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

#21 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 02 February 2011 - 11:26 AM

Here is a link to HR-3: Link

Section 309 is where they talk about "forcible rape" but they don't define it.

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


#22 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 02 February 2011 - 11:57 AM

View PostNikcara, on 01 February 2011 - 04:48 PM, said:

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?
Everything Nikcara said, and more.     :angry:
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

#23 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 02 February 2011 - 12:06 PM

View PostBalderdash, on 02 February 2011 - 11:26 AM, said:

Here is a link to HR-3: Link

Section 309 is where they talk about "forcible rape" but they don't define it.
By some standards, it's not forcible unless the woman died or was seriously injured resisting.

This was quoted in What's Behind The Drive To Redefine Rape In New And Insane Ways?

Quote

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 sixteen-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.
I suspect that "utmost resistance" would also leave a woman who successfully fought off her attacker liable to charges of assault.  I wish I was kidding.      :unsure: :angry:
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

#24 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 02 February 2011 - 12:22 PM

View PostNonny, on 02 February 2011 - 12:06 PM, said:

View PostBalderdash, on 02 February 2011 - 11:26 AM, said:

Here is a link to HR-3: Link

Section 309 is where they talk about "forcible rape" but they don't define it.
By some standards, it's not forcible unless the woman died or was seriously injured resisting.

This was quoted in What's Behind The Drive To Redefine Rape In New And Insane Ways?

Quote

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 sixteen-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.
I suspect that "utmost resistance" would also leave a woman who successfully fought off her attacker liable to charges of assault.  I wish I was kidding.      :unsure: :angry:

Not only that but there is also a school of thought that resistance can cause a woman to be killed.

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


#25 obsidianstorm13

obsidianstorm13
  • Islander
  • 1,118 posts

Posted 02 February 2011 - 02:06 PM

Any police community outreach programs that I have been lucky to be at all say that you should only resist if you can safely and successfully get away.

#26 M.E.

M.E.
  • Islander
  • 8,107 posts

Posted 02 February 2011 - 02:23 PM

View Postobisidianstorm13, on 02 February 2011 - 02:06 PM, said:

Any police community outreach programs that I have been lucky to be at all say that you should only resist if you can safely and successfully get away.

That is true, obsididianstorm13 but, it does depend on the individual circumstance.  For example, I have always been taught to never allow yourself to be taken to a second location.



Quote

  • When traveling to or from your car, be aware of what is going on  around you. Look behind you and in the corners of the structure or lot.  Simply staying aware can reduce the chances of being assaulted by a  whopping 90 percent. If you sense danger, go toward the areas of noise  and light where other people might be present.
  • Run towards noise and light. Don't run from danger; run toward  safety. Noise and light usually mean that people are present and a  would-be assailant is not likely to follow a potential victim into a  crowd. They want a target who is beyond reach of anyone and vulnerable.  If you find yourself in the situation where you have to run, THINK.  Don't run aimlessly. Think about where you are going and run toward  safety.
  • Trust your instincts. You know your body's signs when it comes to  feeling uncomfortable. Whether it's a chill down your spine or a  sinking stomach, your body has these gut reactions for a reason. If you  feel unsafe in the presence of someone, don't let them approach you.
  • Don't worry about being rude or hurting someone's feelings. If  you feel uncomfortable with someone's presence, insist that they stay  away. Assert yourself with phrases like, "That's close enough," or  "Don't come any closer." Even if the person says that need help, if you  feel uncomfortable, don't buy into their propaganda. Tell them you are  unable to help and get yourself out of the situation.
  • Even if you are a super model, there's a boundary of when and how  long someone can stare at you. Many women are taught to simply ignore  these messages, but they are just that - messages - signs of danger. If  someone is paying too much attention to you, look them in the face. This  will help you stay aware of their presence and whether or not they are  coming too close to you and it will also deter them from assaulting you  if you would be able to identify their face later.
  • Never EVER allow yourself to be taken away to a second location.  This is the time when you are literally fighting for your life. If  someone tries to force you into a car, back room, etc., they are doing  so because they mean you serious harm.

Quote

What should I do if a predator tries force me into a car?
There's  a very important rule of thumb; never allow yourself to be forced into a  car and taken to a second location.  The second crime scene is always  more violent than the first.  Whatever you have to avoid being tied up,  do it.  Once you have been restrained, you are totally at the mercy of  your captor.  You should fight, kick and scream in order to avoid being  restrained with ropes or ties and planning for these circumstances will  help to lower the risk that it will happen.

                                                                    Thanks for watching video Being Attacked In Public For more how to videos, expert advice, instructional tips, tricks, guides and tutorials on this subject, visit the topic Self Defense.



#27 Nittany Lioness

Nittany Lioness

    Craving a little perspective.

  • Islander
  • 3,537 posts

Posted 02 February 2011 - 02:58 PM

So, this hysteria and claims of what this wouldn't cover is based on conjecture.  Got it.

I'm cold Howard.jpg


#28 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 02 February 2011 - 03:10 PM

I'm not a criminal psych specialist, but my understanding is that the value of fighting back depends on what kind of rapist you have.  A sadist is only going to enjoy it more when a victim fights, struggles, and pleads but may get frustrated if their victims don't react (this can be dangerous itself - I can recall a case where the victim of a rape was a prostitute and tried to pretend to enjoy herself so she wouldn't get beat up.  The guy was so mad that she was "liking" it that he killed her).  I'm forgetting the names of other types of rapists, but some are more likely to back off and run away if you fight hard.  Some get angry when their victim fights back and is likely to try to "punish" them for attempting to fight him off.

It's something of a sick numbers game at that point: if you are being assaulted by a stranger you have no idea what kind of rapist he is, and you're much more likely to get yourself killed/maimed if you fight, though there's a small chance that fighting back will let you get off without getting raped at all.  I suspect most women at this point aren't thinking rationally though and are likely to do whatever instinct tells them to do.

But the overwhelming majority of rape is done by someone who the victim knows.  That can give some insight to the woman if it's better to fight or be passive, but again if the woman knew that she was in danger of being raped by the guy she probably would never get near him, so again it's a gamble.  Most sadists are very good at hiding it and they're the scariest type IMO.

And yeah, if someone tries to force you into a car or to another location, get out by any means necessary.  It basically means they want to take you someone where no one will see and no one will hear, and you'll likely never get out alive.
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

#29 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 02 February 2011 - 03:16 PM

This article http://www.mediaite....s-of-rape-rape/

seems to have a more balanced analysis.  Some quotes (any bolding or other highlighting is mine):

Quote

The bill, “H.R. 3: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” was introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), and has 173 co-sponsors, including ten Democrats. Not only does it change the longstanding “rape or incest” exemption to “an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest,” it also contains provisions that could well lead to the end of abortion coverage by private health insurance plans.

Critics of the bill argue that the “forcible rape” language is ambiguous at best, and could exclude drug-induced rapes, since there is no federal legal definition of “forcible rape.” While this ambiguity is alarming (for reasons that Sady Doyle lays out very effectively), most current legal definitions of “forcible rape” include such rapes. Daring this bill’s authors to define “forcible rape” is the wrong approach.

Quote

While the US Criminal Code doesn’t define “forcible rape(the code places all forms of rape, including statutory, under the umbrella of the term “Aggravated Sexual Assault”),” federal crime-reporting standards do, and while they include rapes due to temporary or permanent incapacity, they specifically exclude one particular kind of rape:

    Agencies must not classify statutory rape, incest, or other sex offenses, i.e. forcible sodomy, sexual assault with an object, forcible fondling, etc. as Forcible Rape (2a or 2b). The UCR Program applies the following definitions:
  # Statutory rape-nonforcible sexual intercourse with a person who is under the statutory age of consent.
  # Incest-nonforcible sexual intercourse between persons who are related to each other within the degrees wherein marriage is prohibited by law.


i.e., the exclusion described above ALREADY exists, it's not something introduced in this bill but rather something I think this bill would rely on when deciding when federal money may be used for abortion.

Quote

This exclusion is also found in most states’ definitions of “forcible rape,” where such definitions exist. So, while HR 3 might exclude drug-induced rapes (but likely would not), it definitely excludes statutory rapes, the type that Whoopi Goldberg also didn’t consider “rape-rape.”

While attempting to narrow the definition of rape is, itself, outrageous, the fact that the only unambiguous exclusion here will be little girls who are impregnated by adults is truly revolting.

Anyways, you guys can read the rest.

f*ck*ng people in Congress.  Throw ALL of them out and elect decent human beings.
Posted Image

#30 Balthamos

Balthamos

    Once more unto the breach!

  • Islander
  • 2,280 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 03:32 AM

Quote

So, this hysteria and claims of what this wouldn't cover is based on conjecture. Got it.

Nittany Lioness, are you trying to contribute something to this discussion or are you trying to bait people into a reaction by dismissing their concerns as "hysteria" and suggesting they are unfounded?

While there is certainly plenty of hysteria regarding this topic we all know rape and abortion is not a topic anyone should take likely, the definition of forcible rape isn't defined in the criminal code or covered in the bill itself, which leaves lots of room for interpretation.

By all means contribute something to this discussion but please don't dismiss people's genuine concerns as "hysteria" and assume they have no logical reasoning, you ARE just going to offend, annoy and upset people.

#31 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 08:57 AM

View PostSpectacles, on 01 February 2011 - 03:09 PM, said:

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.
....
Erm...there's NON-forcible rape? These idiots need a dictionary, apparently.

Edited by Rhea, 03 February 2011 - 08:58 AM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#32 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 12:46 PM

Looks like the Republicans and their anti-abortion Democratic friends in the House have decided to drop it.

http://www.politico....0211/48766.html

Quote

But a spokesman for the bill’s author, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), says the modifier “forcible” will be dropped so that the exemption covers all forms of rape, as well as cases of incest and the endangerment of the life of the mother.

“The word forcible will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment,” Smith spokesman Jeff Sagnip told POLITICO, referring to the long-standing ban on direct use of taxpayer dollars for abortion services.

The fight over the definition of rape threatened to sabotage Republican efforts to highlight their push to end taxpayer subsidies for abortion, and the distinction between types of rape mystified some GOP aides.

“Such a removal would be a good idea, since last I checked, rape by definition is non-consensual,” said one aide.

The underlying bill, which imposes sweeping new restrictions on existing taxpayer subsidies for health plans that cover abortion, has support from a bipartisan group of anti-abortion lawmakers, including several House GOP leaders who attended a press conference announcing its introduction last month.

But proponents have found themselves on the defensive in the last few days over the phrase “forcible rape” and a decision to grant an incest exemption only to minors. Under the Hyde amendment, which is recodified annually in an appropriations law, women who are victims of any type of rape or incest at any age are eligible for federally subsidized abortions.

"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

#33 M.E.

M.E.
  • Islander
  • 8,107 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 12:50 PM

That is wonderful new. :D

Thank you for sharing, Spectacles.

#34 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 01:01 PM

View PostSpectacles, on 03 February 2011 - 12:46 PM, said:

Looks like the Republicans and their anti-abortion Democratic friends in the House have decided to drop it.

http://www.politico....0211/48766.html

Quote

But a spokesman for the bill’s author, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), says the modifier “forcible” will be dropped so that the exemption covers all forms of rape, as well as cases of incest and the endangerment of the life of the mother.

“The word forcible will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment,” Smith spokesman Jeff Sagnip told POLITICO, referring to the long-standing ban on direct use of taxpayer dollars for abortion services.

The fight over the definition of rape threatened to sabotage Republican efforts to highlight their push to end taxpayer subsidies for abortion, and the distinction between types of rape mystified some GOP aides.

“Such a removal would be a good idea, since last I checked, rape by definition is non-consensual,” said one aide.

The underlying bill, which imposes sweeping new restrictions on existing taxpayer subsidies for health plans that cover abortion, has support from a bipartisan group of anti-abortion lawmakers, including several House GOP leaders who attended a press conference announcing its introduction last month.

But proponents have found themselves on the defensive in the last few days over the phrase “forcible rape” and a decision to grant an incest exemption only to minors. Under the Hyde amendment, which is recodified annually in an appropriations law, women who are victims of any type of rape or incest at any age are eligible for federally subsidized abortions.


Quote

The fight over the definition of rape threatened to sabotage Republican efforts to highlight their push to end taxpayer subsidies for abortion, and the distinction between types of rape mystified some GOP aides.

“Such a removal would be a good idea, since last I checked, rape by definition is non-consensual,” said one aide.

