I urge you to vote against HR 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. It includes statements which are so completely unacceptable to me, that I find it difficult to articulate all of them. I was very happy to see that you are not a co-sponsor of this, frankly, very cruel bill. This bill will, in essence, force women who do not meet some definition of "forcible rape" to bear the rapist's child. This, essentially, re-rapes these victims. This bill only allows for services if a rape victim is a victim of "forcible rape":
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.
How can the House define rape only as rape if it is "forcible" rape? If a woman is drugged so that she has no capacity to say no, is that not forcible? If a woman is so mentally incapacitated that she has no ability to understand that what is happening to her is wrong, is that not forcible? If a young girl is told she has to play a “game” with her dad's best friend or else she will be punished severely, is that not forcible?
There are other kinds of rape, Mr. Gallegly.
Legal statutes in many states as well as at the federal level also prohibit rapes which occur when a perpetrator engages in a sex act with an unwilling victim who is unconscious or who is intoxicated with alcohol or drugs to the point that their ability to appraise or control their conduct is substantially impaired. The Federal Criminal Code defines this type of rape as aggravated sexual abuse by other means. Sometimes it is referred to as drug or alcohol facilitated rape. The term incapacitated rape is sometimes used to describe drug or alcohol facilitated rape as well as when the victim is either unconscious or too impaired for any reason to know what she is doing or give consent.(1) (Ed: italics were added by me)
Note please that none of these are defined as "forcible rape". I hope like hell nobody that you know is ever in need of services from a non-forcible rape. Because I would hate for you to be put into the position of telling them their rape wasn't "rapey" enough to qualify as real rape.
I'm also interested in how the House thinks it will financially support all these unwanted babies that will result - whether to women who can't afford another child, or a child born with so many birth defects that will require millions of dollars of medical care, or a baby born to a woman of rape, whose husband will never accept the child as his own, and will punish the woman and/or child verbally, emotionally, or physically (or more likely all three) for having the audacity to put him in the position of being reminded of what happened to his wife every time he looks at the child. Are they willing to federally fund all of the services that are required when a woman gives up an unwanted child? Because there certainly are more children given up than adopted, and somebody needs to bear responsibility for all the children that they forced to come into this world.
I also wonder how a bill like this can be enforced. A woman generally has a very small window in which to receive an abortion if one is desired or required. A court case (determining guilt of a rape suspect - oh, and does it qualify as meeting the standard of "forcible" rape), can take months, if not years to come to a conclusion. Heck, even to come to trial. By that time, a woman can no longer have a choice. She is either too far along, or has already had the baby. And while you may not agree with it, it is the law of this land that a woman does have a choice as to whether or not to have a baby, even if it was forced on her by being drugged or by not having the mental capacity to know how or why she is pregnant. In my mind, it really doesn't matter where yo stand on the issue of abortion - this piece of legislation is just plain cruel. We give death row inmates more compassion than this, by the explicit "no cruel or unusual punishment" clause. Is it not cruel and unusual punishment to "forcibly" force a woman to have a baby in these circumstances?
Many of these women are on some sort of federal financial assistance. By limiting resources to those who are less fortunate - whatever the circumstances - doesn't that reek of a classism? To say that if you are down on your luck and the government will help you get medical care, but only if you have this unwanted baby that we are now going to have to pay you to feed (and how hypocritical is it that we are at the same time trying to stop women from having more children in order to get larger government subsidies)?
It seems to me that the House leadership is all about a smaller federal government, letting people have their personal freedoms (including allowing a man to have Medicare pay for his ED drugs), and for not allowing the government tell me what I can and can't do, until they want to crawl inside my uterus. And please note that only women have uteruses, making this an incredibly sexist bill as well.
It was also my understanding that the new House's priority was jobs, jobs, jobs. At least that's what I hear on the news every night. It seems to me that this has nothing to do with jobs - only to do with limiting a woman's personal freedoms.And yet, it was the third piece of legislation introduced by this 112th House.
Mr. Gallegly, I urge you to speak out against HR 3. For all the women that you represent in the 24th district, and for all the women whose freedoms and liberties will be severely restricted if this bill passes. You are the representative of ALL the constituents of District 24 – even the women who have been raped and become pregnant.
Your constituent,
Lori
(1) Ruggiero, K. J., & Kilpatrick, D.G. (2003). Rape in Tennessee: A Report to the State. Charleston, SC: National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center, Medical University of South Carolina.
(originally posted on my personal blog 1/29/2011, unlinked intentionally)
