.
News Alert
Monmouth County Man Sentenced To 40 Years For…

MANALAPAN CONGRESSMAN CHRIS SMITH'S VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND GIRLS - SMITH THINKS "NO" IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH WHEN IT COMES TO RAPE! TELL SMITH WHAT YOU THINK IN NOVEMBER.

SMITH VOTED AGAINST THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN'S ACT IN 2013 - HE IS ANTI WOMAN IN A DANGEROUS WAY - SMITH IS UP FOR RE-ELECTION IN NOVEMBER
SMITH VOTED AGAINST THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN'S ACT IN 2013 - HE IS ANTI WOMAN IN A DANGEROUS WAY - SMITH IS UP FOR RE-ELECTION IN NOVEMBER
Your Congressman Chris Smith attempts to redefine RAPE.  HIS DANGEROUS, RUTHLESS AND CRUEL ATTACK ON WOMEN AND GIRLS  

The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Drugged, raped, and pregnant? Too bad. Republicans are pushing to limit rape and incest cases eligible for government abortion funding.

—By Nick Baumann

| Fri Jan. 28, 2011 4:00 AM GMT1320

 

Flickr/Steve Rhodes (Creative Commons).

[Editor's Note: On Thursday, House Republicans, facing an onslaught of outside pressure, decided to remove the controversial "forcible rape" provision from their "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." The original language from the Hyde Amendment—which bans federal funding for abortions through Medicaid except in cases of rape, incest, or to save a mother's life—will replace the "forcible" provision, said a spokesman for Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), who introduced the bill. The move comes in response to heavy criticism in recent days from outside advocacy groups including MoveOn.org and Emily's List and the growing #dearjohn campaign, aimed at House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), that opposed the abortion funding bill. Read more about about the House GOP's backtracking here. Nick Baumann's original story on the GOP's attempts to redefine rape is below.]

Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.

Read more: Todd Akin, Paul Ryan, and the GOP's latest push to redefine rape.

For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. 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. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense. 

There used to be a quasi-truce between the pro- and anti-abortion rights forces on the issue of federal funding for abortion. Since 1976, federal law has prohibited the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman. But since last year, the anti-abortion side has become far more aggressive in challenging this compromise. They have been pushing to outlaw tax deductions for insurance plans that cover abortion, even if the abortion coverage is never used. The Smith bill represents a frontal attack on these long-standing exceptions.

"This bill takes us backwards to a time when just saying no wasn't enough to qualify as rape."

"This bill takes us back to a time when just saying 'no' wasn't enough to qualify as rape," says Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser to the National Women's Law Center. Laurie Levenson, a former assistant US attorney and expert on criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, notes that the new bill's authors are "using language that's not particularly clear, and some people are going to lose protection." Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes. "There are a lot of aspects of rape that are not included," Levenson says. 

As for the incest exception, the bill would only allow federally funded abortions if the woman is under 18.

The bill hasn't been carefully constructed, Levenson notes. The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill's authors don't offer their own definition. In some states, there is no legal definition of "forcible rape," making it unclear whether any abortions would be covered by the rape exemption in those jurisdictions. 

The main abortion-rights groups despise the Smith bill as a whole, but they are particularly outraged by its rape provisions. Tait Sye, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, calls the proposed changes "unacceptable." Donna Crane, the policy director of NARAL Pro-Choice America, says that making the "already narrow exceptions for public funding of abortion care for rape and incest survivors even more restrictive" is "unbelievably cruel and heartless."

"This bill goes far beyond current law," says Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), a co-chair of the congressional pro-choice caucus. The "re-definition" of the rape exception "is only one element" of an "extreme" bill, she adds, citing other provisions in the law that pro-abortion rights groups believe would lead to the end of private health insurance coverage for abortion

"Somebody needs to look closely at this," Levenson says. "This is a bill that could have a dramatic effect on women, and language is important. It sure sounds like somebody didn't want [the exception to cover] all the different types of rape that are recognized under the law."

Fred Stone March 19, 2014 at 06:10 PM
let smith go represent some backwater district in frikkin west virginia, where they think that rape is a fundamental constitutional right of white males. get him out of central NJ as our congressman. every day he represents us is a huge embarrassment to civilized new jerseyans.
District 4 Coalition for Change March 20, 2014 at 08:47 AM
Fred, Smith's legislation is very dangerous. It waters down the definition of rape and will make it harder to prove rape. As it is most rapes are not reported and this "Forcible Rape" legislation will empower rapists! He has gone too far. Smith's ambition is to overturn ALL abortion even in the case where the mother is at risk. Look at the link below. Smith is so obsessed with Roe v Wade he spent our tax dollars and went to Africa to make sure that their ban on abortion included blocking abortion when the mother was at risk. There was a huge backlash here when he tried to pass that legislation so he went to a place where the women are weak and forced his beliefs there. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE IN DISRICT 4 KNOW ABOUT SMITH. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/chris-smith-kenya-abortion-constitution
Fred Stone March 20, 2014 at 11:08 AM
just tell me where to send a check to get him defeated. he is making us a laughing stock. how can he be our congressman when people from all parts of the political spectrum should be able to agree that the government should keep out of our bedrooms and that women in a civilized state like NJ who decide to terminate a pregnancy should be able to do so safely?
Sidney Alweis March 21, 2014 at 05:35 PM
Congressman Smith represents what is most reprehensible of our elected officials.His views on woman and their reproductive decisions are as vile as his stand on reasonable gun control.Perhaps its time for him to go back "officially" to Virginia where he really lives.
Fred Stone March 21, 2014 at 10:04 PM
well said, sir!

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »