Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Re-defining Rape for Medicaid Purposes

Medicaid Rape 2011

  • Please log in to reply
172 replies to this topic

#1 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,225 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 11:46 PM

http://www.theatlant...-Liberals-3089/

Quote

Currently, federal funds--Medicaid, for example--may pay for abortions resulting from rape or incest. This week, however, House Republicans introduced their latest piece of legislation: the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." According to Mother Jones's Nick Baumann, Republicans want to say federal funding for abortion is only okay in cases of "forcible rape." Pregnancies resulting from statutory rape, in women who were raped while drugged or extremely intoxicated, in mentally incapable women, or in many of the victims of date rape would not be covered under this narrow definition.
...
Like the Affordable Care Act repeal bill before it, few predict the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" will make it past the House of Representatives.

I can understand people being against abortion funded by government (either for all, or for some). However, if you are going to cover rape, don't make the definition near meaningless. Though I wonder how it is done currently anyways. Do they just use the first reason given by the tax payer? Perform a thorough interview? Ask for a police report number?
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#2 M.E.

M.E.
  • Islander
  • 8,197 posts

Posted 29 January 2011 - 12:23 AM

It is already tough enough to have to go through the legal system to prove rape.  Now this? :angry:

If you do not have explicit permission, it's rape.  If you are under age you cannot give permission, it's rape.  If you are unconscious, it's rape.  If you are mentally incapable, it's rape.  What is so difficult to understand?

Why do they always pick on the vulnerable when they are trying to save a few dollars?

#3 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 29 January 2011 - 01:14 AM

SEXIST MISOGYNISTIC PIGS!  Date rape, being DRUGGED or being mentally disabled aren't FORCIBLE???????????????  oh man. Damn good thing one of those bastards is not standing in front of me right now.  I would scratch his eyes out.
Posted Image

#4 obsidianstorm13

obsidianstorm13
  • Islander
  • 1,118 posts

Posted 29 January 2011 - 05:04 AM

It's the same old crap... rape is only rape when a man in the bushes jumps out and beats you up first then rapes you.... oh wait no... it's not I'm sorry to say.  Having your drink spiked(which btw isn't ALWAYS alcohol it can be pop or water...), being mentally challenged or not of age is every bit the same as being brutalized and it happens way more than the man in the bushes.  Way more!  It's why the rape laws were changed to include all of the above now.  

So a 10 year old now who's been brutalized by some moron(or any other choice of word) is going to have pay to terminate the pregnancy or be forced to have the child which is almost never safe at that age because the family can't pay?  No I'm sorry THAT is morally wrong.

#5 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,225 posts

Posted 29 January 2011 - 08:29 AM

View PostBad Wolf, on 29 January 2011 - 01:14 AM, said:

SEXIST MISOGYNISTIC PIGS!  Date rape, being DRUGGED or being mentally disabled aren't FORCIBLE???????????????  oh man. Damn good thing one of those bastards is not standing in front of me right now.  I would scratch his eyes out.

I can only assume they only mean physical violent force... And I practically assuming is near only what one can do, because if what I've read is correct, isn't defined in the Federal criminal code.... Some states have a definition, some don't. The bill doesn't have or offer a definition. So, who decides?

Edited by sierraleone, 29 January 2011 - 08:31 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#6 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,032 posts

Posted 29 January 2011 - 09:01 AM

Unless I'm missing something, there's no excuse for this.  None at all.

#7 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 29 January 2011 - 09:19 AM

View Postsierraleone, on 28 January 2011 - 11:46 PM, said:

http://www.theatlant...-Liberals-3089/

Quote

Currently, federal funds--Medicaid, for example--may pay for abortions resulting from rape or incest. This week, however, House Republicans introduced their latest piece of legislation: the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." According to Mother Jones's Nick Baumann, Republicans want to say federal funding for abortion is only okay in cases of "forcible rape." Pregnancies resulting from statutory rape, in women who were raped while drugged or extremely intoxicated, in mentally incapable women, or in many of the victims of date rape would not be covered under this narrow definition.
...
Like the Affordable Care Act repeal bill before it, few predict the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" will make it past the House of Representatives.

I can understand people being against abortion funded by government (either for all, or for some). However, if you are going to cover rape, don't make the definition near meaningless. Though I wonder how it is done currently anyways. Do they just use the first reason given by the tax payer? Perform a thorough interview? Ask for a police report number?

This is why I can't vote Republican, ever.  This is just evil as far as I'm concerned.

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#8 Vapor Trails

Vapor Trails

    In a world where I feel so small, I can't stop thinking big.

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 16,523 posts

Posted 29 January 2011 - 09:40 AM

I can't type what I REALLY want to say without getting a year ban. :glare:

Why oh WHY do we have such sh!t for brains in government?!?

I'm SO tired of it all. :tired: I'm tired of f*ck-wits trying to decide what's best for us.  :headshake:

:crazy: :glare:
Posted Image

Politicians are like bananas; they hang together, they're all yellow, and there's not a straight one among them.

"We're relevant for $ and a vote once every two years. Beyond that, we're completely irrelevant, except of course to consume, and preach the gospel according to [insert political demigod here]."--Cait

#9 DieByMyHand

DieByMyHand
  • Just Washed Ashore
  • 29 posts

Posted 29 January 2011 - 10:13 AM

For anyone who wants it, here's the text of the legislation and the list of sponsors:

http://thomas.loc.go...y/z?c112:H.R.3:

#10 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,225 posts

Posted 29 January 2011 - 10:14 AM

View PostOmega, on 29 January 2011 - 09:01 AM, said:

Unless I'm missing something, there's no excuse for this.  None at all.

Even worse, from the same link initially posted:

Quote

this proposal would (in the tradition of the odious Stupak Amendment) not only would deny some rape victims direct funding to pay for an abortion, it would prevent them from using money from a Health Savings Account.

I don't really know how HSA work in the U.S.A., being a Canadian citizen, but they seem to be owned by individual policy holders. And the funds seem to be able to come from the individual policy holder, or their employee, or a third-party. I suppose if that third-party was Medicaid (I don't know if that could even happen) that would explain why people feel it is wrongly being supported by the government. Or the fact that these HSAs are taxed differently.

Edited by sierraleone, 29 January 2011 - 10:14 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#11 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 29 January 2011 - 11:07 AM

Quote

Currently, federal funds--Medicaid, for example--may pay for abortions resulting from rape or incest. This week, however, House Republicans introduced their latest piece of legislation: the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." According to Mother Jones's Nick Baumann, Republicans want to say federal funding for abortion is only okay in cases of "forcible rape." Pregnancies resulting from statutory rape, in women who were raped while drugged or extremely intoxicated, in mentally incapable women, or in many of the victims of date rape would not be covered under this narrow definition.
...
Like the Affordable Care Act repeal bill before it, few predict the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" will make it past the House of Representatives.


:blowup:

I am sooooo furious right now over this stupidity and might have to write  some congresspeople....after I calm down because otherwise I might end up in big trouble.

To even think to exempt those situations is an insult to all women who have been through those experiences.

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#12 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 29 January 2011 - 08:53 PM

Is there no limit to their stupidity?     :blowup: :blowup: :blowup: :blowup: :blowup:
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#13 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,225 posts

Posted 29 January 2011 - 10:12 PM

View PostDieByMyHand, on 29 January 2011 - 10:13 AM, said:

For anyone who wants it, here's the text of the legislation and the list of sponsors:

http://thomas.loc.go...y/z?c112:H.R.3:

Thank you. From there:

Quote

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.


I misread this the first time, and thought all minors and incest victims would be exempt, but if my reading of it is correct, the exemptions are:

1) If pregnancy results from forcible rape, or incest involving a female minor.
2) If pregnancy will result in death (or at least danger of death), as certified by a physician.

I've haven't actually seen anyone comment on the fact of not just narrowing the definition of rape, but likely narrowing the health exemptions either. I could be wrong, but I thought it covered more than just danger of death before, such as other serious medical issues resulting from, or aggravated by, pregnancy.

