# Republicans want to redefine rape.



## synrgy (Jan 28, 2011)

Today, I am forced to play the partisan role. This is nothing short of disgusting, despicable, and disheartening.

The House GOP&#039;s Plan to Redefine Rape | Mother Jones

Here's what I fully expect to happen: The debate will be completely framed around "ZOMG, BABY KILLERS", meanwhile everyone is going to completely gloss over the facts that this proposal aims to redefine what constitutes as rape under law.



These are YOUR reps, or at the very least, they're not MINE. I sure as hell didn't vote for them, and I'm angry at YOU if you've supported or continue to support these representative who believe that forced sex with: Women over the age of 18, women with limited mental capacity, or women who have been drugged -- just as a few examples -- should not legally qualify as rape.

I hope you're proud of your elected representatives. You've managed to turn our Nation's Capital into Mos Eisley. "A wretched hive of scum and villainy."

If you feel as strongly as I do about this issue, I urge you to contact your reps and tell them in no uncertain terms that you will not stand for this.

I would respectfully request that any mods watching this thread delete any posts that bring up the abortion debate. That is NOT what this is about, and I won't participate in that discussion. This is about what does and does not constitute rape under law. Period.

For the record, I have looked at several other sources (I know this one doesn't have the best reputation), and they're all reporting the same information. This indeed appears to be legitimate, but I'd really love it if someone could prove that it isn't.

*edit* This, effectively, is protection for rapists under the guise of abortion legislation.


----------



## Variant (Jan 28, 2011)

So it says several places in the Bible that you can kill your children for a variety of things (not to mention sell them into slavery) and it's cool with the God duder, but abortion is not. Is abortion even mentioned in the Bible? Fuck retard logic. That's all.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jan 28, 2011)

What the fuck is wrong the the GOP?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jan 28, 2011)

So seeing as we are avoiding the abortion debate, another reason for this is for cutting corners in terms of government spending right? That's what it looks like to me.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 28, 2011)

Since when has the government paid for any abortions? Seems kinda weird to me... 

Anyways Redefining Rape isn't the answer. I also highly doubt anything will come of this. Seems for for the shock factor.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jan 28, 2011)

Jesus never said anything about abortion, yet these wackjob assholes want to cram their morality down my throat, all while railing against "Big Government".
This reminds me of the last years election, when I was harassed at the voting center by right to life Wackos, Who threatened me for voting the way I did.
It REALLY grinds my gears.


----------



## Variant (Jan 28, 2011)

^


Both parties are chock full of logic contradictions and frankly I'm 1000% disfranchised at this point.


----------



## synrgy (Jan 28, 2011)

Variant said:


> ^
> 
> 
> Both parties are chock full of logic contradictions and frankly I'm 1000% disfranchised at this point.



I won't disagree with that by any stretch.

However, the whole whacko fundamentalist thing really does seem to be more or less restricted to one side of the aisle. I don't think that's me being obtuse any more. I think it's just the way things are.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Jan 28, 2011)

all i have to say is, "That's fucked up"


----------



## synrgy (Jan 28, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> So seeing as we are avoiding the abortion debate, another reason for this is for cutting corners in terms of government spending right? That's what it looks like to me.



There's no acceptable reason to tell me that forced sex with a woman over 18 can't be constituted as a rape. There's NO logic in that.

And again, this is why I'm so pissed off. Everyone wants to keep making it about abortion (that's where cost cutting may or may not occur) but that has nothing to do with it!!

This is protection for rapists. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 28, 2011)

It seems as though NAMBLA has infiltrated the GOP.


----------



## pink freud (Jan 28, 2011)

Although it is a bit alarming, the article provides a point:

It is possible that the GOP doesn't want to redefine rape, but rather the author of this bill is simply an idealistic twat who doesn't know that hyperbole shouldn't exist in legalese.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jan 28, 2011)

pink freud said:


> Although it is a bit alarming, the article provides a point:
> 
> It is possible that the GOP doesn't want to redefine rape, but rather the author of this bill is simply an idealistic twat who doesn't know that hyperbole shouldn't exist in legalese.



Even if that is the case, The end result is the same.


----------



## synrgy (Jan 28, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> Even if that is the case, The end result is the same.



Bingo.

And the problem, as I see it, is that this will get plenty of support from the fundamentalist types.


