Morning Roundup: Chris Smith Redefines Rape


Women who use IVF at a higher risk for maternal mortality, Rand Paul can’t decide who’s a person, and Rep. Chris Smith’s anti-abortion bill tries to redefine rape.

  • A study published in the British Medical Journal shows that in vitro fertilization pregnancies link to a higher maternal mortality. The causal link appears to be that women who undergo IVF are typically older, the increased risk of carrying multiples (which happens with IVF), pre-eclampsia and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. One study done in the Netherlands “found the overall death rate in IVF pregnancies was 42 per 100,000 women compared with six deaths per 100,000 in all pregnancies.”
  • The Daily Beast points out Senator Rand Paul’s (R-KY) hypocrisy when it comes to the 14th amendment. Paul has signed on to cosponsor the “Life at Conception” Act, which makes all embryos and blastocysts “people.” Yet, he also cosponsors a resolution that would prevent the children of illegal immigrants from becoming American citizens. Author Ben Adler points out, “It’s not clear where the fetus in an illegal immigrant’s uterus would fit into this equation.”
  • Another very scary legal ramification of Chris Smith’s “No Taxpayer Coverage for Abortion” bill – a redefinition of rape. Mother Jones reports that the bill states that funding would only be provided for “forcible rape.” Not statutory, not if a woman is drugged, not if she says no but doesn’t have the bruises to prove it? Shame on you, Chris Smith. This is beyond the pale, even for you.

Jan 27

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Another very scary legal ramification of Chris Smith’s “No Taxpayer Coverage for Abortion” bill – a redefinition of rape. Mother Jones reports that the bill states that funding would only be provided for “forcible rape.” Not statutory, not if a woman is drugged, not if she says no but doesn’t have the bruises to prove it? Shame on you, Chris Smith. This is beyond the pale, even for you.

    That is messed up! And shame on House Speaker Boehner for qualifying the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” as a top priority for the new congress. What a joke! Seriously, if that’s a top priority he’s ignoring the fact our country is going bankrupt from years of war. What an idiot!

  • freetobe

    I hated the GOP before and now I hate them so much I am afraid to say what I would like to do to all those motherfuckers! Remove their entire packages maybe they would be fixed of this disgusting need to control women’s lives!!!! F THEM ALL!!!!!

    Any women who voted for these american taliban monster tiny dicks  needs her head examined!!! Next time do your research on the bastards first!!

  • plume-assassine

    Wow, if any proof was needed to show that anti-choice Republicans are pro-rape, this would be it. They want to make rape a legitimate sexual act, and force women in poverty to propogate a rapist’s genes. They are going for the weakest members, the poor, and then they will work their way up.

    http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion

    If this monstrosity passes, then I think that it will be time to remove from public office all of the bill’s co-sponsors and anyone who voted for it. Not at all through any violent means, but through peaceful outrage and protest against these representatives. Something must be done. I truly fear for our country.

  • squirrely-girl

    If this monstrosity passes, then I think that it will be time to remove from public office all of the bill’s co-sponsors and anyone who voted for it.

     

    … to campaign against all of the cosponsors of this bill regardless of whether it passes or not. All 173 of the cosponsors can count on me being incredibly vocal during their next election campaigns to remind voters they supported this at all. Disgusted to know one of the cosponsors is my rep. Planning to schedule a visit while I’m in DC this spring.  

  • ldan

    My rep (fortunately) is not on the list and has always been solidly pro-choice in his voting record.

     

    I did however write him to thank him for his work and to ask that he not allow the chance to highlight the cruelty, government overreach (since when are tax-priviledged funds like HSAs ‘federal funds’?), and showboating of these 173 representatives to pass. I wish NARAL or one of the other national groups would pick up on the very successful model and tools of groups like MoveOn or dKos’s OrangetoBlue and use them to focus on ousting these people.

     

    I cannot believe that there are 173 districts where a majority of the voters are that extreme when most of the candidates whose extreme positions on abortion were brought to light and highlighted lost their races in November–bucking the overall anti-establishment trend. Highlighting their extreme positions and their willingness to put culture-war ideology over the pragmatic work of creating jobs should help get less extreme representatives elected the next time around. After all, many of them are grandstanding, knowing full well that this bill has a very slim chance of passing the Senate and almost none of slipping past a presidential veto. So it won’t actually go into effect to piss off the moderate portion of their base while pumping up their credentials with the extreme portion of their base.

  • arekushieru

    (since when are tax-priviledged funds like HSAs ‘federal funds’?)

    Oh, wow, that is horrendous.  It sounds like they’re attempting to redefine everything, but only if it has anything to do with a woman’s uterus.  First, rape laws, now HSA’s…?

  • ldan

    It’s one interpretation I’m seeing regarding the section on tax-privileged funds.

     

    It also includes a section that forbids including money spent on abortion services from being included in individual medical deductions when filing taxes. Are they planning on having the IRS audit families to enforce this? It’s so ridiculous all around.