House Republicans Block Incest Abortion Exception in Criminal Justice Bill


House Republicans on Thursday used a procedural motion to block a vote on whether to add an exception for incest to an abortion coverage ban in its criminal justice appropriations bill.

The bill prohibits using federal funds to cover abortion for pregnant women in federal prisons, except if the woman’s life is in danger or if she was raped. Incest is usually mentioned as an exception to other federal abortion funding bans such as the Hyde Amendment, but the criminal justice appropriations bill does not contain such an exception.

Like the Hyde Amendment, the appropriations bill lacks an exception for a woman’s health, excluding many medically necessary abortions that fall short of life-saving.

“Laws have consequences,” said Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) on the House floor after introducing an amendment adding incest to the list of exceptions. “The scenario we’re describing here is one where a female prisoner is the victim of incest. If this law passes as currently written, that female prisoner will be forced to carry to term the child of an incestuous relationship. I regard this as absolutely indefensible.”

Rep. Jon Culberson (R-TX) raised a point-of-order objection to Grayson’s amendment on behalf of the Republican caucus, arguing it violated a rule that amendments to appropriations bills cannot “legislate,” or change the existing law.

Grayson acknowledged that the objection could be raised, but urged Culberson to exercise his option not to do so, since other federal funding bans allow exceptions for incest and the drafters of the amendment may have inadvertently left one out.

But Culberson insisted on the point-of-order objection, and the vote on the amendment was blocked.

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

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • purrtriarchy

    Of course. When antis say they support abortion in cases of life and health it is all empty rhetoric because they vote for people who want to make abortion illegal in all cases.

    • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

      You should just be glad that they show their true faces. And those are not beautiful to look at.

    • Arekushieru

      Of course, if they support abortion in cases of life and health, by their own logic a fetus does not have a right to life. After all, it must be ‘inalienable’, it must be ‘inviolable’, it must not be ‘arbitrary’. Ugh. These people just don’t see that they are either making the right to life for a FETUS arbitrary or they are making the right to life for a WOMAN arbitrary. Misogynists.

  • http://www.companylitigation.net Michael Rosenstein

    The abortion cases should be included in the Criminal Justice as this is a matter of killing a living being inside.

    http://www.companylitigation.net/

    • purrtriarchy

      Lololol

    • Arekushieru

      Nope, this is a matter of women controlling who uses their body and when and how it is used via termination OR continuation of a PREGNANCY.

    • lady_black

      Hahahahahahahahaha! Snort! Hahahahahaha!

    • lady_black

      Now can you try again, and do try to make sense this time.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      Troll.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Trying to spam your lame legal website? You must be a lousy lawyer.

    • JamieHaman

      Spoken like a man who will never be pregnant. Like a man who will never pay the body price of carrying a child to term. Like a man who will never get high blood pressure, eclampsia, or require major surgery to deliver a baby. Like a man who will never have to have the tissue between his legs cut to make room for a baby’s head. Like a man who will never worry about the possibility of a massive stroke, or blood clots, or of dying while he delivers his child.
      In fact, you can feel very free to STFU.

      • fiona64

        Anti-choice men have it very easy, don’t they? They just make these asinine pronouncements that will never affect them one iota, and go on their stupid, merry ways.

  • prolifemama

    Your Join The Discussion “invitation” should bear a disclaimer:
    Join The Discussion only if your opinion matches ours. Otherwise, you don’t get to play.

    • purrtriarchy

      You get to play if you can present us with a rational, well thought out argument.

      Are you capable of that?

      • prolifemama

        Absolutely. The points I make may differ from your view of the situation, but that’s how we learn about one another. Hopefully the moderator will agree to allow my argument to be presented in this forum. Otherwise, you’ll never know, will you?

        • purrtriarchy

          RHRC is not an echo chamber. People only get banned for outright trolling.

