Comment by Cara Coleen on May 5, 2011 at 12:46pm

signed! this is so ridiculous.

Comment by Cara Coleen on May 5, 2011 at 1:37pm

Well, it's what they're trying to exclude from the definition that matters. They're limiting people's reasons for getting an abortion, and putting their experiences on a scale of "irrelevant" to "maybe sorta relevant". Who are these people to decide what type of bodily invasion and/or coercion is bad enough to be considered rape? To be bad enough to allow a termination of a pregnancy brought on by brute force?

The bottom line is... it's none of their business; it doesn't concern their body, or their personal trauma. Women should have the right to end an unwanted pregnancy without being interrogated and audited. Rape is serious, and shouldn't be discounted or invalidated by politicians.

Comment by Robert Karp on May 5, 2011 at 1:45pm

Thanks Jenna. Tweeted.

Comment by Justin Walton on May 5, 2011 at 1:49pm

Signed!  Actually, even before I read this I had already signed it. :)

Comment by Kris Feenstra on May 5, 2011 at 2:32pm

I find the Bill appalling regardless, but I'm not sure where it is challenging te definition of rape.  I've only glossed over it, but it doesn't seem to put forward any definition of rape.  It states:

 

Sec. 308. Treatment of abortions related to rape, incest, or preserving the life of the mother

`The limitations established in sections 301, 302, and 303 shall not apply to an abortion--

•  `(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or

•  `(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

 

 

source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:3:./temp/~c1129mgjhe::

 

 

Comment by Cara Coleen on May 5, 2011 at 2:40pm

Thanks for that, Kris. What is so absolutely disgusting is that these sick people expect a woman to carry to term despite the fact she may die, or is carrying the child of her father... essentially, she's carrying her sibling/child. How warped.

Comment by Kris Feenstra on May 5, 2011 at 2:58pm

Sorry, I clipped that out of context.  Those are the exemptions to the restrictions on abortion funding from federal tax funds.  It's hard to word anything correctly because the bill seems to be asshole-ish.  Technically, it doesn't ban any abortions, but it does place ridiculous restrictions on them to the point that it will effectively close abortion options in many areas.

 

There still is an issue with the exemptions for rape and incest though.  A woman would basically have to prove that she was raped and/ or involved in incestuous sexual intercourse. Is it invasive to her privacy to force her to disclose that information?  How does that work in the case of rape?  What if she didn't report the rape when it happened?  How do they determine that it did happen?  

Comment by Walter Maki on May 5, 2011 at 4:07pm

Signed

Comment by Kairan Nierde on May 5, 2011 at 5:05pm

Signed it.  Talk about big government!

Comment by Allen Shughart on May 5, 2011 at 7:36pm

signed

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page