Along with wanting to remove Thomas Jefferson from the high school history textbooks, because he was only a Deist and not a Christian, and to replace him with John Calvin, a religious fanatic who had people tortured to death, and wanting to insert Creationism into the science textbooks, now they want to start redefining words.
The latest right-wing whacked out craze???
To redefine rape!
Yeah! This monkey, John Boehner, who has shit for brains, he seriously needs to be beaten to death over the head with an unabridged version of the Funk And Wagnalls Dictionary!
In fact, I would love to throw that big book at all the Republicans!
OK, here is the controversy over abortion.
I believe a woman should have the right to an abortion under the following circumstance.
1.) If the continued pregnancy is a threat to the woman's life, and she might die, and an abortion is the only way to save her life.
2.) If she has been raped, or if she is the victim of incest no matter at what age the incest occurred.
3.) An under-aged child who was coerced into having sex by a pedophile.
http://www.salon.com/news/abortion/inde ... rtion_rape
OK, let me see if I got this right now.John Boehner's push to redefine rape
Tuesday, Feb 1, 2011 11:33 ET
By Sady Doyle
Feminists have opposed legal restrictions to abortion funding for as long as there have been legal abortions. Roe v. Wade was only allowed to exist for three years before the first anti-funding measure, the Hyde Amendment -- its name is uttered in certain circles in much the same way people in Harry Potter movies say always say "Voldemort" -- cracked down, prohibiting federal funding for low-income pregnancies. As part of last year's healthcare struggle, we got the much-loathed Stupak-Pitts amendment, which served the same purpose. In both cases, there was a huge outcry; in both cases, the amendments went forward with only minor changes.
And now there's H.R. 3. The "No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act" is bad in all the ways that Hyde and Stupak-Pitts were bad, but it's worse, too: It seeks to make Hyde federal law. Like previous measures, H.R. 3 would have been widely decried, regardless of anything else it contained. But it just so happens to contain one clause that makes it worse than all of those previous measures. It just so happens to redefine rape.
Whereas 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."
There's no way this change is accidental. And there's no way it's minor. Dan Lipinski, one of the few Democrats co-sponsoring the bill, insists that "the language of H.R. 3 was not intended to change existing law regarding taxpayer funding for abortion in cases of rape." At best, he's tragically misguided. This is a calculated move, which will make exemptions for rape and incest survivors practically unenforceable.
First, there are the people who would be overtly denied coverage, as outlined by Nick Baumann at Mother Jones. Those who were raped while drugged or unconscious, or through means of coercion, would not be covered. Survivors of statutory rape would not be covered: "if a minor," one is only covered in case of incest. And if one is a survivor of incest, and not a minor, that's also not covered. Studies of how rapists find and subdue victims reveal that about 70 percent of rapes wouldn't fall under the "forcible" designation.
Which leaves us with those rapes that could be construed as "forcible." Except that this clause doesn't guarantee an exemption for them, either. The term "forcible rape" actually has no set meaning; legal definitions of "force" vary widely. And every survivor who finds herself in need of abortion funding will have to submit her rape for government approval.
H.R. 3's language brings us back to an ancient, long-outdated standard of rape law: "Utmost resistance." By this standard, a rape verdict depended not on whether the victim consented, but on whether outsiders thought she resisted as hard as humanly possible. Survivors rarely measured up.
There's an example of how "utmost resistance" worked in the 1887 text Defences to Crime. In this case, a man was accused of raping a 16-year-old girl. (A minor, but not incest: Already convicted by current standards, not enough for H.R. 3.) The attacker held her hands behind her back with one of his hands. I asked my partner to test this move's "forcefulness," by holding my wrists the same way; I was unable to break his grip, though he's not much larger than I am, and it hurt to struggle. The attacker then used his free hand and his leg to force open her legs, knocked her off-balance onto his crotch, and penetrated her.
His conviction was overturned. Because the girl was on top. Then, there were the witnesses: One man watched it all, and noted that "though he heard a kind of screaming at first, the girl made no outcry while the outrage was being perpetrated." The physician who examined her testified that "there were no bruises on her person." It was therefore determined that the encounter was consensual. In the words of Defences to Crime, "a mere half-way case will not do ... this was not the conduct of a woman jealous of her chastity, shuddering at the thought of dishonor, and flying from pollution." Stopped screaming eventually? You wanted it.
Rape law is filled with cases like these. Definitions of "force" are still used to make highly subjective judgments that minimize actual violence. H.R. 3 leaves every survivor open to a decision that her attacker wasn't forceful enough, or that she didn't scream enough, or that she didn't struggle enough. "Forcible," like "utmost resistance," can be redefined by anyone in a position to apply it. Under H.R. 3, there is no guaranteed exemption for any survivors; everyone's coverage depends on the case-by-case judgment of a government working from a hugely flawed, inevitably subjective standard.
Which is intentional. Exemptions for rape and incest are a known target of antiabortion groups. John Boehner, who named this bill a top priority for the new Congress, is endorsed by the Republican National Coalition for Life, which requires candidates to prove they "do not justify abortion for innocent babies who are conceived through rape or incest." By my count, 34 co-sponsors of the bill were also endorsed and/or funded by RNCL. It shouldn't be shocking: The goal is no abortions for rape survivors. Because the goal is no abortions, for anyone.
