"LET GIRLS & WOMEN DIE" BILLS
H.R.
3: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion
Act
- Summary 
 Sarah Palin Explains Why Women Should Bear Their Rapists' Baby Related Stories:
Summaries The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries. 1/3/2011--Introduced. No Taxpayer Funding
for Abortion Act - Prohibits the expenditure of funds
authorized or appropriated by federal law or funds in any
trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by
federal law (federal funds) for any abortion. Prohibits
federal funds from being used for any health benefits
coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Currently,
federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans
receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated
from any funds for abortion services.) Disallows any tax
benefits for amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or for
a health benefits plan that includes coverage of abortion,
including any medical deduction for such amounts or any
credit for such an employer-sponsored plan. Prohibits the
inclusion of abortion in any health care service furnished
by a federal or District of Columbia health care facility or
by any physician or other individual employed by the federal
government or the District. Provides that such prohibitions
shall not apply to an abortion if: (1) the pregnancy is the
result of forcible rape or, if the pregnant woman is a
minor, incest; or (2) the woman suffers from a physical
disorder, injury, or illness, including a life-endangering
physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy
itself, that would place her in danger of death unless an
abortion is performed, as certified by a physician. Makes
such prohibitions applicable to District funds. Creates a
cause of action for any violations of the abortion
provisions of PPACA. Gives federal courts jurisdiction to
prevent and redress actual or threatened violations of such
provisions by issuing any form of legal or equitable relief,
including an injunction or order preventing the disbursement
of all or a portion of federal financial assistance until
the prohibited conduct has ceased. Gives standing to
institute an action to affected health care entities and the
Attorney General. Requires the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to designate the Director of the Office for Civil
Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
to receive, investigate, and refer to the appropriate
federal agency complaints alleging a violation of PPACA
abortion provisions.
Their primary bill —the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” — is so broad that it could block insurance coverage for abortions for countless American women. The anti-abortion forces almost derailed health care reform last year over whether people could buy policies that cover abortion on new insurance exchanges. The compromise embedded in the reform law sets up a hugely complicated plan to segregate an individual’s premium payments from the government subsidies. It is so burdensome that it seems likely to discourage insurers from offering any abortion coverage at all on the exchanges. But anti-abortion lawmakers are not satisfied. The new bill, introduced by Christopher Smith, a New Jersey Republican, would bar outright the use of federal subsidies to buy any insurance that covers abortion well beyond the new exchanges. The tax credits that are encouraging small businesses to provide insurance for their workers could not be used to buy policies that cover abortions. People with their own policies who have enough expenses to claim an income tax deduction could not deduct either the premiums for policies that cover abortion or the cost of an abortion. People who use tax-preferred savings accounts to pay medical costs could not use the money to pay for an abortion without paying taxes on it. The only tax subsidy left untouched is the exclusion that allows workers whose premiums are subsidized by their employers to avoid paying taxes on the value of the subsidy. Many, if not most, employer-sponsored insurance plans cover abortions. There would have been a huge political battle if workers were suddenly told they had to pay taxes on the benefit or change their policies. The Smith bill also would take certain restrictions on federal financing for abortions that now must be renewed every year and make them permanent. It would allow federal financing of abortions in cases of “forcible” rape but not statutory or coerced rape, and in cases where a woman is in danger of death from her pregnancy but not of other serious health damage. It would free states from having to provide abortions in such emergency cases. A separate Republican
bill would deny federal funds for family planning services
to any organization that provides abortions. It is aimed
primarily at Planned Parenthood’s hundreds of health
centers, which also provide many other valuable services. No
federal money is used for the abortions. This is a reckless
effort to cripple an irreplaceable organization out of pure
politics.
