ms. JENKINS, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. JONES, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. KELLY, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois, Mr. KLINE, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. LANDRY, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. LATTA, Mr. LEE of New York, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. LONG, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. MARINO, Mr. MCCARTHY of California, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MCKINLEY, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. MULVANEY, Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mrs. NOEM, Mr. NUNNELEE, Mr. OLSON, Mr. PAUL, Mr. PENCE, Mr. PETERSON, Mr. PITTS, Mr. POMPEO, Mr. POSEY, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. RIBBLE, Mr. RIGELL, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. ROKITA, Mr. ROSKAM, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. ROSS of Arkansas, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. SCHILLING, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. SHULER, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. STUTZMAN, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. TERRY, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. TURNER, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. WOLF, Mr. WOODALL, Mr. YOUNG of Florida, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. BOREN, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. CALVERT, Mrs. ELLMERS, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. TIBERI, and Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concernedCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

  36. Dina Willner says:

    I’d donate to get that billboard up.

  37. ks sunflower says:

    Thanks so much for covering this callous bill.

    We knew they’d use the ruse of cutting taxes and slashing “big government” to win, but they really just wanted to win so they could enact their social and cultural agenda. I hope voters get very tired of them very quickly and vote these arrogant, vile creatures out of office in 2012 (though we will be stuck with the morons like Paul Rand until 2016).

    I’ve read many comments on this over at IM, and almost one hundred percent of responders are furious! They also have many imaginative suggestions for GOP/Tea Party Representatives to try so they can understand what rape, forcible or not, is like. These guys do tempt one to conclude that they really want to make it easier for them to rape.

    I certainly feel as if every woman who would be affected by this bill would be figuratively raped. Just what we all want for our sisters, aunts, daughters, cousins, mothers, right? How can women and families of affected girls and women who cannot afford to pay out of pocket for health care afford to pay for rape counseling and treatement.

    I hope we can find a list of sponsors to this – GOP and Democratic. Their names should be broadcast far and wide as being anti-female. I certainly hope no woman has co-sponsored it though I wouldn’t be surprised to find Michelle Bachmann in line to vote for it.

    I bet Sarah Palin will be quite comfortable with this considering how she wanted Alaskan rape victim to pay for their own rape kits to prove the crime. Now, of course, it won’t be necessary if the GOP gets their way because unless the girl or woman is bruised, battered or slashed, no rape kit testing is even necessary. Plus, as one responder at IM said, if the rape was forcible enough, the victim will be dead and even more tax dollars will be saved because the police and prosecutors won’t have to be bothered. Just makes me vibrate with frustration that these conservatives don’t care!

    • leenie17 says:

      “I hope we can find a list of sponsors to this – GOP and Democratic. Their names should be broadcast far and wide as being anti-female.”

      Yes, Michele Bachman is one of the sponsors, as is my Rep, Chris Lee. I sent an email to him last week regarding his support of the Republican repeal of health care reform and it looks like I’ll be writing another one about this issue.

      Here are a few other names that might look familiar: Foxx, King (NY), King (Iowa), Paul, Pence, Ryan (Wisconsin), Gohmert, and Cantor. I’m sure many of you mudpups will find more local names whose presence on this bill comes as no surprise.

      Here’s a link to the bill with the list of sponsors:

      http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3/text

      • ks sunflower says:

        You know what really ticks me off? That the majority of the co-sponsors seem to be politicians who talk about how their faith informs their decisions. Really? Christians and Jews (Cantor) both are taught to be charitable, to be kind, to help those less fortunate. Not that other faiths don’t also do that, but people of other faiths in politics tend not to base their campaigns on their faith traditions. Christians are particularly guilty of wearing their faith on their lapels to garner votes but are usually the first ones to turn their backs on those less fortunate than themselves all the while trying to pile up more treasure and benefits for themselves and their backers. Shameful beyond words.

        Thank you for the link, leenie. I will investigate to see who amongst them are hypocrites and who are just plain stupid and cruel.

  38. JRC says:

    What was the old saying “Every mother willing?” Still stands.

  39. Pat in MA says:

    Rachel Maddow nailed it the other night – their lips say “jobs, jobs, jobs” but their actions say ‘the culture wars are back!”

  40. Gramiam says:

    The uterus police are on the move!! I’m always fascinated at how much more easy these wrinkled and sour old white guys find it to rule over my reproductive organs than to legislate real benefits for all of us

Leave A Comment

%d bloggers like this: