Abortion bill that redefined rape to be changed by author

Dear Congress

Please remember our past as to not repeat it. Your repeating it.

http://www.suffragist.com/timeline.htm

And the funda “mental” ists accuse liberals of big brother double speak? Perverse.

Rape is forced sexual intercourse without consent no matter what the circumstances be that using drugs on a woman(date rape drug), threat of death, extortion, etc.

Repiblicans adnd Colin Peterson, should be ashamed to sponsor shuch a bill..

She wants freedom of the maket and her religion but her vagina and sex militarized. What a kook.

Love it Wendy

Let me remind you nanny-statists that government is not the only source of funds accepted by Planned Parenthood. The rumor is they even offer “scholarships” to the needy.

The law defines “forcible rape” as

Rape
I. The Offenses
A. Common-Law or Forcible Rape
1. Elements of Common-Law or Forcible Rape

65 Am Jur 2d Rape § 3

§ 3 Force

Force is a necessary ingredient in the commission of the common-law crime of rape.1 Physical restraint of a victim is sufficient to constitute “force” under a statute prohibiting abusive sexual contact by force.2 However, the force need not be proven by evidence of physical violence; evidence of a victim’s lack of resistance induced by fear authorizes a finding of force.3 Thus, force needed for rape may, depending on the circumstances, be constructive force as well as physical force, violence, or threat of bodily harm.4 Force in the statutory sense is present when the victim is incapable of consenting to the sexual act involved because she has been given no opportunity to consent. Force is thus implied when the rape or deviant sexual acts proscribed by statute are accomplished under the pretext of medical treatment when the victim is surprised and unaware of the intention involved.5 It is from the rape victim’s perspective, not the assailant’s, which the presence or absence of forceful compulsion is to be determined; this is a subjective test that looks to the victim’s perception of the surrounding circumstances

It is just politics. It is an effort to get force/momentum against the GOP and muddy the waters. This is what we get when you have parties. Red team versus blue team. The only thing the team members care about is their team winning and the other team losing or looking bad. America suffers because of this. It really holds us back,

Dennis

I think you just dropped your last brain cell in the river.

Clarifying the record is right on one thing, HR 3 is just poltics.

For Congressmen or their staff, experienced in bill drafting and having access to all kinds of legal resources, it is assumed that when they add words like “forcible” they are aware of the existing laws and the components necessary for conduct to constitute a crime like “rape”. Even the definition given by CTR is not of “forcible rape” but as the title clearly shows, “rape”.

Saying “forcible rape” is like saying “intentional murder”. Since “intentional” is already a required aspect of the crime of murder, if a bill adds the word again, it is asusmed to mean something different than the term already defined in the laws of that state.

Members of Congress know this. Their staff knows this.

This kind of “careless” drafting is not carelessness at all.

It is conscious, intentional revision of the law or the intentional creation of doubt in how a law would be interpreted.

Doubt that would create uncertainty in those potentionally impacted by the new interpretation, doubt that could be utlized and magnified by those seeking to expand the scope of the funding prohibition without having to admit that was their aim, doubt that would achieve by fear and uncertainty what the sponsors of the bill could not hope to achieve by an honest frontal attack, doubt that would effectively redefine rape but only for those economically challenged enough to require funding assistance for their medical care.

It is just politics, but politics is how we move the levers of our democracy.

The question is whether we are willing to move them in ways that openly disclose our true aims and whether we are willing to acknowledge the impact on those whose hands are furthest away from those levers of power.

This provision is just the most obviously bad provision in a bill whose remainder is just slightly less obviously bad and the removal of language that should never have been included does little to improve the package.

This was just a negotiatig tactic. Republicans use this a lot. They make outragious demands and then recind them, that makes their other outragious demands seem more reasonable and it makes them look like they’ve given something u and finally it diverts attention for their true intent.

The real prize is removing the tax benefit a company or idividual would normally get for providing health care insurance to their employee, or the idividual, if the insurance they are providing pays for abortions. They claim is that the tax benefit amounts to government funding. Its a very slick trick and Democrats fall for it every time. All the words wasted here debating the difinition of rape is exactly what they wanted. They give us a shiny object to focus on while they do their dirty work.

This is from David Waldman at Daily Kos:

“In H.R. 3, Republicans revive the mid-90s “Istook amendment” theory of the fungibility of money to include under their definition of “taxpayer funding for abortion” all tax deductions, credits or other benefits for the cost of health insurance, when that insurance includes under its plan coverage for abortion.

So if a company provides health care benefits for its employees, and the plan they pay for includes coverage for abortion, the company becomes ineligible for the normal federal tax deductions and credits that are the usual reward for providing benefits. That’s a gigantic tax increase. If you pay for your own coverage directly, no deductions, credits, etc. for you, either, if the plan you select offers abortion coverage. Whether you or someone on your plan ever gets one or not. All deductions associated with your health care costs are disallowed.

That, apparently, will impact approximately 87 percent of private insurance plans on the market today. ”

Please don’t be fooled by the shiny object, keep your eye on the ball and don’t let them strip abortion funding from all US insurance plans. They tried and failed to do it during the Health Insurance debate a few years ago. Don’t let them get away with it now.

[...] Abortion Bill That Redefined Rape to be Changed by Author. Read more  [...]

If, like most Republican legislators, you are white and rich, you don’t worry about health care insurance. So why would they worry about any one else’s insurance?

Into the Woods who do you work for? Why are you trying to declarify the definition I gave?

In law you have “key words” that contribute to the legalese (“The specialized vocabulary of the legal profession, especially when considered to be complex or abstruse”. American Heritage Dictionary) element of law. Because of these “key words” – words used repetitively in our laws – they are housed in a book lawyers used to determine what they mean. HR-3 uses the words “forcible rape”, a key word within our legal culture. (The reason it has quotes around it) A lawyer would then go look up how the law defines “forcible rape.” The term “forcible rape” would be found and was what I posted on Feb 3.
Yes, it does seem like adding “intentional” to “murder”, but it is how our law does it. It is also why it is being used on the left to obscure the facts and distort the truth. Every lawyer – left or right – knows that you have to follow the rules of law. Rules of law include definitions and “forcible rape” is defined as I put above. No “and”, “if” or “but” about it. If H.R.3 became a statute it would have to follow the common law tradition and apply all the conditions of rape that is being said does not apply because of how “forcible rape” is defined in law.
Now if the GOP was really trying to change the definition of “forcible rape” they would have to explicitly declare those other conditions do not mean rape. HR-3 does NOT do that.

So, they have taken “forcible rape” off the table (sort of) and now have introduced the ‘Protect Life Act”, not the mother’s life tho. But there is the “conscience clause”….ya we saw how that bogus loop hole worked when thousands of women were denied birth control or the m.a.p. by the pharmiscists. Now we have the Protect Life Act.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2011/02/04/protecting-life-bill-says-women

Oh, and Dennis, what kind of lawyer are you exactly? and did you pass the bar?