Every once in a while I write an article where I really hope that I'm wrong, that my anger is misplaced, that I've somehow misread the news or had some other kind of cranial flatulence. This is one such article. I sincerely hope that someone can show me that things aren't as they seem, that my references were completely off the reservation, and that the Republican majority in the House aren't as idiotically heartless as they seem.
Last I recall, priority number one for the new Republican House majority was to bring jobs back to the American people, and their first, best way of doing this was to repeal the "job-killing" health care reform law they derisively called "Obamacare." Well, now that they've passed their largely symbolic repeal vote, they're on to other really important things which, I guess, will also help the American economy recover from thirty years of Reaganomics. First up is their new bill in which a majority of House Republicans decided to change the definition of "rape."
You see, for the past thirty years the federal government has denied taxpayer funding to pay for abortions, except in cases when pregnancies result from rape or incest or when the pregnancy endangers the woman's life. Well, if the 173 mainly Republican co-sponsors of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" have their way, simple rape wouldn't be enough for the federal government to pay for an abortion. Instead, it would have to be "forcible rape." Even worse, the word forcible is not defined.
Nick Baumann, of Mother Jones, points out the following 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...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."