Read the story on a friend's facebook wall, and of course I thought it was exaggerating the issue. Republicans want to redefine rape to not include being drugged, statutorily, or threatened and then raped? No way!
Actually, pretty much yes. Apparently in an effort to narrow rape definitions and thus stop federal funding for abortions, House Rep Chris Smith (R-NJ) introduced an act that would narrow the Hyde Amendment's definitions of rape when it comes to federal funding to exclude the following:
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2011/02/rep_wasserman_schultz_republic.php wrote:
women who say no but do not physically fight off the perpetrator,
women who are drugged or verbally threatened and raped,
minors impregnated by adults
women who are drugged or verbally threatened and raped,
minors impregnated by adults
The language itself only allows funds in the case of forcible rape (marks are left and woman tries to fight back) or statutory only if its by incest.
Keeping it classy, there are already 173 co-sponsors from the House. But while it stands a decent chance of passing the House, it will likely die in the Senate. Much ado about nothing, but another good example of what Varus would love.
Also fun to note that I lined up a list of the cosponsors and the Tea Party caucus. 39 of the 53 members are cosponsors. Yes, I'm sure they're just fiscal conservatives, not social conservatives
Edited, Feb 8th 2011 1:08pm by Kaolian Lock Thread: Post in thread potential evidence for a lawsuit / legal action.