Federal law already prohibits federal dollars from being used to finance abortions, except for pregnancies that are the result of rape or incest or situations in which the life of the mother is endangered. But the vague legislation, brought to you by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and 173 co-sponsors, would bar folks from using their health savings accounts to pay for an abortion. And they could forget about availing themselves of tax credits or deductions for medical expenses for an abortion. The scary part is when federal funding of an abortion would be allowed. '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. 'Forcible rape'? The very concept is offensive on its face. How is that even defined? There is no definition in the bill. Maybe I'm a do-gooder liberal who fell for the whole "no means no" mantra of my childhood. Or that rape isn't sex, it's violence. But if a woman or girl gets pregnant through incest or rape (in all ways it is defined or understood) the government should not limit her choice by withholding the funding she could use to end the pregnancy -- if she chooses to do so. So far, I have not
received an answer to my e-mail yesterday to Smith's office
asking how he would define 'forcible rape.' I also asked,
"Do you have any pushback on the criticism that the law
would no longer cover rapes that are the result of a woman
being drugged, drunk, mentally disabled or date rape?" I'll
update once I get an answer.
Although a 1976 law — dubbed the Hyde Amendment — already prohibits taxpayer dollars from subsidizing elective abortions under Medicaid and other federal health programs, the provision is temporary, forcing Congress to pass it each year as an attachment to the Health and Human Services (HHS) funding bill. A House proposal, introduced last month by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), would both make the prohibition permanent and apply it across all federal programs. In a Friday letter to House lawmakers, Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, who heads the Catholic Bishop's pro-life activities committee, said the Smith bill would codify a policy that "has been piecemeal and sometimes sadly inadequate." "Federal funds are prevented now from funding abortion by riders to various annual appropriations bills as well as by provisions incorporated into specific authorizing legislation for the Department of Defense, Children’s Health Insurance Program, foreign assistance, and so on," DiNardo wrote. "On various occasions a gap or loophole has been discovered that does not seem to be addressed by this patchwork of provisions. "While Congress’s policy has been remarkably consistent for decades," he added, "implementation of that policy in practice has been piecemeal and sometimes sadly inadequate." The issue played an enormous role in the health reform debate, with Democrats finally settling on a policy that allows subsidized exchange plans to cover abortion services — as long as patients pay separately for that portion of the coverage. Supporters say the segregated-check arrangement ensures women retain access to constitutionally guaranteed healthcare while also preventing taxpayer funds from covering abortion services. But critics argue that, because money is fungible, it's impossible to ensure federal funds won't subsidize abortions. The health reform law, DiNardo said, "violates the spirit of the entire [Hyde] amendment, by directly forcing conscientiously opposed citizens in many plans to fund other people’s abortions through their health premiums." The Smith bill has 166
co-sponsors, including 20 Democrats. (Editor's
Note: I suppose next the Bishop will lobby for
legislation that puts a 24 hour time limit on alter boys
claims of sexual abuse. Makes sense, though.)
The “Protect Life Act,” sponsored by Reps. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) and Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), would specify that healthcare reform funding could not be used for abortion services. Included in the new bill is a provision that says the federal government could not withhold funding from a healthcare entity that refuses to perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay for induced abortions. NARAL Pro-Choice America, an abortion rights group, says the provision would allow hospitals to deny abortion care in situations when the mother’s life may be in danger. “This new Congress, in just its first month of work, has taken perhaps some of the most radical positions against abortion that I have ever seen,” said NARAL policy director Donna Crane. However, a Pitts spokesman said the bill’s language is similar to “conscience rights” protections provided by other abortion legislation, including the 1976 Hyde Amendment and the 2004 Hyde-Weldon Amendment. The Hyde Amendment, which must be approved by Congress each year, bans the use of federal funds to pay for abortion. The Hyde-Weldon Amendment, passed by a Republican-controlled Congress in 2004, ensures that the federal government could not withhold funds from caregivers opposed to providing abortions. “NARAL and other abortion rights groups have vigorously opposed any conscience protection legislation,” Pitts spokesman Andrew Wimer told The Hill. “It is no surprise that they would attack the Protect Life Act with the same old talking points.” NARAL said that the bill doesn’t clarify whether healthcare entities must provide abortion care for women in life-threatening situations in accordance with the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). “Is it truly Rep. Pitts’ position that a woman should die at the entrance of a hospital that refuses to provide abortion care necessary to save her life?” Crane said. Conscience rights grabbed headlines in December after an Arizona hospital lost its Catholic status because it provided an emergency abortion procedure to save a woman’s life. At the time, the American