Edited by sierraleone, 29 January 2011 - 10:13 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#14 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 01 February 2011 - 03:09 PM

If House of Representative Republicans (and a few Blue Dogs) have their way, poor women on Medicaid won't be eligible to receive abortions unless they have become pregnant by forcible rape--as opposed to ordinary rape.

http://motherjones.c...e-rape-abortion

Quote


The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape



Drugged, raped, and pregnant? Too bad. Republicans are pushing to limit rape and incest cases eligible for government abortion funding.

By Nick Baumann

    
1005 Comments | Post Comment
Fri Jan. 28, 2011 3:00 AM PST

Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.

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.

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)

Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense.

There used to be a quasi-truce between the pro- and anti-abortion rights forces on the issue of federal funding for abortion. Since 1976, federal law has prohibited the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman. But since last year, the anti-abortion side has become far more aggressive in challenging this compromise. They have been pushing to outlaw tax deductions for insurance plans that cover abortion, even if the abortion coverage is never used. The Smith bill represents a frontal attack on these long-standing exceptions.

"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.

Again, thanks to all who decided to vote for Republicans in the midterms--smaller government and all that.....
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#15 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 01 February 2011 - 03:13 PM

Oops! Sorry. I just saw Sierra's thread on this.

Sorry. Please merge, mods. Thanks.

Oh and this from the article:

Quote

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.

As for the incest exception, the bill would only allow federally funded abortions if the woman is under 18.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#16 Balthamos

Balthamos

    Once more unto the breach!

  • Islander
  • 2,280 posts

Posted 01 February 2011 - 03:30 PM

Threads merged.

#17 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 01 February 2011 - 03:43 PM

> For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)

............... so if she's not drugged or beat to a pulp just 'feared' into it, it's not a violent rape, hhmm, to me anytime a 13 yr old is sexed by an adult it's a violent rape;

> Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense.

................... well , yeah, to the neo religious right, you must pay your own money for any type of evil blasphemy damning abortion.
"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#18 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 01 February 2011 - 04:48 PM

Maybe I feel this way because I'm an evil commie pinko leftist anarchist...but wouldn't that just encourage illegal abortions?  I mean, if I had a daughter who was raped and impregnated, unless my daughter told me that she wanted to keep the kid, I would find a way to get her an abortion, legal or not, government funded or not.  I'm also the kind of stubborn piece of work that if I got raped and impregnated you could bet your butt I would find a way to abort.  

But I have an education with a strong medical background.  I could figure out ways of doing it safely.  What about those women who DON'T know?  The internet is hardly all sage advice and could get women killed or maimed.  Back ally abortions have killed/maimed women for years.  Unsafe methods of abortion have probably been around since humans first thought about wanting to have kids (or not wanting) instead of just having them.  

Also, sometimes kids survive an attempted abortion, though rarely without side effects.  Depending on how the mother attempted it those kids may end up deformed, mentally retarded, or physically impaired - and will know without a doubt that they were not wanted.  Hopefully mothers of those kids would give them up for adoption, but some insist on raising them.  Does anyone really think those kids would be raised in a healthy environment if raised by their biological mother?

And really, what kind of self-righteous A-hole decides that they are ok with further traumatizing rape victims?
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#19 Nittany Lioness

Nittany Lioness

    Craving a little perspective.

  • Islander
  • 3,537 posts

Posted 02 February 2011 - 10:20 AM

Where is the evidence that being drugged and raped wouldn't be considered forcible rape?

I'm cold Howard.jpg


#20 Balthamos

Balthamos

    Once more unto the breach!

  • Islander
  • 2,280 posts

Posted 02 February 2011 - 10:51 AM

I've tried to find a legal definition of forcible rape but I have only found one and the rest of the time the term brings up highly biased blog posts.

I don't know how reliable this website is but here you go.

Quote

Rape that is accomplished against a persons will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury to the victim.

I don't know if it's right but usually if it's not explicitly stated then it's not covered in legal speak. I searched the text of the bill for "forcible rape" but couldn't find it defined in the bill.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Medicaid, Rape, 2011

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users