Again, the Republicans prove that their main priority is not the economy or creating jobs. They really don’t know what to do about that little problem. After spending time on repealing health care, they are now moving on to abortion. Let the values war begin again. The top priority in the House, according to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors. The problem is that for years federal funding has already limited the use of government funds to pay for abortion except for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. There is also another exemption that applies in instances where the pregnancy endangers the mother’s life. That isn’t enough any longer.
The new Republican bill, introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) would eliminate this federal funding by redefining what rape is. Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal funding for the majority of rape cases including statutory rape. The bill would also prohibit the use of any tax benefits to pay for abortions. Since 1976, in a type of compromise, federal law has barred the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in jeopardy. But, as we have seen during the midterm elections, the anti-abortion side—fueled by the Tea Party and other conservatives–has been more aggressive in the abortion debate. Several mainstream candidates have campaigned on outlawing abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. Many anti-abortion activists have been pushing to outlaw tax deductions for insurance plans that cover abortion, even if the abortion coverage is never used.
Women’s rights advocates and organizations are outraged by this bill. "This bill takes us back to a time when just saying ‘no’ wasn’t enough to qualify as rape," says Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser to the National Women’s Law Center. Laurie Levenson, a former assistant US attorney and expert on criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, notes that the new bill’s authors are "using language that’s not particularly clear, and some people are going to lose protection." Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes. "There are a lot of aspects of rape that are not included," Levenson says. The bill hasn’t been carefully constructed, Levenson notes. The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill’s authors don’t offer their own definition.
Tait Sye, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, calls the proposed changes "unacceptable." Donna Crane, the policy director of NARAL Pro-Choice America, says that making the "already narrow exceptions for public funding of abortion care for rape and incest survivors even more restrictive" is "unbelievably cruel and heartless."
"This bill goes far beyond current law," says Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), a co-chair of the congressional pro-choice caucus. The "re-definition" of the rape exception "is only one element" of an "extreme" bill, she adds, citing other provisions in the law that pro-abortion rights groups believe would lead to the end of private health insurance coverage for abortion.
The real question is why is this the top priority for a Republican controlled House that won the midterm election by promising it would all be about “jobs.” Instead, the GOP is focused on targeting low income women and generally becoming bullies by pushing their draconian views on America. Whether you are against abortion or not, it does not make sense to further punish a rape victim who seeks an abortion by making her prove that her rape was “forcible.” It is insane and heartless.
