'Forcible Rape' Language Remains In Bill To Restrict Abortion Funding

WASHINGTON -- After significant public blowback, House Republicans last week promised to drop a controversial provision in their high-priority No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act that would redefine rape. But almost a week later, that language is still in the bill.

Last week, a spokesman for the bill's principal sponsor, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), said, "The word forcible will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment." The Hyde Amendment bans taxpayer dollars from being used for abortions, except in cases of incest and rape -- not just "forcible rape," as the Smith bill, H.R. 3, would have it.

But as The New York Times first noted on Wednesday, the "forcible rape" language remains. Ilan Kayatsky, a spokesman for New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the top-ranking Democrat on the House judiciary subcommittee focusing on constitutional issues, told The Huffington Post that while Nadler hopes the bill will soon be changed, they have been treating it as it's written.

"So the fact remains: more than 150 Republicans lent their name to this bill, as drafted, which includes the forcible-rape provision," the Nadler spokesman said. Several conservative Democrats also signed on as cosponsors of Smith's bill.

Smith's spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.

There are several ways to change the language in legislation. It could be amended during the committee markup process, which has not yet been scheduled for H.R. 3. The bill could also be reintroduced, but a congressional staffer pointed out that the legislation's high-priority status likely inclines House leaders to keep the bill number already assigned, rather than renumbering it with a fresh introduction.

Another piece of legislation restricting abortion access, H.R. 358, also initially included the forcible-rape language, but Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) has reintroduced that bill without it. Now, however, it includes a provision that would allow hospitals to refuse to perform an abortion on a woman, even if that refusal threatens her life.

At a hearing by the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution on Tuesday, Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops defended the forcible-rape language. "The recent debate about forcible rape was simply an effort on the part of the sponsors to prevent the opening of a very broad loophole for federally-funded abortions for any teenager," he said.

Even if the language is dropped, abortion-rights advocates warn that H.R. 3 would still be a significant step backwards for women's rights. In a press conference on Tuesday, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said that the legislation shows a "heinous disregard for the health and well-being of women in America" and would be "a tax on all women who want access to a full range of reproductive health care."

Smith's legislation is essentially guaranteed to raise the individual cost of an abortion. It would discourage employers from offering health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage, because that would cost them the tax benefits they would normally receive for offering their employees health care. It would also strike medical tax deductions for individuals who pay for abortions with their own money.

Comments

[BBgirl8912]

04:19 AM on 03/17/2011

Sunday School 101...God is #1, spouse #2, children #3. If a woman is going to die from a pregnancy, then it is the duty of her husband to ensure that she receives an abortion to save her life. You only get one spouse. It makes me so mad that these people call themselves Christians. Any good man, Christian or not, should do everything in his power to save his spouse, though it becomes very difficult to do when it is illegal according to the government. Also, in Italy, a country where 97% of the population is Roman Catholic, abortion is legal. Maybe it is time I move back to my fiance's home country?

[Sentience]

07:15 PM on 03/15/2011

Republicans: The He-Man Women Haters Club

Remember this at the polls ladies, and respond in kind

[Annie Sheahan]

12:04 AM on 02/27/2011

In 1776, Abigail Adams wrote to her husband John Adams at the Second Continental Congress while it was debating whether to declare American Independence. Here is what she said: "If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation." The more things change...how unfortunate we are to have some women representing us only to find out they are really abandoning us. I believe Ms. Adams must be turning over in her grave.

[mnnyer]

10:07 AM on 02/26/2011

It's especially aggravating when women who had abortions themselves claim they now regret it and want to deny other women the option of making their own choice. Please, save us from ourselves! These hypocrites are disgusting. My body, my choice. Do what you want with your own,but mine is mine.

[Annie Sheahan]

11:26 PM on 02/26/2011

Yes indeed! I am right there with you. Also, a cautionary question; what ever happened to the "separation of Church and State?" Just curious...

[avg american]

09:32 PM on 02/23/2011

"So the fact remains: more than 150 Republicans lent their name to this bill, as drafted, which includes the forcible-rape provision," the Nadler spokesman said. Several conservative Democrats also signed on as cosponsors of Smith's bill."

We have 20+ million people unemployed in this country, 2.2 million children living in poverty, a million homes scheduled for foreclosure, and over 5 million Americans fell off of the economic grid.

How did you provide JOBS with this bill?
How did you reduce the deficit with this bill?
Where are the JOBS?

[MeetJohnDoe]

05:56 PM on 02/23/2011

Disgusting GOP. Protecting a rapist's right to breed. Demanding government-forced childbirth.

Apparently forgot that in the 70's when people became able to practice choice, making every child a wanted child, the crime rate plummeted.

People who don't want to give birth should not be forced to do so.