Civil Liberties Union called on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to ensure that Catholic hospitals comply with EMTALA. “The diocese cannot be permitted to dictate who lives and who dies in Catholic-owned hospitals,” the ACLU wrote in a letter to CMS. Some politicians have called for cooled rhetoric in light of the Arizona shooting that left six dead and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) seriously wounded, but the debate over conscience rights will put that call for civility to the test. A House subpanel is scheduled to hold the new Congress’s first hearing on the Pitts-Lipinski bill Wednesday. Abortion-rights groups earlier this week objected to language in other abortion legislation that seemingly made a distinction between “forcible rape” and “rape.” That sparked an outcry from women’s groups until the language was eventually removed. Source:
thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/142325-conscience-rights-debate-reignited-by-abortion-bill
The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries. 1/20/2011--Introduced. Protect Life Act -
Amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(PPACA) to prohibit federal funds from being to used to
cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes
coverage of abortion services. (Currently, federal funds
cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving
federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any
funds for abortion services.) Requires any qualified health
benefit plan offered through an Exchange that includes
coverage for abortions to also offer a qualified health
benefit plan through the Exchange that is identical in every
respect except that it does not cover abortions. Prohibits a
federal agency or program and any state or local government
that receives federal financial assistance under PPACA from
requiring any health plan created or regulated under PPACA
to discriminate against any institutional or individual
health care entity based on the entity's refusal to undergo
training in the performance of induced abortions, require or
provide such training, or refer for such training. Creates a
cause of action for any violations of the abortion
provisions of PPACA. Gives federal courts jurisdiction to
prevent and redress actual or threatened violations of such
provisions by issuing any form of legal or equitable relief,
including injunctions and orders preventing the disbursement
of all or a portion of federal financial assistance until
the prohibited conduct has ceased. Gives standing to
institute an action to affected health care entities and the
Attorney General. Requires the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to designate the Director of the Office for Civil
Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
to receive and investigate complaints alleging a violation
of PPACA abortion provisions. Requires the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to ensure that no
multistate qualified health plan offered in an Exchange
provides coverage of abortion services.
A bit of backstory: currently, all hospitals in America that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding are bound by a 1986 law known as EMTALA to provide emergency care to all comers, regardless of their ability to pay or other factors. Hospitals do not have to provide free care to everyone that arrives at their doorstep under EMTALA -- but they do have to stabilize them and provide them with emergency care without factoring in their ability to pay for it or not. If a hospital can't provide the care a patient needs, it is required to transfer that patient to a hospital that can, and the receiving hospital is required to accept that patient. In the case of an anti-abortion hospital with a patient requiring an emergency abortion, ETMALA would require that hospital to perform it or transfer the patient to someone who can. (The nature of how that procedure works exactly is up in the air, with the ACLU calling on the federal government to state clearly that unwillingness to perform an abortion doesn't qualify as inability under EMTALA. That argument is ongoing, and the government has yet to weigh in.) Pitts' new bill would free hospitals from any abortion requirement under EMTALA, meaning that medical providers who aren't willing to terminate pregnancies wouldn't have to -- nor would they have to facilitate a transfer. The hospital could literally do nothing at all, pro-choice critics of Pitts' bill say. "This is really out there," Donna Crane, policy director at NARAL Pro-Choice America told TPM. "I haven't seen this before." Crane said she's been a pro-choice advocate "for a long time," yet she's never seen anti-abortion bill as brazenly attacking the health of the mother exemption as Pitts' bill has. NARAL has fired up its lobbying machinery and intends to make the emergency abortion language a key part of its fight against the Pitts bill when it goes before subcommittee in the House next week. It seems step one should be demanding that the government clear up any confusion about "ability" vs. "willingness" of hospitals to perform medically necessary abortions in emergency situations. Pitts' staff responded to critics by saying that "this bill is only preserving the same rights that medical professionals have had for decades." That's not true, according to the legal experts who've read the language--it exempts anti-choice hospitals or providers from providing potentially life-saving care, or ensuring that the patient receive it. Life-saving care, by the way, which is perfectly and absolutely legal. Again, it's entirely
possible this is a feint by the House GOP looking for a
bargaining chip on the odious H.R. 3--look what we can do if
you don't give us control over abortion coverage in private
insurance. But what is entirely clear is that we're in for
an all-out, no-holds-barred assault on women for the next
two years.
