It's not just the definition of "rape" that Paul Ryan and Todd Akin have sought to limit through legislative means. An earlier version of the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act they co-sponsored would also have limited exemptions from the law for victims of incest.
H.R. 3 is best known as a piece of aggressive anti-abortion legislation co-sponsored by Ryan and Akin, in which the only rape victims exempt from the law's abortion restrictions would be those who had been subjected to "forcible rape." However, as the Guardian's Ana Marie Cox pointed out on Monday's The Last Word, the same incarnation of that bill which included the "forcible rape" language also would have narrowed the definition of incest. H.R. 5939, introduced in July 2010, included exemptions only for "an act of forcible rape, or incest with a minor"—not incest in general.
That version of the bill had 186 co-sponsors, including Ryan, Akin, and 25 Democrats.
The Last Word host Lawrence O'Donnell was flabbergasted. "What are they thinking?" he said. "It's like, I think I get what they're thinking when they do this stuff, and then they come up with something like that."
Ryan has defended the "forcible rape" language in H.R. 5939 by referring to it as "stock language." He does not appear to have yet commented on the "incest with a minor" language.
Leave a Comment:
All rape is forcible! Whether at gun point or knife point, physical or psychological intimidation, or through the introduction of drugs, ultimately force is used to penetrate the victim no matter to what degree. So, rape is rape! Cut and dried! Those who would parse words on this issue are immoral neanderthals who need the reality of rape shoved up their rear ends to adjust their thinking on the subject. It is utterly unbelievable that there is one--let alone so many--lawmakers who hold such Victorian notions in this the 21st century. Maybe they are right, there is no such thing as evolution. Their example certainly is an argument against it.
When asked to describe his stance on abortion, Romney fell back on, "The issue of abortion will be decided by the Supreme Court."
Swell.
The problem is that Romney has said on several occasions that he will appoint justices "like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito." And it just so happens that they are the four justices currently on the court who have not minced words about their intent to overrule Roe v Wade.
One other trifling detail: Who is the leader of Romney's judicial selection committee?
Robert Bork.
Yes, THAT Robert Bork.
In other words, if Romney becomes president, Roe v Wade will pass into the annals of history as soon as one of the four moderate justices leaves the court for any reason.
Bork. Speaking of neanderthals. Four moderate justices & a wavering Roberts. A wavering Roberts because Citizens United was passed on his court. And that has allowed Todd Akin-type billionaires to try to impose their will on our country. Hence the threat to Roe v Wade. To extend on your last point; If one of the four moderate justices leaves the court & Romney is elected president. If Obama is re-elected I think we can be reassured that he would select a rational person to elevate to the Supreme Court.
GO'Donnell, whoo hoo, he's not a pretend Democrat, he's just a Democrat, who gets to hang out with folks like lovely Anna Marie Cox. Is it ok to use the good, lyrical, and resonant word lovely? It's a good word and O'Donnell is a real Democrat and is #1 at MSNBC. ..........We know that some folks simply profoundly believe that each individual, original, unique DNA cell structure is a preordained gift from God and must not be tampered with in any way, ever, for any reason. We know there are some fundamentalists who fear that the next Einstein may be lost through abortion or the day after pill. We also know that some who aren't particularly upstanding themselves may overcompensate by being extremely anti abortion. They'll perhaps put on a show of Puritanism. We know there are some who are described as Fundamentalists and that they are very active in GOP caucusing and nominating processes. They wield oversized power because of their high numbers who participate in the nomination process. It's simple really and goes back to the Clinton era. This was an Evangelical plan to take over the GOP by exercising undue influence through high Evangelical and fundamentalist participation in the GOP nomination process. It worked.
