Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

37 replies

ElephantsAndMiasmas · 02/02/2011 15:33

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.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
SuchProspects · 08/02/2011 16:18

Yes, think it was the Guardian? It backfired badly! I worked for a progressive nonprofit on the west coast at the time. Quite a few colleagues took leave and went to canvas in other states that were borderline - even that was not well received, probably turned more voters to Bush than away from him.

Original poster
ElephantsAndMiasmas · 08/02/2011 15:09

No I wouldn't do that - how irritating would that be?! Didn't they try that at the election back in 2004(?) to avoid Bush getting a second term?

OP posts:
SuchProspects · 08/02/2011 14:40

Elephants, you could write to organizations and groups in the US who are already advocating on the issue as a way of providing some moral support.

Unless you're an American citizen I strongly suggest you do not write letters intended to change American's minds. The US public is generally exceedingly annoyed by any suggestion that people outside the US should try to influence their laws.

Original poster
ElephantsAndMiasmas · 08/02/2011 10:26

Now that's a bloody good idea, Poncey.

God the way these right-wingers talk about abortions, it's as if they're some kind of luxury for women, something to actually want.

This bill is still an absolute horror, even with that clause removed. Although thank god that option is no longer on the table.

I could cry. But I would rather write letters. But to whom?

OP posts:
PonceyMcPonce · 08/02/2011 08:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SuchProspects · 08/02/2011 07:59

The force requirement has apparently been dropped (see Ms. article).

Elephants - you may well be right. I hope the people who supported this bill pay for it at their next election.

TanteRose · 08/02/2011 07:14

this is outrageous Angry

Poncey, about the MAP in the US, I found this on the Internet -

"The morning after pill is a form of emergency contraception that has gotten a lot of heat because of people misunderstanding how it works and also what exactly it does. Many people are under the misconception that the morning after pill is an over the counter abortion pill, which simply isn?t the case. All the morning after pill does is prevent ovulation and acts in the same way that a double dose of ?the pill? does, for all intents and purposes. Also, it was never designed to be a form of primary contraception and is still listed as emergency contraception in most places. This means that some states regulate the morning after pill to some degree.
Unfortunately, because there are some states that still restrict the distribution of the morning after pill, there is still a need for people to get a prescription in some cases. Also, some companies (i.e. Wal-Mart) don?t agree with emergency contraception of this nature and have refused to offer it to their patrons. As a result of this regulation and the lack of common availability, the costs of the morning after pill are still somewhat higher than what some may consider a fair price.
In general, the morning after pill kit (most often two pills) will cost between $30 and $50 at a pharmacy. This cost goes up if a prescription is needed and can range, with the costs of the exam for the prescription, between $50 and $150. However, there are some free clinics which offer the exam and can provide the morning after pill free of charge to women, but there are generally usage restrictions (once per year) for these clinics."

PonceyMcPonce · 08/02/2011 07:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

sakura · 08/02/2011 05:21

well, specifically the man who proposed it. This proves that men have got too much power. It has to change.

How much power do men have over us?? How little power women have over their own lives let alone over the lives of others.
Men cannot be allowed to keep making decisions that a) affect women's lives and b) don't effect them

I don't want women to have the power to rule over men, the way they rule over us, but I do think we should have at least enough power to decide how to live our own lives. I'd settle for that.

sakura · 08/02/2011 04:55

you know what, I hate them.. I really hate the men who decided that this bill should go ahead.

sakura · 08/02/2011 04:53

Elephants, you are so right . Boys and girls are born with rights, but society systematically sets about removing the rights of females.
"..a woman's right to choose whether to have a child or not, becomes once again something men quibble over." [Millet]

Sad
GrimmaTheNome · 07/02/2011 23:35

are going to have to bear the children of their rapists

or worse, suffer at the hands of backstreet abortionists. SadAngry

Original poster
ElephantsAndMiasmas · 07/02/2011 23:32

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 :(

OP posts:
edam · 07/02/2011 22:32

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?'

SuchProspects · 07/02/2011 22:30

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

SuchProspects · 07/02/2011 22:29

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.

swallowedAfly · 07/02/2011 21:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

penelopestitsdropped · 07/02/2011 21:43

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

SuchProspects · 07/02/2011 21:39

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.

swallowedAfly · 07/02/2011 21:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

SuchProspects · 07/02/2011 21:23

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.

SardineQueen · 07/02/2011 21:11

Aha and oho.

Yes good point.

GrimmaTheNome · 07/02/2011 21:08

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 · 07/02/2011 20:19

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

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

Rhadegunde · 07/02/2011 19:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.