          • prolifemama

            I submitted my comments twice, to no avail. What do you suggest? And thank you for your kindness in this back-and-forth. I sincerely appreciate it.

          • purrtriarchy

            No you did not. I’d have seen them in my email. And if you are getting censored here, I would probably be unable to see your comments right now.

            So make your case. Rationally.

          • prolifemama

            I beg your pardon, but I did indeed submit my comment two times, and both times the page came back up, within an hour or so, as Be The First To Comment.
            I’m new to your website, so not sure of the ins and outs.
            If I am being censored, who’s doing the censoring – any idea? I thought perhaps the article’s author…

          • purrtriarchy

            Submit it in reply to me. No links. It should go through.

          • prolifemama

            purrtriarchy (clever name!) – Got some errands to do, so will be gone for a couple of hours. Hope to talk with you again soon.
            P.S. – I don’t troll. I’m sincerely interested in a open, frank exchange of different opinions, in the hope of finding whatever common ground exists between disparate viewpoints.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            If you cannot post, how is it I can see your comments?

          • prolifemama

            These comments are visible, my original post never appeared, and still hasn’t. When I return to my own computer where my comments are stored as documents, I’ll try again, in a reply to purrtriarchy.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Kool.

          • prolifemama

            I have just submitted my original response to this article on House Republicans’ blockage of incest, etc., and it is awaiting moderation. It is June 9, 2014, at 2:38am EST. I look forward to intelligent, non-antagonistic questions from RH’s readership, and subsequent discussion. Thanks for your patience!

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Okay, things rarely get out of moderation in my experience. Some people seem to be unable to post links. So repost w/o links if you can. Some words will get you into moderation. I hope your post makes it out. When one of my posts goes into moderation, it seldom gets out.

          • prolifemama

            P.D. — I never include links in any postings, as other sites forbid them. As for “some words” getting me into moderation, I avoid swear words, don’t name-call, and try to keep on-topic. Often my posts are longish, as I anticipate opposing viewpoint comments and questions, and try to reply to these in advance.
            I was also advised to check RHRC’s “TOS” (Terms Of Service?) for the posting rules. Haven’t located it yet… can you help?
            I’m hoping, if it’s not too cliche’, to discover some common ground between prochoicers and the prolife view, on which we can happily agree – I truly believe there is much we share. Sadly, more than one RH poster seem ready for a fight…

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            The problem might simply be a technical/programming issue. I cannot help with that. I am computer illiterate. It is possible that so many folks downgraded/flagged your post that it will not appear I suppose. Others here may have more useful suggestions.

            For example, calling prochoice folks “murderers” will get you an automatic flag from me. And I am pretty liberal where speech is concerned. I am just sick to death of encountering that nonargument and egregious insult so many times on so many message boards.

            My suggestion = simply abandon said post and start again.

            One of the problems you may be encountering vis a vis hostility here or anywhere reproductive rights are debated is your screen name. It assumes that prochoice men and women are not prolife. I am prolife therefore I am prochoice.

          • prolifemama

            P.D. – My posts do not include such inflammatory language as you mention. As for my screen name assuming that prochoice men and women are not prolife, not so. That is an assumption in itself. You have said that I seem “decent.” I greatly appreciate your kindness. You say too, that you are open to knowing another respectful and effective prolife debater.

            For the record, I have debated local NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and NOW leaders on a university campus, in a sex education class taught by a lesbian professor. The students unanimously agreed that I was the winner in those debates. I also debated a university NOW women’s group, fielding questions from the entire group, as there was no opposing speaker scheduled. They were quite open to the points I made, and when one of their membership declined my invitation to discuss specific points further, she was (loudly) encouraged to step up and do so. I have also debated prochoice leaders on a local university radio program, and was given the last word in each debate, by the prochoice moderator.