----------



## pink freud (Jan 28, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> Even if that is the case, The end result is the same.



True true.


----------



## Mordacain (Jan 28, 2011)

synrgy said:


> I won't disagree with that by any stretch.
> 
> However, the whole whacko fundamentalist thing really does seem to be more or less restricted to one side of the aisle. I don't think that's me being obtuse any more. I think it's just the way things are.



Sadly I must agree with you. 

I'm fairly conservative on a lot of issues, but the idea of actively supporting these fundamentalist douchebags that appear to seek to turn the USA into a state-supported Theocracy makes me sick. I can't believe that the majority of Republicans are these fundamentalist assholes, but the fact they can't see (or choose to gloss over) what this part of their party is doing is just unconscionable to me.


----------



## synrgy (Jan 28, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> Sadly I must agree with you.
> 
> I'm fairly conservative on a lot of issues, but the idea of actively supporting these fundamentalist douchebags that appear to seek to turn the USA into a state-supported Theocracy makes me sick. I can't believe that the majority of Republicans are these fundamentalist assholes, but the fact they can't see (or choose to gloss over) what this part of their party is doing is just unconscionable to me.



For the record, I do completely understand and readily admit that there are many conservatives out there doing good, honorable work. It's simply that I never see the theocratic/fundamentalist legislation proposals coming from the Left.

That's not to say that plenty of OTHER douchebaggery doesn't come from the Left. Most certainly it does.


----------



## Manticore (Jan 28, 2011)

this whole bit of propaganda is entirely about abortion
which of course it means it's liberal propaganda
so fuck that shit
who cares
cause there is nothing like making your self feel better for your crappy life and stupid decisions than taking it out on someone who can't defend them selves.
well on second thought perhaps your offspring should be eradicated.
check that
I'm on your side


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jan 28, 2011)

Manticore said:


> this whole bit of propaganda is entirely about abortion
> which of course it means it's liberal propaganda
> so fuck that shit
> who cares
> ...



Coherent sentences, How do they work.


----------



## Manticore (Jan 28, 2011)

i could explain it to you but that would take forever


----------



## Chickenhawk (Jan 28, 2011)

EDIT:

nevermind, it'll piss somebody off.


----------



## Daemoniac (Jan 28, 2011)

Wow... I am honestly shocked (but probably shouldn't be) at the callousness of that bill... Fucking disgusting


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jan 28, 2011)

Infinity Complex said:


> EDIT:
> 
> nevermind, it'll piss somebody off.



Id like to hear it.  You always have something intelligent to add.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Jan 28, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> Id like to hear it.  You always have something intelligent to add.



*sigh*

If you're getting your 'news' from Mother Jones, you _need_ to add a few other sources to it, to balance the bias against the truth.

In this case, there's three sides: Mother Jones, Fox News, and the truth. That article was biased, and had a few outright lies, just like most 'news' sources.

I'm not going to get into my view on this subject, but I strongly recommend everybody to read about this in as many different places as possible, and do so with an open mind. When you're finished reading, think about it for a while, and the truth will float to the top.

I feel everybody should do that for any political news, anyways. 


That's basically what I was going to say, but worded quite a bit better.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jan 28, 2011)

Infinity Complex said:


> *sigh*
> 
> If you're getting your 'news' from Mother Jones, you _need_ to add a few other sources to it, to balance the bias against the truth.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mordacain (Jan 28, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> Coherent sentences, How do they work.



Must be like magnets 

And just to address the afore-mentioned liberal propaganda nonsense: this bill is in the house now. You can read through the details of it here: 

Text of H.R.3 as Introduced in House: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

Specifically this section of the bill:

"SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--

(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or

(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

Its fairly obvious where the problem is here...

if its not obvious to you, then let me break it down for you. Taken as a whole, the text there implies that only forcible rape is technically rape in the context of government funding for abortions. However, if this were to pass into law in its current form this would serve as a definition of rape legally speaking. Any lawyer would then be able to reference this bill whenever a women is drugged and attempts to press charges for rape against her assailant.

I'm not trying to insult anyone's intelligence, but this apparently needed some clarification.


----------



## groph (Jan 28, 2011)

lol, John Boehner


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jan 28, 2011)

groph said:


> lol, John Boehner


----------



## highlordmugfug (Jan 28, 2011)

groph said:


> lol, John Boehner


My name is Mr. Boehner, and today I'd like to talk to you about a topic very near and dear to my heart.
Rape.


----------



## Manticore (Jan 28, 2011)

as an alternative to that ball cutter 
nance pelosi 
boehner is fine with me


----------



## Mordacain (Jan 28, 2011)

Manticore said:


> as an alternative to that ball cutter
> nance pelosi
> boehner is fine with me



The intent of my posts were never about one side vs another. Those two in particular piss me off equally as they are extremists.

Each side is inherently stupid and has polarized people on individual issues into aligning themselves into separate camps. The majority of people in this country I'm sure (while having some different viewpoints) are not extremists and can meet somewhere in the middle. The problem seems to be that the vast majority of our elected officials are extremists and again, polarize people to keep this from happening.

This bill is one of those where an extremist viewpoint is presented and I'm hopeful that general outcry will at least cause that section to be amended.


----------



## Miek (Jan 28, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> The intent of my posts were never about one side vs another. Those two in particular piss me off equally as they are extremists.
> 
> Each side is inherently stupid and has polarized people on individual issues into aligning themselves into separate camps. The majority of people in this country I'm sure (while having some different viewpoints) are not extremists and can meet somewhere in the middle. The problem seems to be that the vast majority of our elected officials are extremists and again, polarize people to keep this from happening.
> 
> This bill is one of those where an extremist viewpoint is presented and I'm hopeful that general outcry will at least cause that section to be amended.


The truth is not always in the middle. And I hope you aren't conflating democrats with the extreme left - I would argue that they are only just slightly less right than the GOP.
In any case, anyone who believes in such a thing as a "liberal agenda (especially if you believe that 'liberal' is a slur)" is quite silly, and likely believes the homosexual agenda involves spreading AIDS throughout the population and turning our citizens gay. 
I'm not accusing you of thinking any of that, I'm just...stunned that the phrase "liberal agenda" can be used unironically.


----------



## Mordacain (Jan 28, 2011)

Miek said:


> The truth is not always in the middle. And I hope you aren't conflating democrats with the extreme left - I would argue that they are only just slightly less right than the GOP.
> In any case, anyone who believes in such a thing as a "liberal agenda (especially if you believe that 'liberal' is a slur)" is quite silly, and likely believes the homosexual agenda involves spreading AIDS throughout the population and turning our citizens gay.
> I'm not accusing you of thinking any of that, I'm just...stunned that the phrase "liberal agenda" can be used unironically.



Personally I'm not confusing the two at all. The extremists in the GOP are an actual threat in a political sense. Nancy Pelosi is merely an annoying mouthpiece that acts as gasoline does to a fire that would soon burn out. They are completely incomparable.

I don't believe in a liberal agenda, while I do in the fundamentalist Christian agenda. I could sit here and rag on Michele Bachmann all day long and it wouldn't really further the discussion concerning this bill. I was merely trying to keep the thread from derailing to pointless namecalling of some of the more recognizable twats on both sides of the political grudgematch.


----------



## Miek (Jan 28, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> Personally I'm not confusing the two at all. The extremists in the GOP are an actual threat in a political sense. Nancy Pelosi is merely an annoying mouthpiece that acts as gasoline does to a fire that would soon burn out. They are completely incomparable.
> 
> I don't believe in a liberal agenda, while I do in the fundamentalist Christian agenda. I could sit here and rag on Michele Bachmann all day long and it wouldn't really further the discussion concerning this bill. I was merely trying to keep the thread from derailing to pointless namecalling of some of the more recognizable twats on both sides of the political grudgematch.



Again, I didn't want to accuse you of anything - we're in total 100% agreement.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Jan 28, 2011)

Manticore said:


> as an alternative to that ball cutter
> nance pelosi
> boehner is fine with me


Punctuate your sentences for fucks sake. And try to actually make sense or have something to contribute or convey when you post.


----------



## grim505 (Jan 28, 2011)

so wait...if i put a couple of rufis in some republican senators hot wifes drink and slide my penis shaped ltd headstock(without the tuner cmon im no monster) into her vagina...its not rape? SWEET!!! im gonna get me some poontang!

god i hope ppl know im being sarcastic...


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 29, 2011)

highlordmugfug said:


> Punctuate your sentences for fucks sake. And try to actually make sense or have something to contribute or convey when you post.


