Dictionary.com defines it as "the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse." And as it stands now, federal laws restricts the use of government funds to pay for abortions except for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. The new Congress, however, wants to change the definition of rape when it comes to Federal funding to only "forcible rape." (MotherJones.com)
"No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" is a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors. In the House of Representatives there are currently seventeen Republican women. Nowhere does it say whether any of these 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors are women. But according to Laurie Levenson, a former assistant US attorney and expert on criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, this bill would have dramatic effect on women.
Is it right to redefine the term to prevent funding for women who are compelled to have sexual intercourse that is not 'forcible'? That would limit rape funding in cases of statuatory rape, rapes of women with a limited capacity, or when drugs or alcohol are given to compel.
Have those 17 women thought about any of that?
No comments:
Post a Comment