It seems one of the only people willing to talk at all about the controversial abortion bill is one of its Democratic co-sponsors, Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL). And he's not willing to embrace the language in the bill that appears to redefine rape in a way that would prevent some impregnated victims from having their abortions covered by insurance. But it's radio silence from the pro-life community, which is usually more than willing to sound off on abortion and what needs to be done to stop it. Over the course of Friday and Monday, TPM reached out to pro-life groups and Democratic and Republican pro-life politicians -- some of whom have backed federal action on abortion with language similar to the House law, known as the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" -- to talk about the new bill's language regarding "forcible rape." None responded, except Lipinski, who told TPM that he's willing to take another look at the controversial rape language. A quick refresher: The House law, also known as H.R. 3, is designed to make permanent some existing bans on federal funding for abortion, like the Hyde Amendment, which prevents Medicaid from covering abortion except in the cases of rape or incest or for the life or health of the mother. The bill also prohibits employers and the self-insured from using widely-available tax breaks for buying private health insurance, if that insurance also covers abortion. But the widest criticism of the bill comes in its exemptions for rape -- provisions that would allow federal money or private insurance to be used to cover an abortion. H.R. 3 says those provisions would kick in only in cases of forcible rape, a distinction from other forms rape of that is largely undefined but seems to suggest that a rape that doesn't include violence wouldn't count. The bill would also limit the incest exemption to women under the age of 18 -- meaning a victim of incest who was legally allowed to vote wouldn't have her abortion covered by Medicaid and would likely have more limited access to private insurance than she does today. The health provision would also limit abortion coverage to cases where the woman's physical health was in danger if she gives birth. That would close a supposed loophole some abortion opponents have been talking about for years, in which doctors factor mental health in health-of-the mother decisions. Read the entire House
bill here
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) did not respond to several requests for comment from TPM. Smith is a chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus, a bipartisan group of anti-abortion legislators. He had plenty to say about the bill when he first brought it to the House last year, as reported by the anti-abortion site LifeNews.com: "For over 30 years, a patchwork of policies has regulated federal funding for abortion. Together these various policies ensure that the American taxpayer is not involved in funding the destruction of innocent human life through abortion on demand," Smith wrote in a letter reported by the site. "This comprehensive approach will reduce the need for the numerous separate abortion funding policies and ensure that no program or agency is exempt from this important safeguard."The site made no mention of the forcible rape language, and Smith's office wasn't interested in discussing it when we reached out. The language isn't a first for Republican anti-abortion efforts. As TPM's Brian Beutler reported during the thick of the 2009 health care debate, anti-abortion members of Congress hoped to include the forcible rape language in the health care bill, as part of their efforts to ensure that no taxpayer funds would be used to cover abortion as the law went into effect. One version of the forcible rape language was offered in committee by three members of Congress: Reps. Joe Pitts (R-PA), Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Roy Blunt (R-MO). Pitts and Blunt are still in Congress, and Pitts is a co-sponsor of H.R. 3 (Blunt's now a Senator, so he can't co-sponsor a House bill.) Neither responded to requests for comment on the use of "forcible" rape in their amendment, or what the terminology might mean in regards to the House bill. Most of the Republican leadership in the House has signed on as co-sponsors of H.R. 3, including Majority Leader Eric Cantor. The Virginia Republican is a vocal opponent of abortion who promised the thousands of opponents who gathered for the March For Life this month that "the tide has turned" on abortion since the GOP regained the House majority. His office also did not respond to a request for comment on the forcible rape language in the bill, despite his co-sponsorship. Anti-abortion politicians aren't the only ones keeping quiet about H.R. 3 since the forcible rape language came to light. Calls to numerous anti-abortion groups, including National Right To Life, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Americans United For Life, the Susan B. Anthony List and the Abstinence Clearinghouse were either unreturned or met with "no comment." The closest I got to a comment was from the Susan B. Anthony List, a strongly social conservative group last seen calling on the candidates for chair of the Republican National Committee to weigh in on life and the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. A spokesperson for SBA told me leaders of the group would be willing to get back to me "later this week," when he promised SBA leaders would have "much more informed comments on the topic." For now, however, the spokesperson said SBA was yet another "no comment" in a long list of abortion foes uninterested in going on the record about the controversial language in a bill they've touted as the first step toward a Republican-led, pro-life House of Representatives. Update: One
anti-abortion leader gave an interview to a pro-life website
about the law today. He told the site that the House bill
will in fact change the language of the existing law
regarding the rape exception, though he said that chance
would not alter policy.