 
It seems like
He's either trying to be poetic
Or making dramatic pauses
Like Horatio Caine


----------



## Explorer (Jan 29, 2011)

Thank goodness! e.e. cummings might now be motivated to pick up a copy of Strunk and White's Elements of Style! *laugh* 

I was on the fence about complaining, but just noticed that e.e. already got banned. Aren't there dedicated forums for those who can't even express a complete thought? *laugh*

----

It's weird how there are two ideas which are very similar, but which these people refuse to recognize as such:

Federal redefinition of marriage of any sort would force states to accept that definition.

Federal redefinition of rape of any sort would force states to accept that definition. 

Which means to that make this work, they'll have to pass some sort of federal "Defense of Rape Act," in order to protect their religious views. 

???

Profit!


----------



## Varcolac (Jan 29, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> It seems like
> He's either trying to be poetic
> Or making dramatic pauses
> Like Horatio Caine





> Manticore
> Banned



Looks like his latest pause...

won't be so dramatic.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Jan 29, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> Must be like magnets
> 
> And just to address the afore-mentioned liberal propaganda nonsense: this bill is in the house now. You can read through the details of it here:
> 
> ...



im reading it too. i see some really bad wording in here, but nothing that would contest the criminality of rape at all. (knowing how i know lawyers) the procedure for prosecuting rapists would remain largely the same simply because they can use previous court cases to convict. but i agree, this is hardly about rape itself (which needs better bill language) but rather federal funding of abortion. however i expect these two posts to be largely ignored in favor of partisan venting


----------



## ittoa666 (Jan 29, 2011)

Variant said:


> ^
> 
> 
> Both parties are chock full of logic contradictions and frankly I'm 1000% disfranchised at this point.



 It's almost like no matter who you vote for, someone is going to be screaming at you for being wrong. Politics don't sit well with me whatsoever.


----------



## S-O (Jan 29, 2011)

Well, for clarity, as I read it, the bill is not redefining rape. but is limiting the scenarios for which federally paid abortions are allowed.

Which, while not redefining, is something a bit more fucked up, subjecting rape to gradation, that one form is worse than another.

Though, this is subjectively true, due to personal opinions one may have on each scenario, but to separate them like this is analogous to segregation.

There are few cases of black and white in the world, but rape is a hell of a topic to start splitting hairs over, perhaps DC is bored. I have no experience in dealing with rape victims, and I do not know of any immediate friends who have been through this either, but through empathy, I feel that the trauma of the rape is not over once the rapist has left, and the denial of abortion is a further slap in the face. 

Any further in this post would pull of abortion discussions, so I'll end here


----------



## Daemoniac (Jan 29, 2011)

^ Like has been said before though, while not "intentionally" redefining rape in the legal sense, what this does, in the quest to lower abortion rates/stop government spending/disrupt the "liberal agenda"/think of the children, is give lawyers a documented legal precedent to reference in actual rape trials.

Hell, even if you don't want to go that far and it's starting to sound a bit too much like a conspiracy theory, what in the first place is wrong with allowing anyone who has been raped (rape being 100% unwanted by the victim) and then become pregnant _through no fault of their own_ to terminate a pregnancy in the first two trimesters to prevent emotional stress on them, to prevent potential psychological damage for them, their unwanted child, their family and friends etc.. etc.. 

The whole idea is just fucking bogus.


----------



## troyguitar (Jan 30, 2011)

Isn't rape forcible by definition? The phrase seems redundant rather than some attempt to grade rape.


----------



## Daemoniac (Jan 30, 2011)

^ No.

Rape does not necessarily involve force. Think of people who are drugged, people who have mental disorders, cases of statutory rape, there are heaps of examples of non-violent (not "forcible") rape.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jan 30, 2011)

"If he was gentile, we won't pay"
" Do you have any proof of him putting a gun in your mouth? , we can't find any bruises or wounds, so we won't pay"
"We need more bastards, more unwanted kids so we can send them to wars. We won't pay for it"


----------



## troyguitar (Jan 30, 2011)

Demoniac said:


> ^ No.
> 
> Rape does not necessarily involve force. Think of people who are drugged, people who have mental disorders, cases of statutory rape, there are heaps of examples of non-violent (not "forcible") rape.



If it's not consensual, it's forced. The amount or type of force is irrelevant.


----------



## Mordacain (Jan 30, 2011)

troyguitar said:


> If it's not consensual, it's forced. The amount or type of force is irrelevant.