            It would seem that my debating technique is acceptable to my prochoice sisters and brothers, and that my various approaches are likewise not off-putting. I think I surprise them by being a pretty nice lady, who also does her homework and is able to accurately voice the prochoice positions on life issues.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Pretty and nice I will grant you. I do not know you and will accept your self evaluation. I am neither nice nor young enough to be described as “pretty.”
            I have one question. Are you in favor of criminalizing abortion.

          • prolifemama

            When I said “pretty nice” I meant friendly, not how I look. I hopefully wouldn’t turn anyone to stone, but my pretty days are back about 15 years. As for your not being nice, I beg to disagree. You’ve been very helpful to this newbie (who isn’t young, either – I’m closer to 60 than 50! ;)
            Re your “one question” — I just want the law to protect all human lives, as the Declaration of Independence promises.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            So you are in favor of making abortion a criminal offense? What would the punishment be? And for whom?

            The DOI is not a legal governing document. It is a kiss-off letter to King George. We are governed by the Constitution.

            What would you be willing to do to one of my daughters who is on her way to get an abortion to “protect” her?

          • Ella Warnock

            That’s the question, isn’t it? I require neither “love” nor “protection” from hostile, passive/aggressive strangers when accessing health care of any kind.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Yep. The only question. Notice I did not get an answer.

          • Ella Warnock

            Of course not. She knows that the only answer is use of force, which could get the harasser arrested and charged. Not that some of the loonier ones wouldn’t think it was worth it.

          • prolifemama

            I am attempting to reply, but the RH moderator is dumping my post each time. I’ve now addressed the moderator at the top of my post, asking that my reply be printed, that it’s part of an ongoing conversation. I also explain that I was delayed by personal circumstances, but that I wanted to reply to Plum Dumpling, who has been kind and patient. Any suggestions as to how to make this happen?
            I never include any links in my posts, nor inflammatory language. My longer posts have been posted before, including my username, even though some readers have suggested that “Prolifemama” could be considered antagonistic.

          • goatini

            //Re your “one question” — I just want the law to protect all human lives, as the Declaration of Independence promises.//

            Rights accrue to persons and citizens AT BIRTH.

            Debate over. See how easy that was?

          • prolifemama

            FYI, fetuses do have legal rights in the U.S. They can receive intrauterine blood transfusions over their mothers’ protests, be safeguarded from their mothers’ misuse of drugs during pregnancy, and inherit property while still in utero.

          • purrtriarchy

            Citations needed for all of the above.

          • Shan

            “They can receive intrauterine blood transfusions over their mothers’
            protests, be safeguarded from their mothers’ misuse of drugs during
            pregnancy,”

            How exactly does that happen, legally?

          • lady_black

            It doesn’t. And the part about inheriting while in utero isn’t entirely accurate either. The pregnancy must have been conceived during the lifetime of the testator for any claim to be valid.

          • Arekushieru

            And laws that govern anything to do with a woman’s body, i.e. the first two intrusions on a woman’s medical privacy that you mentioned, are just as misogynistic as making abortion illegal. Oops.

          • lady_black

            The part about inheriting property isn’t *entirely* accurate. First of all, there is no right to inherit property that isn’t vested in the live-birth of a child. A fetus cannot own property. Secondly, the pregnancy must have been conceived during the lifetime of the testator to be valid for inheritance. Otherwise, an administrative nightmare would be encountered. For example, a grandchild born five years after the death of a grandparent would not be entitled to any share of an estate left for unspecified ‘grandchildren’ because that wouldn’t be reasonably foreseen by the testator. The same goes for children born by artificial insemination after the death of the sperm donor. They are neither inheritors, nor considered “survivors” for Social Security purposes.

          • goatini

            The first two scenarios are, in fact, violations of the ACTUAL rights of the only ACTUAL person and citizen in the equation – the WOMAN. The last scenario is completely false.

            But thanks for showing the world that you and the radical misogynist forced-birther cabal think that the rights of female citizens should be erased at pregnancy – or, more likely, between menarche and menopause. We don’t need anti-American seditionists in our nation. Go live in a theocracy – we don’t strip female citizens of their rights in the United States of America.