Well thank goodness, there does seem to be some level heads in the GOP.  I need to check that list and find
out who the democrats were that backed that piece of poo bill.  I wish that when you donate money to a political
party you could say, here's my money, don't use it for this person.

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


#35 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 01:10 PM

Yeah and so now that they look like they're "giving in" by dropping the word "forcible" they've successfully turned peoples' attention away from the larger issue, which is of course, federal money to pay for abortions.  You'd almost think they planned it that way.
Posted Image

#36 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 01:12 PM

I just let out a great whoosh of air, but I will remain vigilant on this issue.
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

#37 Tricia

Tricia

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

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 02:13 PM

View PostSpectacles, on 03 February 2011 - 12:46 PM, said:

Looks like the Republicans and their anti-abortion Democratic friends in the House have decided to drop it.

http://www.politico....0211/48766.html

Quote

But a spokesman for the bill’s author, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), says the modifier “forcible” will be dropped so that the exemption covers all forms of rape, as well as cases of incest and the endangerment of the life of the mother.

“The word forcible will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment,” Smith spokesman Jeff Sagnip told POLITICO, referring to the long-standing ban on direct use of taxpayer dollars for abortion services.

The fight over the definition of rape threatened to sabotage Republican efforts to highlight their push to end taxpayer subsidies for abortion, and the distinction between types of rape mystified some GOP aides.

“Such a removal would be a good idea, since last I checked, rape by definition is non-consensual,” said one aide.

The underlying bill, which imposes sweeping new restrictions on existing taxpayer subsidies for health plans that cover abortion, has support from a bipartisan group of anti-abortion lawmakers, including several House GOP leaders who attended a press conference announcing its introduction last month.
But proponents have found themselves on the defensive in the last few days over the phrase “forcible rape” and a decision to grant an incest exemption only to minors. Under the Hyde amendment, which is recodified annually in an appropriations law, women who are victims of any type of rape or incest at any age are eligible for federally subsidized abortions.

You would think that they should have seen that fight over the definition of rape or 'forcible' rape coming and that their phrasing would have  upset people. :headshake:

Or they did and now claim ignorance of the hurt and anger their words caused.

"Oopsy, that's not what we meant"  

Yeah, sure :rolleyes:

Edited by Tricia, 03 February 2011 - 02:14 PM.

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.


#38 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 02:35 PM

And again, Jon Stewart gets it...

Rapesque

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


#39 Nittany Lioness

Nittany Lioness

    Craving a little perspective.

  • Islander
  • 3,537 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 03:30 PM

Excuse me, Balthamos?  It's called my opinion; a contrary opinion.

quote:
"While there is certainly plenty of hysteria regarding this topic"

That's what *I* said.  How dare you.

quote:
"assume they have no logical reasoning"

I actually didn't assume - I asked first where they're getting the basis for what they're furious about.
And I got confirmation of my opinion that these half-baked reactions are baseless and an opportunistic exercise in flying off the handle over the right to have an abortion.  
How dare you suggest I'm not taking the topic seriously when I called for more reason and facts.  I'm criticizing the thoughts and claims that have been posted.  I'm sure no one wants to delve into what's been characterized without "staff" question as outlandish in OT; we'd be here forever.  Unmeasured rants is, like, what OT seems built on.

I'm cold Howard.jpg


#40 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 03:41 PM

While I'm glad they're dropping that piece of stupidity, I still hope this bill dies.  The part where it basically uses tax code to discourage private insurers from offering coverage for abortions irks the crap out of me.  I mean, if I get PRIVATELY insured for something that is legal, why should the government punish me/my insurers?  I watched the Rachel Maddow clip - I have to admit I didn't pick up on that bit of legal finesse on my own - but this bill would make it so that most PRIVATE insurance won't cover abortions except in cases of rape, which is just a back-handed way of trying to force women to go to term with a child they don't want.  

It also annoys me that it's only if the mother's life is on the line, not her health.  Sometimes there are very real medical problems that may not kill a woman, but makes things that much harder.  And what about in the cases of fetuses who are non-viable?  Deciding to carry to term a child who you KNOW will die very shortly after birth (like cases of anencephaly) should be a personal decision.  Most women wouldn't want to go through both the medical and emotional hardship of bringing to term and delivering a dead child.  Most would rather end the pregnancy and mourn privately.  I see nothing that covers THAT either.
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



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