Another post on this topic of abortion on rape, incest, and the life of the mother? Four (5) post topics and two (2) with portions devoted to that hysteria, and attempt to distract from the real and major issues of this campaign in that past 15 posts, or all of this present blog page. And not one post topic on the moribund state of the economy, the disasterous fiscal situation our nation is in, the constant threat of the Obama Administration to raise taxes and continue with runaway deficit spending for social causes the Democrat Party favor as they cut out interest groups to pander to for election support in the present and future, the foolish and so very harmful Obama Administration "War on Fossil Fuels" that has so contributed to the rising prices of gasoline (already the highest in 2012 than at any time in our history), diesel, heating oils, and electricity and food (an energy utilizing sector from ground preparation for our crops to marketing), and a declining national Defense posture in this troubled world.
That strikes me as extreme desperation to distract the audience from the real issues of this election. That strikes me a purient in its obsession with sexual and secular sensation of those issues. That strikes me as hysteria.
It looks like the uterus is more important than the economy.
It's becoming so obvious now that the Dems just want to talk exclusively about social issues instead of the more pressing matters like our fiscal and economic problems. We're still at 8.3% unemployment for 40 straight months, $4.00+ gas, $6T in added debt, more Americans being harassed and chased down by debt collectors. This is getting absolutely ridiculous!!!
The thing about the far right is that it is primarily and fundamentally insane.
Flagged as No Value, as usual, reveal.
As was your #4 and #8, Keith.
Something to do with "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander"...
Well, you connected half of the dots correctly.
Excuse the typo with the numerical, Eyes Wide Shut. But posting facts and figures hardly deserves a no value comment...its the inane put down comments that really say nothing of substantive valie, like all of your posts that deserve that designation.
Why not try coming up with something with specifics to make an argument?
If there was an actual argument to be made against your prolific opinion rambling, other than that's about all you have, I would gladly do so, but I doubt you'd be able to recognize it coming at you.
But here's a very simple bone for you to gnaw on that I'm tossing you...fact or fiction or if both, can you separate the two?
The RNC convention leaders (aka Boehner & Sununu among them) shut down the Ron Paul supporters on the floor in the hopes of making it appear that Mitt was the undisputed choice among all Republicans for the GOP nomination. Didn't work...all the news outlets picked up on that as soon as they did it.
However, they are rolling that boulder uphill. Right-wing evangelicals don't really trust Mitt because of his religion, conservatives aren't convinced he's conservative enough to suit their tastes based on his past practices, regardless of the position he says he now supports (i.e. RomnyCare for one), and the tea party is having doubts about his ability to be a spokesperson for their desires. Some Republicans in Congress, up for re-election are opting to NOT have Ryan appear on their behalf because of his position on rape and/or abortion.
But perhaps the most notable slap at him comes from dogs...they really don't like this guy and are howling mad at him. Horses are taking a second look at him too.
The best chance your side had for a workable solution was the first to leave the Clown Car debacle known as the GOP Wannabe's...Huntsman. His religion probably would have caused him some grief from the same wing of the GOP that Mitt has, but he was a practical person, had both state government bone fides and foreign diplomatic experience (unlike Mitt), was pragmatic, and realized that to get anything done in the government, you had to be willing to include and work with the loyal opposition and you weren't going to always get your own way with things. So after he left, what stellar "candidates" did you have...Bachmann (defend her if you think you can), Cain (ditto), Perry (good luck with that one), Gingrich (Mr. Big...Ego, that is), Ron Paul (Gold standard, anyone?), Santorum (same as Bachmann and Cain), and Mitt (the etch-a-sketch flip-flop guy).
To wit:
It's always "me, me, me" with you, isn't it?
YOU strike me as a dullard. OK...my opinion. Now, why don't you come up with some specifics to make an argument against my opinion?
You'll need to row faster than you've yet displayed you have the capability of doing.
This discussion regarding Romney's attitudes about abortion can be dealt with in one series of questions to him:
1. Do you take your oath of office seriously?
2. Just to remind you, the presidential oath states that the president "solemnly swears to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States . . . ". This means that the president's duty is to "protect" and "defend" constitutionally-guaranteed rights, which, at least for now, includes a woman's right to an abortion.
3. Your personal beliefs are therefore not relevant. Will you do your duty as president and not only protect a woman's right to abortion but also defend that right?