          • lady_black

            The Declaration of Independence 1) has no legal force, and 2) makes no such promise. We have a Constitution that says born people and corporations are citizens. There is no “protection” for zygotes, embryos and fetuses, nor can there be. Their existence (not “life”) is wholly dependent upon the (actual) life of a person. Without literal connection to this specific person, there is no life. Women are not slaves to do your bidding, or the state’s bidding, or the bidding of a man. We left the status of chattel property long ago. Concern yourself with the welfare of actual persons, because the pregnancy of another is none of your concern. Live with that reality. Just saying…

          • Arekushieru

            Very interesting, lady-black! It’s pretty much a similar difficulty they had for classifying whether viruses were life or not. They are only alive when they are ‘attached’ to something else, as well, after all.

          • purrtriarchy

            Answer plums question please.

          • prolifemama

            As I’ve explained to Ella Warnock above, I am attempting, after a two-week absence due to personal circumstances, to reply to Plum Dumpling’s question about criminalizing abortion, but the moderator has not let my post pass. I began my last post with a plea to the RHRC moderator, asking them to please post my reply, as it’s part of an ongoing conversation between PD and myself.
            I guess we’ll see if it appears.

          • JamieHaman

            Your posts are showing now. Btw, don’t refresh the page after posting, most of my comments vanish then too.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Why don’t try re-posting it as a whole new post, with the first and last lines changed?

          • purrtriarchy

            Try reposting but change the words around. Your post might be getting blocked as a dupe.

            And you can message RHRC mods on Facebook for assistance.

          • prolifemama

            Hey, purr — “dupe” as in duplicate, or fraud? I did edit the current version a bit, but it is rather long. I suspect that’s why it went into moderation, as it wouldn’t be a quick check as compared to others.

          • purrtriarchy

            Message RHRC on facebook with a link to your post. Thats what I had to do the first time I posted here and it didn’t seem to go through.

            Just post again…then copy the comment link, and show them.

          • prolifemama

            I’m supposing I need a Facebook account to carry out your suggestion…I don’t have, and really would rather not have one.
            Any other idea of how this could be accomplished? Should I perhaps change my posting name, or send the reply incrementally?

          • purrtriarchy

            I’ll ask for you. I use a fake FB account btw:P I refuse to surrender my privacy.

            Just try to make your post again, give me the link if you can, and I will message them for you.

            You can also try this:

            http://rhrealitycheck.org/contact-us/

          • prolifemama

            Just checked for my re-post, and it no longer appears as awaiting moderation. It’s nowhere at all. Sigh.

          • Shan

            I seem to recall that happening to me the first few times I posted (and re-posted) stand-alone comments, i.e., not replies to another poster. And I’m about as pro-choice (from a legal standpoint) as it gets.

          • prolifemama

            Still no comments from prolifemama.

          • lady_black

            Oh yeah? What do you call what I’m replying to?

          • prolifemama

            Sorry for the lag between posts. I’m referring to my original post, commenting on this article about House Republicans. I was asked to re-post it, I did so, and still nothing appeared. These back-and-forths are all that show up. As soon as I get back to my own computer where my comments are stored as documents, I’ll reply to purrtriarchy with my original comments.

          • prolifemama

            I also submitted comments to the article entitled Oklahoma Follows Texas’ Lead With Law to Limit Abortion Access. Same outcome – no comment posted. I’d appreciate being able to post that one as well.
            And please know I am sincere in my desire to field opposing comments. I will not name-call or abuse anyone with differing viewpoints. Thanks again for listening.

          • purrtriarchy

            Post your comments to me right now and see if they go through. Even if they go to moderation I will still be able to see them.

          • prolifemama

            sorry, purr… as I mentioned, I care for my elderly mother, and cannot always accurately predict when I’ll get back to the computer.
            Additionally, I’m not at my own laptop, and that’s where I’ve stored my replies as documents. As soon as I’m able, I’ll re-send my original comments as a reply to you.

