Rape victims could be denied abortions if someone decides insufficient "force" was used against them (US)

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

Link here.

"Under this new bill, the only rape survivors who would be able to receive funding would be those who were able to prove that their rapes involved ?force.? If your rapist drugged you, intoxicated you, or raped you while you were unconscious, you don?t get coverage. If your rapist used coercion, you don?t get coverage. If this is a case of statutory rape ? that is, if you are a thirteen-year-old child, raped by someone outside of your family ? you don?t get coverage. If you?re an incest survivor over the age of eighteen ? if, say, years of abuse only culminated in a pregnancy after your nineteenth birthday ? you just don?t get coverage. And if you live in a state that doesn?t distinguish ?forcible rape? from ?rape,? you might not qualify, meaning that no matter what the circumstances of your assault were, well, sorry: You might not get coverage."

I know there's probably not a lot we can do about it, given that it's in another country (althoug please tell me if you think we can). But I just wanted to post out of outrage, and because it is often laughed off when I say things about how women's current rights can easily be eroded and removed. This is an example of how that happens.

[SuchProspects]

The Center for Reproductive Rights sees it as even more vile, their analysis is that it effectively bans private insurance coverage too (see this brief press release).

I haven't read much about the law. CRR are campaigning on the issue so non-US citizens could donate to them (or a number of other good US orgs) if they wanted to help.

[BlingLoving]

Oh that's horrible.

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

thanks for the link SP, just popping out but will check it out when I get back. :(

[Hopelesslydisorganised]

Only in America......

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

Don't count on it, Hopelessly. This sort of thing could happen here. Perhaps not so easily, but remember when the Tories tried to lower the upper-limit for abortions to 20 weeks? They've obviously got an agenda on limiting access as well.

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

In fact I remember that subject being discussed at my uni, and all the people who were "for" lowering the limit (or even worse measures) were right-wing men of exactly the type who are now running the country (in fact, probably will be doing it themselves in a few years)

[SuchProspects]

According to CRR new language has been added to this bill allowing hospitals to impose their religious beliefs and refuse to provide emergency abortion care even when necessary to save a woman's life.

It's being debated in committee this week.

[dadaz]

Men shouldn't interfere with the rights of a Woman to abort.

Neither should religious freaky extremists.

[GrimmaTheNome]

Shameful.

Brazil could offer some ethical advice maybe to those in the thrall of religious dogma?

[SardineQueen]

How awful. Don't know what to say really.

How is it that women's rights are so fragile even in wealthy democratic countries?

[GrimmaTheNome]

How is it that women's rights are so fragile even in wealthy democratic countries?

Often the common denominator in substandard women's rights is non-liberal religious influences. Catholicism, fundamentalist evangelical Protestantism, Islam...

[SardineQueen]

Aha and oho.

Yes good point.

[SuchProspects]

If it makes anyone feel better I can't see it actually getting through in its current form. Still, the fact that democratically elected representatives are prepared to put their names behind it, even if they don't expect it to become law, is really chilling.

Grimma - that is totally where it comes from.

[SuchProspects]

Swallowed - they aren't fiddling with the definition of rape. Rape is defined by each State as a part of its criminal code, the Federal government would have a very hard time, constitutionally, redefining state rape laws. They are talking about banning Federal tax money being used to pay for abortion or health insurance that provides abortion other than in the much narrower "definition" they have devised.

It is deeply messed up.

[penelopestitsdropped]

It is more frightening to realise that this is happening in a supposedly "advanced" country.

[SuchProspects]

Oh, yes, sorry. I agree.

When I saw it I wondered how much of it is because of the success of women's groups getting "date rape" taken seriously (which I know isn't taken as seriously as it should be, but compared to 20 years ago it is actually talked about as rape now).

But mainly I think its just a cynical attempt to try to turn people even more against those who need abortion. There is such a cultural norm of blaming victims, in any sexual assault, that many people won't think about the cases they can't see, they'll be thinking "that'll stop someone crying rape just to get an abortion". It's sickening.

[SuchProspects]

that should be "date" rape not "date rape".

[edam]

Appalling. Do these fuckers wake up in the morning and think 'golly, wonder how many exciting new ways can I think of to oppress women today?'

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

Makes you wonder doesn't it, edam :(

I agree SuchProspects, but I'm not sure it will work. When they concentrate on things like late-term abortions, I often feel that politicians and religious types are trying to stir up a real hatred of women, and paint a picture of something that's happening all the time, that women just march in and demand these procedures without thinking it through, at a late stage, where we all know that's not the case at all.

whereas this is just a blatant attack on rape victims. It really makes me want to scream and cry to think that women who've been violently attacked (god yes, how do they miss that having a penis inserted into your body against your will is the violent part? Presumably if it was some of these men it was happening to they might think it violent?) are going to have to bear the children of their rapists :(