[sems]

05:18 PM on 02/19/2011

Republicans are sounding & behaving like the Muslim Brotherhood. Their medieval attitude towards women speaks clearly of religious extremism.

[Sister Bluebird]

09:50 AM on 02/18/2011

This is dedicated to all those Pro-Zygoters out there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIN02yo6BwM&playnext=1&list=PLE46316692AEB6B41

[NAzizK]

02:41 PM on 02/16/2011

I heard a great report about HR 3 and the 'forcible rape' language on Democracy Now today, with an interview with the President of Planned Parenthood:

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/16/a_war_on_women_gop_bills

Very interesting.

[Annie Sheahan]

11:28 PM on 02/26/2011

Thank you for supplying that link, otherwise, I may have missed it. What an exceptional interview this was and it certainly got me involved. I have been an e-mailing fool since I heard this interview on February 16th. Again, thank you.

[flyby777]

11:00 PM on 02/13/2011

First of all, rape is rape. What do they want women to do? "Tell me ma'am, please rate your rape on a scale of 1 to 10". What next? "well...we don't consider it as rape if it is below 7. Sorry, maybe next time." It's sickening.

[Sister Bluebird]

11:14 PM on 02/13/2011

Excellent example Flyby777

[Rightbrainedleftwinged]

05:15 PM on 02/13/2011

I'm shocked that Chris Smith from a suburban district in NJ is behind this. If the eastern GOP reps start acting like those from the south and rural midwest, they will be targets in 2012. NJ, NH and upstate NY voters may like fiscal conservatives but telling women that they can't have control over there own bodies, that isn't going to be popular.

[LindaNoble]

12:04 PM on 02/19/2011

If you are a human being, you might be a target for a Republican!

[bipolarbears60]

04:18 AM on 02/12/2011

Not to put too fine a point on it but: who cares whether it says rape or forcible rape? Why? Well, if you have been raped (incest, statutory, forcible, whatever) under what conditions can you get an abortion under a gov't funded health care plan if you're poor and relying on subsidies? Are you going to have to prove rape before you can receive an abortion? Realistically, without cash on hand you can't get an abortion. I find this hair splitting meaningless. If you know something I don't, please explain.

[Sister Bluebird]

11:02 PM on 02/13/2011

Because what they are implying is that some "kinds" of rape are worse than others, and therefore should receive more fake sympathy from Gopers than those other "rapish" acts {to quote the daily show." They are suggesting that a woman given Rohynol who is subsequently sodomized, isn't truly a rape victim and not due the sympathy, or care of an *authentic rape victim. Or that if there are no bruises visible, then perhaps because the act was coerced, it was still akin to sex and not RAPE. It would affect the legal standing of not only court cases bearing on Abortion, but would also become a dangerous legal precedent that could be used to turn violent felonies into misdemeanors, and what would once be a registerred sex offender would just be some guy on the street who had to pay a fine, just before he does the same thing to your wife, your mother, your daughter, sister or even grandmother. But hey--its all just splitting hairs right?

[bipolarbears60]

02:25 PM on 02/14/2011

Thanks for the answer. My narrow comment related to low income folks having access. Your point is well taken. The legal implications you expose are dangerous.

[kyrose777]

11:25 AM on 02/11/2011

Is this some sick joke? A woman's right to vote will be next!

[Sister Bluebird]

11:03 PM on 02/13/2011

Its' getting there. I suggest if one hasn't already--to read the Handmaid's tale. It was a dystopic novel way ahead of it's time. The feminist version of George Orwell to be sure.

[kyrose777]

02:28 PM on 02/17/2011

thanks, I will read it.

[cheo]

02:23 AM on 02/11/2011

This is not about funding; it is a backdoor way of underminin­g the 13th amendment of the Constituti­on and nothing less than another assault on women. They can't overturn Roe V Wade so they are doing everything to deny access. Many women can't afford one. Those who can least afford to support more children are hardest hit.
With all the attacks on family planning clinics and providers, just finding a provider can be impossible.
In 1992 "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" ruled that each state had the right to regulate abortion. More and more barriers have been created and "Nationwid­­e, there are now fewer abortion providers in the U.S. than at any time since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 -- 87 percent of U.S. counties don't have one." (PBS, Frontline, 2005).
The Religious Right. have fought EVERYTHING that would make abortions unnecessary. From family planning, sex education and HIV awareness in school to telling women that it is a sin to use contraceptives.
Women who don't want an abortion aren't forced to have one, yet the Right is doing everything it can to make other women be forced by law, or lack of access and funding, to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term
Redefining rape is more than reprehensible; but how about the hateful, heartless provision which allows a hospital which doesn't want to do abortions to deny one to a women who will die if she doesn't get one?

[Ronnie Avatar Dixon]

12:00 AM on 02/11/2011

This misogynistic, stone-aged, biblical war against women is horrific.