          • prolifemama

            I have just submitted my original response to this article on House Republicans’ blockage of incest, etc., and it is awaiting moderation. It is June 9, 2014, at 2:38am EST. I look forward to intelligent, non-antagonistic questions from RH’s readership, and subsequent discussion.

          • Suba gunawardana

            I had the same problem when I first started posting on RHRC. It had to do with validating your email address.

            Anyway looks like your issue is resolved as your comments are visible.

          • lady_black

            Links get screened out. Apparently only certain people can post links, and I’m not one of them. If that’s the case, alter your links or post without them. I do not believe you cannot post here, as I wouldn’t be answering your post if that were true.

          • prolifemama

            No links. Never had any. And though these posts are visible, my initial one, which I did repost as a reply to purrtriarchy, has yet to appear. Kind of wondering if I’m being taken for a little ride here…

          • fiona64

            Did you have links? If so, and if you are a new poster, you are automatically sent to moderation.

    • P. McCoy

      Catholic Answers Forums is exactly the same- must be part of the hive mind or ooops you’re a*s out!

      • prolifemama

        Hey, P. McCoy – thanks for the thumbs-up on my response regarding criminalization of abortion. If you truly thought my post was a good one, then I’m a bit mystified by your comment re Catholic Answers’ insistence on the hive mindset for their posters – my thoughts re illegalizing abortion are quite Catholic, yet you approve of them…

        What wouldn’t Cath. Ans. let YOU say?

        • P. McCoy

          That thumbs up was in error and I apologise to.my fellow pro choicers. Catholic Answers would not let one advocate for abortion, contraception except for NFP which is ineffective for menstrually irregular women.

          • prolifemama

            I don’t know, P. … I’ve seen some pretty lively debates between prolifers and prochoicers on Catholic Answers. If verbal abuse and obscenity are avoided, they’re usually pretty open to letting posters have their say, as it makes for good, honest discussions.

            Again, do you have a personal beef with CA over a specific incident involving yourself?

          • P. McCoy

            I have never been part of that forum except to write to a mod personally, but simply reading the house rules would indicate to me that dissent without profanity of course, on the above issues would not be tolerated because the point of CAF is to proselytize. Here we basically want to defend the rights to have contraception and abortion if needed. For those who are against it they are encouraged not to have one.

    • fiona64

      Hmm. Sounds a lot like LieSiteNews … where the fastest way to be banned is to show up with links, science, and sources that prove Calvin Freakburger wrong.

  • Suba gunawardana

    Instead of having “exceptions” its high time federal funds went for all abortions.

    Every dollar that goes towards abortion, is a thousand dollars saved from the care of an unwanted child.

    • purrtriarchy

      The morons over on Secular Pro life Perspectives are now arguing that infant and maternal mortality are only a thing because money is spent on abortions instead of on prenatal care. They used the example of Chile, where, apparently, once abortion was made illegal in all cases, maternal mortality ceased to be an issue because the gazillions of dollars formerly spent on dangerous abortions were now saving lives instead.

      Excuse me while I laugh myself to an early grave.

  • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

    Moderator please, it seems my posts are receiving microscopic attention. This is new. How have I erred to deserve such? If you need to keep the reply confidential, email plumstchili@gmail.com

    • purrtriarchy

      Prolifemama was also having problems…remember.

      And you can always contact them on fb

  • Jennifer Starr

    As well-meaning as it might be, a lot of people don’t like complete strangers attempting to insert themselves into their lives and their personal medical decisions, myself included,.And though I generally try to be polite and considerate, I would feel perfectly justified in telling said stranger to get lost.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      Ever meet a perfect stranger on the bus who just insists they must “pat your belly for luck?” Same deal. Intrusive in a creepy way.

  • purrtriarchy

    Your comments are visible.