I wish this was the legal definition of rape...sadly I don't think there is one that is so cut and dry and prosecution of rape relies on legal precedent...which might explain partly why there are so few prosecutions of rape.


----------



## Daemoniac (Jan 30, 2011)

troyguitar said:


> If it's not consensual, it's forced. The amount or type of force is irrelevant.



Forced, not "forcible".

Sadly the difference in meaning between those two relatively similar seeming words is quite large, and while rape is always "forced," (ie: 1. Enforced or compulsory, 2. strained, unnatural or affected, 3. subjected to force, 4. required by circumstances (from Dictionary.com)), rape is *not* always "Forcible" (ie: 1. done or effected by force, 2. producing a powerful effect, 3. convincing as reasoning, 4. characterised by the use of force or violence).

Changing that one word really does change the entire vision of what is covered by this, and (to me at least) it really does seem like it's narrowing it down to violent rapes only.


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Jan 31, 2011)

Manticore said:


> as an alternative to that ball cutter
> nance pelosi
> boehner is fine with me



Is it your job to be not very good at all at things?


----------



## troyguitar (Jan 31, 2011)

Daemoniac said:


> Forced, not "forcible".
> 
> Sadly the difference in meaning between those two relatively similar seeming words is quite large, and while rape is always "forced," (ie: 1. Enforced or compulsory, 2. strained, unnatural or affected, 3. subjected to force, 4. required by circumstances (from Dictionary.com)), rape is *not* always "Forcible" (ie: 1. done or effected by force, 2. producing a powerful effect, 3. convincing as reasoning, 4. characterised by the use of force or violence).
> 
> Changing that one word really does change the entire vision of what is covered by this, and (to me at least) it really does seem like it's narrowing it down to violent rapes only.



So you're saying that using force (NOT ONLY PHYSICAL FORCE!) does not make an action forced? If it's forced, then force was used, hence it was forcible. They are synonymous. You're trying to read in some sort of distinction where forcible == violent, when the very definition you provided says characterized by violence OR force (which can be anything from physical force to blackmail to jedi mind tricks).


----------



## jymellis (Jan 31, 2011)




----------



## synrgy (Jan 31, 2011)

troyguitar said:


> So you're saying that using force (NOT ONLY PHYSICAL FORCE!) does not make an action forced? If it's forced, then force was used, hence it was forcible. They are synonymous. You're trying to read in some sort of distinction where forcible == violent, when the very definition you provided says characterized by violence OR force (which can be anything from physical force to blackmail to jedi mind tricks).



I don't think it's a matter of any one person's semantic insanity. The problem is 'legalese'. If I understand correctly, a court of law views 'force' and 'forcible' as NOT being synonymous.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 31, 2011)

Words which would seem to have broad definitions in normal conversation often have extremely narrow and specific definitions under the law, in the same way that words have very specific definitions in science, but a lot of laymen assume that they can mean all kinds of things (see any discussion where new-age believers start talking about quantum phenomena or vibration). 

That's why there is law school.


----------



## Daemoniac (Jan 31, 2011)

troyguitar said:


> So you're saying that using force (NOT ONLY PHYSICAL FORCE!) does not make an action forced? If it's forced, then force was used, hence it was forcible. They are synonymous. You're trying to read in some sort of distinction where forcible == violent, when the very definition you provided says characterized by violence OR force (which can be anything from physical force to blackmail to jedi mind tricks).



You'll notice how one definition (the one they're changing it to) involves the word "violence" and the old one does not. While in regular conversation they may be nearly synonymous, like was said above, the law is ALL about semantic nitpicking, especially in documents like this.

The fact that they even want to change it should tell you there's a different meaning that they're after...


----------



## Dark Aegis (Jan 31, 2011)

Customisbetter said:


> Since when has the government paid for any abortions? Seems kinda weird to me...
> 
> Anyways Redefining Rape isn't the answer. I also highly doubt anything will come of this. Seems for for the *shock factor*.



As in we are shocked at how stupid these people are.


----------



## troyguitar (Jan 31, 2011)

I still hold that if forcible == violent, then it would read violent. Otherwise they must include non-violent force.


----------



## Daemoniac (Jan 31, 2011)

Possibly, but legal wording is so nitpicky, I really do think that if they're changing the wording to forcible, then they're embracing a different meaning that "force" doesn't cover.