The bill, known currently as H.R. 358 or the "Protect Life Act," would amend the 2010 health care reform law that would modify the way Obamacare deals with abortion coverage. Much of its language is modeled on the so-called Stupak Amendment, an anti-abortion provision pro-life Democrats attempted to insert into the reform law during the health care debate last year. But critics say a new language inserted into the bill just this week would go far beyond Stupak, allowing hospitals that receive federal funds but are opposed to abortions to turn away women in need of emergency pregnancy termination to save their lives. The sponsor of H.R. 358, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) is a vocal member of the House's anti-abortion wing. A member of the bipartisan Pro-Life Caucus and a co-sponsor of H.R 3 -- the bill that added "forcible rape" to the lexicon this week -- Pitts is no stranger to the abortion debate. But pro-choice advocates say his new law goes farther than any other bill has in encroaching on the rights of women to obtain an abortion when their health is at stake. They say the bill is giant leap away from accepted law, and one they haven't heard many in the pro-life community openly discuss before. Pitts' response to the complaints from pro-choice groups? Nothing to see here. "Since the 1970s, existing law affirmed the right to refuse involvement in abortion in all circumstances," a spokesperson for Pitts told TPM. "The Protect Life Act simply extends these provisions to the new law by inserting a provision that mirrors Hyde-Weldon," the spokesperson added, referring to current federal law banning spending on abortion and allowing anti-abortion doctors to refrain from performing them while still receiving federal funds. "In other words, this bill is only preserving the same rights that medical professionals have had for decades." A bit of backstory: currently, all hospitals in America that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding are bound by a 1986 law known as EMTALA to provide emergency care to all comers, regardless of their ability to pay or other factors. Hospitals do not have to provide free care to everyone that arrives at their doorstep under EMTALA -- but they do have to stabilize them and provide them with emergency care without factoring in their ability to pay for it or not. If a hospital can't provide the care a patient needs, it is required to transfer that patient to a hospital that can, and the receiving hospital is required to accept that patient. In the case of an anti-abortion hospital with a patient requiring an emergency abortion, ETMALA would require that hospital to perform it or transfer the patient to someone who can. (The nature of how that procedure works exactly is up in the air, with the ACLU calling on the federal government to state clearly that unwillingness to perform an abortion doesn't qualify as inability under EMTALA. That argument is ongoing, and the government has yet to weigh in.) Pitts' new bill would free hospitals from any abortion requirement under EMTALA, meaning that medical providers who aren't willing to terminate pregnancies wouldn't have to -- nor would they have to facilitate a transfer. The hospital could literally do nothing at all, pro-choice critics of Pitts' bill say. "This is really out there," Donna Crane, policy director at NARAL Pro-Choice America told TPM. "I haven't seen this before." Crane said she's been a pro-choice advocate "for a long time," yet she's never seen anti-abortion bill as brazenly attacking the health of the mother exemption as Pitts' bill has. NARAL has fired up its lobbying machinery and intends to make the emergency abortion language a key part of its fight against the Pitts bill when it goes before subcommittee in the House next week. Pitts' office says they're unmoved by NARAL's concerns. They say the goal of their bill is to codify existing legal protections for medical providers who do not want to perform abortions, such as the Weldon Amendment. "NARAL and other abortion rights groups have vigorously opposed any conscience protection legislation, it is no surprise that they would attack the Protect Life Act with the same old talking points," a Pitts spokesperson said. To be sure, advocates from the anti-abortion medical community are rallying around the bill. Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association -- which is not always in lockstep with the pro-life community when it comes to the health care reform law -- penned a letter to Pitts last week praising the bill for its "additions to the conscience protections which hospitals and health care providers already have." But pro-choice advocates say that the new provisions in the Pitts effectively eliminate the right of critically ill women to obtain an abortion to save their lives. That goes beyond the commonly accepted understanding of "conscience protections" for pro-life health providers. "I think a majority of Americans would agree with us that saving a woman's life should be every hospital's first priority," Alexa Kolbi-Molina, an attorney with the ACLU's reproductive freedom division said. "We all know a woman who has faced a complication in her pregnancy ... we would hope that when that woman goes to a hospital she would be protected and get the care that she needs." "I think a majority of
Americans would believe that a hospital should not be
imposing their religious beliefs when providing care,
especially life-saving care," she added.
