If you've been able to tear yourself away from the coverage of the uprising in Egypt (it's been hard for me), then you might have heard about the newly-minted Republican House of Representatives trying to define rape down. From Mother Jones (via Pandagon):
Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.
For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.
With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), 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, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)
Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense.
That sickening provision was removed, leaving yet another horrible bill that would make it harder for poor women to get access to abortions. Here's Digby on the subject:
[T]he Republicans are saying over and over again that they are just codifying existing practice. Nothing to see here folks. Let's just dot the is and cross the ts. Except, of course, that's a lie. These bills go much further that anything we've seen and have the result of pretty much taking abortion out of the health insurance system altogether. And why in the world should anyone who says they believe in women's rights allow that to happen? This is, until further notice, a constitutional right we're talking about.
How does it go further than the already-odious Hyde Amendment? My understanding is that instead of simply denying direct federal dollars to women seeking abortions, it denies the use of any federal dollars. So, no matter how far down the chain it is from the federal government, that money can't be used. i.e., did your health care provider get a tax break or credit? Then no abortion. (RH Reality Check has more.)
Here's my crazy thought: Democrats fight--not only to defeat this travesty of a bill--but also to make it easier for all people to access to the healthcare they need.
In other words, fuck H.R. 3; let's repeal the Hyde Act.
|