Redefining rape

There's a new saying now among the cynical:

"If a woman is raped when no one is around, is she still raped?"

In 1976, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment which prohibits the use of federal funds in cases of abortions. At the moment, under Medicaid, abortions are covered by federal funds in cases of rape, incest, or if the woman's life is endangered. So the debate at the present is the "definition" of rape and how it impacts the use of these funds.

First and foremost, what the public needs to know (and this needs to be reiterated) is the Hyde Amendment forbids federally funded abortions (except in special cases like the ones mentioned above). This means that the government is not footing the bill by giving out abortions like popsicles from an ice cream truck. Much like any amendment, there are restrictions - such as a definition of rape.

 Why is this issue arising? The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion" aims to "redefine" rape ("forcible" rape vs. "non-forcible" such as statutory rape and incest). In fact, its aim is to eliminate ANY federal funding to cover abortions, even in cases of "non-forcible" rape. So how does this bill promote any sort of woman's right?

It doesn't.

What it does do is take away a woman's right, her voice, her ability to overcome a trauma. The definition of rape is this: if a man forces himself on a woman by shoving his penis inside her vagina without consent, it is rape. If a woman is raped and wants an abortion, she should be able to have one without having to answer questions about the validity of her experience. That is insulting. If a woman becomes pregnant and wants to terminate her pregnancy, she should be able to exercise her Constitutional right. The Speaker Boehner isn't focusing on the real issues here. Furthermore, no one is "pro-abortion" - this is why activists are referred to as "pro-choice."

Rape is a horrific, life altering event. As such, "pro-lifers" are not necessarily pro-life if they are willing to dimish the quality of life for rape victims.