Women (15 of 72 women (20.8%) , 15 of 24 Republican women (62.5%). 0 of 48 Demoractic women (0%) TEA Party backed (60 of 111 men = 54.1% and 7 of 15 women = 46.7% - all Republicans) Remaining 93 Republican Men Co-signators: (93) Democrat 10 of 193 = 5.2% - BD=Blue Dog . Michele
Bachmann * Robert
Aderholt Justin
Amash Dan Boren BD
(44% against all Dem proposals a RINO)
The bill, which purports to prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions and ensure that healthcare reform law does not cover the cost of abortions, had provided for an exception only when the woman's life is endangered, in cases of "forcible" rape, or in cases of incest if the woman was a minor. The exemption in the bill will now cover all forms of rape. HR 3, which has a short title of "No Tax-Payer Funding for Abortion Act," goes far beyond that issue. If passed, the bill would permanently ban women in the military from obtaining an abortion in a military hospital overseas, even if they pay for it with their own (not federal) funds. This is particularly important to women stationed in areas where local clinics may be unsafe. Moreover, Americans who have private insurance plans that include abortion coverage would have to pay tax penalties, and federal workers who pay their own insurance premiums out of pocket would nonetheless be prohibited from having abortion coverage in their insurance. Organizations including the Feminist Majority Foundation, the National Women's Law Center, Emily's List, and MoveOn.org, criticized the Smith bill, for changing the definition of rape to exclude statutory rape, date rape, drug-facilitated rape, and other instances when the woman was unconscious or otherwise unable to give consent. Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser at the National Women's Law Center, explained, "It speaks to a distinction between rape where there must be some element of force in order to rise to the standard, and rape where there is not. The concern here is that it takes us back to a time where just saying no was not enough." The Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing next Tuesday on the bill. Sources:
Washington Post 2/3/11; Politico 2/3/11; Statement of
National Women's Law Center 2/1/11; Committee on Judiciary
2/2/11; Huffington Post 2/2/11; Mother Jones 1/28/11;
Feminist Daily Newswire 1/21/11, 1/10/11, 1/6/11
www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=12844
Watch
Out! This is just a ploy. They may take out the forcible
rape language from the but it still holds a place in the
hearts of those 173 legislatures. Watch closely how they
might manipulate other bills, or this bill to punish women
and girls who have been raped. It's just a different way how
Christianity in America trys to punish women and girls and
protect rapists and molesters. Not that different from what
religion in Bangladesh does with caning.
The provision in question, written as an exemption from the ban for women who become pregnant as a result of “forcible rape,” touched off a firestorm of criticism from women’s groups, and it gained enough attention to become the subject of a satirical segment on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.” 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. “The phrase ‘forcible rape’ was abandoned some time ago, and there is some indication that what they would be trying to do is make women jump over an additional hurdle if they want to get an abortion,” Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) told POLITICO this week. The bill’s authors, including Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), say it’s not their intent to change the way the exemption is applied. “The language of H.R. 3 was not intended to change existing law regarding taxpayer funding for abortion in cases of rape, nor is it expected that it would do so,” Lipinski told Talking Points Memo in a statement. Regardless of the intention, the language became an inviting target for critics, and its potential to hijack the debate over taxpayer subsidies for abortion forced a quick reversal from GOP leaders. “By proposing
this legislation, Republicans are finally closing the
glaring rape loophole in our health care system,” the
Daily Show’s Kristen Schaal dead-panned Wednesday night
— after GOP leaders had decided to change the language.