Still, no one wants to be the guy who stands up and says that he's eliminating medical coverage for molested children. For some reason, that's an unpopular stance. Which is why the 183 politicians who sponsor H.R. 3 aren't saying it: They're just quietly changing the language. They want to appear to be preserving exemptions, while eliminating them in practice. They probably hoped no one would notice.
In that case: Whoops. There's been widespread public outcry. There's been massive scrutiny of the clause. There's an ongoing protest, online; I know about that one, because I started it. It's tagged #DearJohn on Twitter, and it includes a campaign to target each and every representative, especially those connected with the bill, and explain to them why it's unacceptable both in terms of rape survivors' rights and in terms of the right to abortion. Even Fox News won't touch it. This push to eliminate victims' rights is a big, messy, costly embarrassment, even for the extremist groups this bill represents.
But it's part of a long history. Feminists have been opposing restrictions to abortion funding for as long as there have been legal abortions. The biggest fear of everyone involved is that things will proceed the way they always do. There's a widespread outcry. We get one concession -- full rape exemptions. And then the bill moves forward, according to plan.
If you force a woman to have sex with you, and you beat up on her, and she fights back to defend herself, then, that is rape.
But if you knock her unconscious, or if you slip a mickey into her drink without her knowledge, and she passes out unconscious, and you have sex with her, then that is not rape.
That's because, being unconscious, and being unable to raise any objections, then, that is the same as her giving consent to have sex.
Oh! Right! Now I get it!!!
So, if she becomes pregnant as a result of the rape, and sex was forced on her, and she fought to defend herself, then she was raped, and she can get an abortion.
But if someone slips her a mickey into her drink, and she passes out unconscious, and is unable to defend herself, and the guy has sex with her, and she becomes pregnant as a result, then, she can not have an abortion, because she was not raped. It was consensual because she did not fight back, even if she was unconscious and was unable to fight back, it was still consensual.
So, sorry honey! But in that case, you can't have an abortion!
Another words, she has to come into the clinic, all bruised, battered, and beaten, have two black eyes, a bloody nose, a split lip, a cauliflower ear, some broken kicked in ribs, and a fractured collarbone, then that is physical proof that she was raped and she gets to have an abortion if she becomes pregnant later on. But first, the courts have to decide if she was in fact, raped, before they will approve of her having an abortion.
Of course, if she dies from the beatings, then the question is moot.
Then of course, they'll want to change the definition again. It's not rape, unless she dies from the sexual assault, then, it's rape. But then, she won't need the abortion anyway!
Yeah! I get it now!
Gee! Thanks for setting me straight!
OK, you Retardican morons!!!
Here is a dictionary definition of rape!
Notice, it says the following . . .rape
noun, verb, raped, rap·ing.
â??noun
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic . the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
â??verb (used with object)
6. to force to have sexual intercourse.
7. to plunder (a place); despoil.
8. to seize, take, or carry off by force.
â??verb (used without object)
9. to commit rape.
rape definition
Function: vt
raped ; , rap·ing ; : to commit rape on
rape definition
Function: n
: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent compare sexual assault statutory rape
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2007 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Cite This Source
rape (rÄp)
n.
The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse. v. raped , rap·ing , rapes
To commit rape on.
Legal Dictionary
Main Entry: rape
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: raped ; rap·ing
Etymology: Latin rapere to seize and take away by force
: to commit rape on â?? rap·er noun â?? rap·ist noun
Main Entry: rape
Function: noun
: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception â??see also STATUTORY RAPE
NOTE: The common-law crime of rape involved a man having carnal knowledge of a woman not his wife through force and against her will, and required at least slight penetration of the penis into the vagina. While some states maintain essentially this definition of rape, most have broadened its scope esp. in terms of the sex of the persons and the nature of the acts involved. Marital status is usually irrelevant. Moreover, the crime is codified under various names, including first degree sexual assault sexual battery unlawful sexual intercourse , and first degree sexual abuse .
And also . . .. . . unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent . . .
Ya got that??? You moronic Retardicans!!!. . . a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception . . .
If you have sex with a woman who has been rendered unconscious and therefore unable to give her consent, or with an under-aged girl below the legal age of consent, then it is still rape, you moronic Retardican fuck-tards!!!
So, she still gets to have an abortion, and if she is poor and can't pay for it, then we the taxpayers have to be willing to cover the cost. That's what living in a modern Democratic society is all about, or should be all about. That means supporting education, supporting science and science education, and supporting medical science and medical care.
And so, it's buck up AND shut the fuck up!
Oh! And it gets even better!
Some Republicans would like to outlaw abortion under any and all circumstances, and would even like to define a miscarriage as murder, and in the state of Georgia they want to pass a law where a woman could get the death penalty if she miscarries.
I kid you not!!!
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011 ... ty-georgia
And victims of rape will be redefined as "accusers" instead of being victims.
But that's a subject for another topic that I'll be posting in these forums along with my usual rants.
I'm fat and sassy! I love to sing & dance & stomp my feet & really rock your world!