Maybe it's cynicism, but to me it just seems more likely.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 1, 2011)

There shouldn't be any surprise at what the goal is.

As Boehner said while introducing HR-3: &#8220;A ban on taxpayer funding of abortion is the will of the people and ought to be the law of the land. But current law &#8212; particularly as enforced by this administration &#8212; does not reflect the will of the people.&#8221;

The reason for redefining rape is to prevent any taxpayer funding of abortion, regardless of the reason for the pregnancy. 

And, of course, the reason for the delicate maneuvers is that most Americans would be horrified that the victim of non-consensual sex would be saddled with a pregnancy on top of it, especially if the person was so poor that they couldn't afford to end that rape-induced pregnancy on their own. 

So, it's just easier to try to redefine "rape" to exclude various types of non-consensual sex, even though most people would think of any form of non-consensual sex as "rape." 

And, to clarify, the reason rape charges are enforceable against people who have sex with 4-year-olds or the mentally retarded is that those people can't give adult consent. So, honestly, if one were to start picking away at the consent issue, one is definitely moving into NAMBLA and pedophile territory, much more so than any laws which allow two consenting adults to marry. 

Interesting, no?


----------



## Daemoniac (Feb 1, 2011)

Interesting? Disgusting


----------



## Miek (Feb 1, 2011)

Yeah, this is pretty revolting.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Feb 1, 2011)

Damn. I was hoping I'd be the one to bring this onto SS.org, but seeing as I found out through someone who isn't concerned about politics in the least, I should have guessed. 

MoveOn.org Political Action: Redefining Rape?

Here's the petition for those who would care to tell Congress to get their heads out of the pregnant vagina clouds and back to reality.

Wait, what?


----------



## wannabguitarist (Feb 1, 2011)

troyguitar said:


> If it's not consensual, it's forced. The amount or type of force is irrelevant.



 I don't see how this bill is "redefining" rape especially when a victim's lawyer could just bring up past cases (and the defendant's lawyer would have a helluva time convincing a jury that any sort of non-consensual sex isn't rape).

Does anyone commenting on this have any sort of actual legal experience that they could use to better explain this to us? I don't agree with the bill at all but I kinda feel like people are overreacting with the whole changing definition thing.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 1, 2011)

Probably the biggest public argument I remember was the definition of "sex" while Bill Clinton was being questioned under oath. He answered truthfully under the definition in that courtroom, and then there was all kinds of argument that he should be held to the normal definition of "sex," as opposed to the courtroom definition which had been explicitly defined.

And, of course, some filed an action to have him disbarred, based on the difference in definition, and their feeling that he should be held to the definition *not* being used that day.

I'm not an attorney, but if you watch any given run of "Law and Order," you'll get a feel for the difference in the actual laws and what people think those laws actually say. Believe me, changes in legal definitions can leave large effects in their wake.

To give a larger "gateway" example, a few states have parts of their constitution which disallow any discrimination in how the laws are enforced. That led to challenges which allowed gay marriage, as it was judged that laws against gay marriage represented the viewpoints of a certain religion.


----------



## Soubi7string (Feb 1, 2011)

ok ok ok so this is gonna make me sound like a dumbass but for some reason I can't grasp exactly what the bill is getting at for some reason.
I mean is it redefining rape? or is it redefining the conditions on which a person can get a free baby killing?


----------



## TemjinStrife (Feb 1, 2011)

Take all of this with a grain of salt, as I am not knowledgeable in this area of law, and I am only a first-year law student so I am only just beginning to understand what I do not know 



Soubi7string said:


> ok ok ok so this is gonna make me sound like a dumbass but for some reason I can't grasp exactly what the bill is getting at for some reason.
> I mean is it redefining rape? or is it redefining the conditions on which a person can get a free baby killing?



Both. It is redefining what constitutes "rape" for when the government is willing to pay for an abortion.



wannabguitarist said:


> I don't see how this bill is "redefining" rape especially when a victim's lawyer could just bring up past cases (and the defendant's lawyer would have a helluva time convincing a jury that any sort of non-consensual sex isn't rape).
> 
> Does anyone commenting on this have any sort of actual legal experience that they could use to better explain this to us? I don't agree with the bill at all but I kinda feel like people are overreacting with the whole changing definition thing.