“You’d be surprised how many drugged, underaged or
mentally handicapped young women have been gaming the
system. Sorry, ladies the free abortion ride is
over.”
The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," also known as H.R. 3, is a bill that would make permanent the "Hyde Amendment" - a provision banning the use of taxpayer subsidies for abortions that currently requires annual Congressional renewal. The bill came under fire earlier this week for changes it made to the original language of the amendment - which includes exemptions for women who have become pregnant as a result of rape, incest or life-threatening illnesses. In the language of H.R. 3, only pregnancies resulting from "forcible rape" were exempted. The bill would also limit exemptions among victims of incest to minors only. Critics of the bill argued that Republicans were trying to "redefine rape," and that federal coverage for the abortions of rape and incest victims would be dramatically limited. On Thursday, a spokesperson for the bill's author, New Jersey Republican Chris Smith, told Politico that he would be changing the wording of the bill to reflect the language of the original provision. "The word forcible
will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde
Amendment," said Smith spokesman Jeff Sagnip. (ANI)
Highlights:
Source:
includes state-by-state regulations www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf
Hena Begum was sentenced to receive 100 lashes by a village council made up of elders and Muslim clerics in the district of Shariatpur, about 35 miles from the capital, Dhaka, the BBC said today. She endured about 80 lashes before collapsing Monday, according to The Daily Star, a Bangladeshi newspaper. Her family took her to a hospital, where she died. "What sort of justice is this? My daughter has been beaten to death in the name of justice. If it had been a proper court then my daughter would not have died," Dorbesh Khan, the girl's father, told the BBC. Family members said Hena was raped by a 40-year-old married cousin, The Daily Star said. The man's family beat up the teen, then accused of her adultery, the newspaper said. The very next day, she was sentenced to the flogging in a fatwa, or religious ruling, issued by the village council under Islamic Shariah law, the BBC said. Her father was also told pay a fine of about $700, police told the BBC. Four people, including a Muslim cleric, have been arrested in connection with Hena's death, the BBC said. Police said they were looking for another 14 people in the case. Bangladesh's high court has ordered district officials in Shariatpur to explain why they did not protect the girl, The Daily Star said. The court ruled eight months ago that Shariah punishment was illegal. In December, a
40-year-old woman in Rajshahi district died after she was
publicly caned for allegedly carrying on an affair with her
stepson.
Elders in her Bangladeshi village ordered that Hena Begum receive 100 lashes on a charge of adultery. She endured 80 lashes before she collapsed. Her family took her to a hospital, where she died. Hena, who was sentenced under Islamic Shariah law, was accused of having an affair with a 40-year-old married cousin, although her family and neighbors said the man had in fact raped her. The man's family beat up Hena and then publicly accused her of adultery, the girl's family said. An autopsy and inquest conducted after Hena's Jan. 31 death found there was "no sign of any external or internal injuries to the body of Hena Begum," BBC News reported. The Daily Star, a Bangladeshi newspaper, reported the autopsy findings and said it appeared that attempts were being made to conceal the cause of death. Following that report, a judge ordered that the body be exhumed and that a three-member team of doctors conduct a new examination, The Daily Star and the BBC reported. Four people have been
arrested in connection with Hena's death, and authorities
said they were looking for 14 others.
Switched from a video to a photo. Caution: This may be upsetting so be prepared for what many women may feel is their only real option if they are, once again, denied safe abortions.
* * * Perhaps rape itself is a gesture, a violent repubiation of the female, in the assertion of maleness that would seem to require nothing beyond physical gratification of the crudest kind. The supreme macho gesture - like knocking out an opponent and standing over his fallen body, gloves raised in triumph. - Joyce Carol Oates |
||||||||||||||||||
The
Citizens Who Care has gathered information on HR 358
the "Let Women Die" bill and HR 3, the "No Tax-Payer Funding
for Abortion Act," which is attempting to redefine rape and
it's impact on women and their loved ones. 683,000 forcible
rapes occur every year, which equals 56,916 per month, 1,871
per day, 78 per hour, and 1.3 per minute. Many of these
rapes end up with the women becoming pregnant. Speaker
Boehner announced that H.R. 3 is “one of our highest
legislative priorities.” So, what's in these
bills?
and 
