The Republican Plan to Redefine Rape (Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid, Obama)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Drugged, raped, and pregnant? Too bad. Republicans are pushing to limit rape and incest cases eligible for government abortion funding."
"The 'No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act'...contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases. With this legislation...Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape."
"Drugged, raped, and pregnant? Too bad. Republicans are pushing to limit rape and incest cases eligible for government abortion funding."
"The 'No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act'...contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases. With this legislation...Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape."
I don't understand how any women could possibly vote Republican.
The republicans are buying trouble they don't need. It doesn't matter how they try to tailor language to allow federal funding for abortions in certain extreme cases they will be attacked by the pro-abortion forces. They ought to stand on principle and simply ban federal funding for all abortions, period. And the principle is not difficult to articulate: abortion is murder, in all cases, and federal taxpayers ought not be paying for murder.
The republicans are buying trouble they don't need. It doesn't matter how they try to tailor language to allow federal funding for abortions in certain extreme cases they will be attacked by the pro-abortion forces. They ought to stand on principle and simply ban federal funding for all abortions, period. And the principle is not difficult to articulate: abortion is murder, in all cases, and federal taxpayers ought not be paying for murder.
Without sounding like a troll, how do you feel about the wars we are currently, and may be in the near future, involved in?
Why would any reasonable family oriented, hardworking person vote Democrat in this day and age.
because they actually want to get paid for their work, not limp along paycheck to paycheck because management wants the workers hard earned money to go to stock dividends or CEO bonuses.
Rape=what the Democrats have done to us over the last 2 years.
Rape- when an individual is forcibly assaulted sexually. Incest- when that forcible assault is by a family member.
I suggest you work on your language aptitude.
The discussion at hand already deals with something sick enough. DO NOT equate some bipartisan boo hoo with a what a victim of rape or incest experiences.
More to the point of the OP, we can discuss WHY such measures are being considered. WHY a pregnant girl or woman who has suffered rape or incest should not have the option of abortion. If we are going to require that all children be born, even if it is out of incest or rape, we need to simultaneously discuss hardcore psychological help programs for these families because the child will be likely growing up in trauma from day one. Ok, not a reason to abort but don't ignore the fact that the family or individual circumstance will be extremely traumatic and often can even end up in the child being passed through the foster care system.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.