Wow.
.
As a guy, I try to stay away from discussions of Abortion and Rape. Even issues where the government tries to unfund it - or prevent any insurance or Medicad to fund abortions. I feel women are in much better positions to look at this, but John Bonher's latest work leaves me weak-kneed. He is redefining abortion.
.
... Stupak-Pitts provides an exemption if "the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest," and Hyde contains exemptions that are similar, H.R. 3 only provides exemptions if the pregnancy results from"an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest."
.
The problem here is four fold.
.
First: Limiting access to abortion to "forcible" rape - means that a woman who is drugged and raped is not covered. A woman who feels threatened by an intruder, theif, strangler, whatever and is she doesn't visibly resist is not covered. A mental retarded woman (or child) can be coerced into sex and it won't be rape.
.
Second: There is no legal definition of "forcible rape" - so any woman who attempts to use this exception gets take her story to a court and convince a judge she was not just raped, but forcible raped. See case law if you want to understand how this pernicious definition could mean that if a woman stops screaming during the rape means it isn't rape.
.
Third: Minors aren't covered for statutory rape anymore. Only for incest. So if a disgusting adult can convince a child to have sex - and the 12 year old gets pregnant - no abortion.
.
Four: Incest by coercion (if you don't sleep with me I will kill your mother) are not covered for anyone over 18.
.
Like I said, I generally stay out of these discussions, but this is disgusting. And I fear no one will stand up and say no - everyone wants to be hard on abortion.