Not according to Repugs.

Quote:Under H.R. 3, the only victims of “forcible rape" would qualify for federally funded abortions. Victims of statutory rape—say, a 13-year-old girl impregnated by a 30-year-old man—would be on their own. So would victims of incest if they’re over 18. And while “forcible rape” isn’t defined in the criminal code, the addition of the adjective seems certain to exclude acts of rape that don’t involve overt violence—say, cases where a woman is drugged or has a limited mental capacity. “It’s basically putting more restrictions on what was defined historically as rape,” says Keenan.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-s...ines-rape/

Fortunately, this absolutely disgusting legislation language got axed.

The values voters aren't Republicans in the traditional and historical sense ... they're new to the scene, and should be purged from the party.

(02-19-2011 02:33 PM)TJfan Wrote:  Not according to Repugs.

Quote:Under H.R. 3, the only victims of “forcible rape" would qualify for federally funded abortions. Victims of statutory rape—say, a 13-year-old girl impregnated by a 30-year-old man—would be on their own. So would victims of incest if they’re over 18. And while “forcible rape” isn’t defined in the criminal code, the addition of the adjective seems certain to exclude acts of rape that don’t involve overt violence—say, cases where a woman is drugged or has a limited mental capacity. “It’s basically putting more restrictions on what was defined historically as rape,” says Keenan.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-s...ines-rape/

Fortunately, this absolutely disgusting legislation language got axed.

That's a really poor job of spinning bub.

(02-19-2011 02:34 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The values voters aren't Republicans in the traditional and historical sense ... they're new to the scene, and should be purged from the party.

Wow! Repbulican Ronald Regan is probably rolling over in his grave of this statement. He brought this group into the Republican party in 1980, without these voters we would have had a second term of Jimmy Carter, and of course President Gore.

(02-19-2011 02:33 PM)TJfan Wrote:  Not according to Repugs.

Quote:Under H.R. 3, the only victims of “forcible rape" would qualify for federally funded abortions. Victims of statutory rape—say, a 13-year-old girl impregnated by a 30-year-old man—would be on their own. So would victims of incest if they’re over 18. And while “forcible rape” isn’t defined in the criminal code, the addition of the adjective seems certain to exclude acts of rape that don’t involve overt violence—say, cases where a woman is drugged or has a limited mental capacity. “It’s basically putting more restrictions on what was defined historically as rape,” says Keenan.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-s...ines-rape/

Fortunately, this absolutely disgusting legislation language got axed.

You seem to have trouble understanding the English language.

So do you get the free money prior to a rape conviction? The rapist should pay for an abortion, if the abortion happens.
Curious If I knock your teeth out with a punch does the government pay for the dental work?

This is a retread

Consider that NO abortions currently get Federal funding. Believe it or not, this is a concession. Quit whining

(02-19-2011 04:43 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  So do you get the free money prior to a rape conviction? The rapist should pay for an abortion, if the abortion happens.
Curious If I knock your teeth out with a punch does the government pay for the dental work?

Is the guy you punch here legally or illegally?

Poor Robert just sitting there at the top of the board viewing and wishing so badly he could jump in here and help out his fellow traveler.

(02-19-2011 03:55 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  without these voters we would have had a second term of Jimmy Carter, and of course President Gore.

These are the voters that gave us the incompetence of President W, and through extension, President Obama.

Yeah, I saw him...I PM'd BR and asked him to allow Rob back. I actually think Rob would take our side on some of the stuff the noobs are spouting.

(02-19-2011 05:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Consider that NO abortions currently get Federal funding. Believe it or not, this is a concession. Quit whining

That still doesn't explain why Repugs want to marginalize one class of Rape victims.

(02-19-2011 09:02 PM)TJfan Wrote:  

(02-19-2011 05:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Consider that NO abortions currently get Federal funding. Believe it or not, this is a concession. Quit whining

That still doesn't explain why Repugs want to marginalize one class of Rape victims.

As has already been pointed out, your reading skills are lacking.

I take it you subscribe to the Georgia Republican party perspective that all crime victims are victims, except rape victims who are merely "accusers"

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/05/ge...-accusers/

I hate the term "person of interest" instead of suspect. But it doesn't change anything.

(02-19-2011 09:02 PM)TJfan Wrote:  

(02-19-2011 05:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Consider that NO abortions currently get Federal funding. Believe it or not, this is a concession. Quit whining

That still doesn't explain why Repugs want to marginalize one class of Rape victims.

It also doesn't explain why when the Democrats held a super-majority in both houses AND the White House, meaning they could have passed just about ANYTHING... they failed to address the issue at all. I guess Democrats want to marginalize ALL rape victims?

You may not think they went far enough, but they went MUCH further than Pelosi and Company. Where was your indignation THEN?

I thought abortion was legal.

Abortion backers keep acting like its not.

(02-19-2011 05:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This is a retread

Consider that NO abortions currently get Federal funding. Believe it or not, this is a concession. Quit whining

At least one (credible) article that I saw indicated that this would take away tax deductions for any insurance plan that also paid for abortion. Where the legislation was interesting is not the "redefining rape" nonsense that Moveon.com was pushing, but that it may take away tax deductions for everyone in the plan even if abortion was not even a remote possibility. I don't know who or how many people that might affect (insurance payments being tax-deductible), but it may well be everyone on this board.

(02-20-2011 09:28 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-19-2011 05:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This is a retread

Consider that NO abortions currently get Federal funding. Believe it or not, this is a concession. Quit whining

At least one (credible) article that I saw indicated that this would take away tax deductions for any insurance plan that also paid for abortion. Where the legislation was interesting is not the "redefining rape" nonsense that Moveon.com was pushing, but that it may take away tax deductions for everyone in the plan even if abortion was not even a remote possibility. I don't know who or how many people that might affect (insurance payments being tax-deductible), but it may well be everyone on this board.

If that is true, then the wrong side is whining about this. How is that possible if Medicaid/Medicare pays for them (in any way at any time)? Unless that deduction is going away as well??