Tuesday, February 01, 2011

On the "redefining rape" story...

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice blogs are going bonkers over claims that Republicans are trying to "redefine rape" in the name of limiting abortion funding. Pro-Choicers are claiming it an attempt to force victims of rape to prolong their suffering. First, the relevant quote.

"This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible," Nick Baumann of Mother Jones wrote recently.

He continued, "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."

If the bill becomes law, parents of minors would also be banned from paying for pregnancy termination for their daughters with tax-exempt health savings accounts. Also, the cost of the private health insurance that covered the treatment would not be able to be deducted as a medical expense for tax purposes.
Second, a few Mod-Blog middle-of-the-road reality checks. Please note, I am ardently Pro-life, but am also a reasonable person.

1. This bill DOES NOT limit the RIGHT of women to get an abortion. It merely limits the ability of these women to have FEDERALLY-FUNDED abortions.

2. These limits would do LITTLE to stop the VAST majority of abortions, at the expense of the MOST controversial kinds of abortion cases. This is like trying to stem the tide of obesity in America by limiting Happy Meals for teenagers.

This bill is clearly overreaching by a newly-elected zealous House. It is time to put this one back on the shelf and examine ways to reduce the really horrible abortions happening out there - those done for no other reason than birth control by mature adults. And to ensure alternatives are easy and cheap to find - especially adoption.

1 comment:

shadowmom1 said...

The problem with the adoption option is that it causes nine months of inconvenience in this selfish culture.