First of all, case law and past precedent are generally overturned by a statutory change. Statutes > Cases. That's how a Supreme Court decision can be overturned by the legislative branch; balance of power and all that.

In terms of the definition of "forcible," my law dictionary only lists "force" as "power, violence, or pressure directed at a person or thing." Subsequent definitions of terms like "forcible entry," "constructive force," and "actual force" seem to indicate it applies to both threats of violence and actual violence. There is no separate entry for "force" and "forcible;" they fall under the same heading, so I'm guessing they have the same definitions.

*Things to think about:* What about cases in which someone gets a woman drunk or drugged and then has sex with her? Certainly, she cannot legally consent while intoxicated. Right now, this is defined as rape, and a woman can get government funding for an abortion. This would change under this law. Other possibilities include having sex with a woman while she is unconscious or asleep, or otherwise unable to give consent (or lack thereof.)

*My opinion:* I personally am against this legislation. The amount of money they stand to "save" through this bill is a miniscule drop in the bucket compared to other aspects of governmental spending, and it appears to me to be a thinly-disguised attempt to legislatively force the morality of a minority on a majority. It stands to harm disadvantaged and lower-income women with limited access to health insurance and health care more than more affluent women who have access to such niceties.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 1, 2011)

The bill is aimed at redefining rape, in order to cut down on the circumstances in which someone who got pregnant from non-consensual sex can have an abortion with federal help. 

It's an easier sell politically to say that a particular form of non-consensual sex isn't rape and therefore shouldn't be covered, than to say that a woman who got pregnant through being raped shouldn't be able to get help.

---- 

Edit: Ninja'd by Temjin!

However, TemjinStrife does bring up the fact that quite a few conservatives are rallying around the supposed financial benefits, claiming it costs more to terminate a pregnancy caused by rape than any social services incurred by the brat as it grows up. 

And, of course, as Boehner himself has copped to wanting to stop abortion, it doesn't take a genius to know that any talk of money is just a thin veneer on what is really the target of the legislation.


----------



## troyguitar (Feb 2, 2011)

I still don't see how this is a definition of rape. Even if one is to agree that it recognizes some gradation of rape, it does NOT say that NOT forcible == NOT rape. Only that an abortion as a result of one would not be covered. That is indeed retarded, but it in no way implies that the "non-forcible" rapist is not a rapist and thus cannot be prosecuted.


----------



## Cheesebuiscut (Feb 2, 2011)

Variant said:


> So it says several places in the Bible that you can kill your children for a variety of things (not to mention sell them into slavery) and it's cool with the God duder,



*sorry for the OT*

Do you know where it says that? Not hounding you I'm genuinely curious and would like to read it for myself xD


----------



## Varcolac (Feb 2, 2011)

The ones that immediately spring to my mind would be Lot's daughters. He would've been more than happy to give them to the men-folk of Sodom for raping, to prevent said sodomites from having their way with some angels. Genesis 19. 

Then Sodom gets punished with fire for wanting it in the bum, but Lot gets off scot-free for offering his virgin daughters as carnal sacrifices. Then his daughters later drug and rape him so he can have grandkids. Bible be crazy.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Feb 2, 2011)

My cousin is a Defense Lawyer, so I'll try to get his opinion on this ASAP and post it.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Feb 2, 2011)

i have 2 questions: 

1) isn't this debate a little useless on the national level considering there already state laws on rape and those would come into play first before anything else? 

2) we live in a representative government, has anyone emailed the reps of this bill yet to change wording or to protect the current criminality of rape? if you disagree with it, you can email them, whether they're your reps or not. get enough people to do this and you'll see it changed. instead of pouring your concerns here, use your typing energy to email. i've helped mass email and phone call government officials before, it works


----------



## synrgy (Feb 2, 2011)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> 2) we live in a representative government, has anyone emailed the reps of this bill yet to change wording or to protect the current criminality of rape? if you disagree with it, you can email them, whether they're your reps or not. get enough people to do this and you'll see it changed. instead of pouring your concerns here, use your typing energy to email. i've helped mass email and phone call government officials before, it works



That's exactly what I suggested in the OP. I certainly wrote my local reps.

I posted this simply to raise awareness (and maybe vent a little). I think most bad legislation passes because it flies under the radar of the public. As such, when I see stuff come up that I feel strongly about, I share it with as many folks as I can.


----------

