Home / Culture and Society / The Republicans are Saving the American Economy; by Redefining Rape!

The Republicans are Saving the American Economy; by Redefining Rape!

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

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.”

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.

So there you have it! The Republicans are here to save the American economy and bring jobs back to the American people! And how are they doing it? By keeping our precious tax dollars from being spent on providing abortions for rape victims whose only excuses for not physically fighting the rapist were silly things like being drugged or having limited mental capacity or being too young to understand what’s going on! Yes, the Republicans are here to save the day for all real Americans who really understand that a little girl being unwillingly impregnated by a grown man is not really heinous enough to warrant us spending our precious tax dollars for an abortion for her! It saves far more of our precious tax dollars to force that little girl to have that rapist’s baby and raise it as her own. If she fails to graduate high school and winds up a lifelong welfare case because of the baby the rapist forced on her, well, at least it saved a lot of our precious tax dollars, and her failure to ever rise out of poverty is her fault alone; it’s not the problem of the American people! Anyone who says otherwise is obviously a left-wing socialist feminazi in drag!

Glory, Glory Hallelujah, the right keeps marching on!

Powered by

About Glenn Contrarian

White. Male. Raised in the deepest of the Deep South. Retired Navy. Strong Christian. Proud Liberal. Thus, Contrarian!
  • Taima

    Thank you so much for this article. I’m a 21-year old female college student and when I heard about this redefining of “rape” I was pretty shocked. To me this really isn’t a matter of pro-choice vs. pro-life; it’s a matter of not recognizing violence against women.

  • Dear Glenn and Taima,

    As a recent transgender female, a true newly found and newly created and very proud woman, having also just undergone the big “O” I understand where you both are coming from. I truly don’t care whether one qualifies and defines rape as forcible or as a matter of statutory rape (by knocking up, let us say, a thirteen year old girl); or as a matter of date rape, or of drugging and or plying one of us girls with so much booze and drugs to the point where we’re so sloshed we’ll fuck anybody; or even so-called, supposed consensual, heterosexual intercourse which of course we all know, as our feminist sisters have so clearly and logically pointed out beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever, is in fact rape.

    I have two, well three issues I’d like you to help me out with, you know, one girl to another, or better yet, one liberated, feminist to another. First, rape as far as I am concerned is rape, by whatever darn definition one goes by: Rape is rape is rape.

    Secondly, I am a former combat Marine veteran with three former wives, one current wife, and several former mistresses and God only knows how many one night stands too. As a consequence, I fathered about a dozen or so children – that I know of – and lert me tell you, the alimony payments are just killing me. In fact, when I had testicles them alimony payments had my nuts in a vice and was crushing them – very painful, very painful. Now that I’m a woman, isn’t that sort of sexist? Isn’t that sort of a masculine form of rape of me? Making me still pay all these crushing alimony payments? Please advise,

    And thirdly and finally, my biggest problem of all however is the fact that I was pretty damn ugly before I had the big “O” and now that I am a real, true woman just like you girls, I now unfortunately am uglier than sin and no one wants to fuck me anymore. No one, absolutely no one in the whole fucking, entire wide world!

    So I was kind of wondering, could you, would you be so kind and darling to help me find someone who could, and would possibly fuck me? Just someone to fuck me, and I don’t care if it’s rape, forcible or otherwise. Please God, just find someone who’s so fucking horny he’ll fuck anything with a hole in it, that crawls or moves or twitches from time to time, my God he don’t even need a pulse!

    I mean I really don’t give a damn what he looks like or smells like, whether he’s got any teeth or hair at all, or whether he’s deaf, dumb and blind, I don’t give a rat’s ass, I don’t even care what he’s been drinking or what sort of drugs he’s been smoking, snorting or mainlining. Really! All I care is that he have a stiff, hard, swinging dick and he fuck me till my eyes roll over and the earth move beneath me. I mean is that asking too much? So can you girls find it in your hearts to advise and help me, just one horny sister to another?

  • You’re not asking for much, Irv. An honest to goodness vibrator should do the job.

  • jc

    Not to worry, Glenn. This definition is obviously beyond your ability. Stay tuned. This too will pass and hopefully we will have the definition that evidences appropriate value to the unborn person while considering the welfare of those against whom violence has been committed. And, oh yes. It is indeed nice that you are also concerned about the state of our economy. One would hope that you are as responsible as you appear concerned. There is certainly enough opportunity to go around for everyone willing to accept the challenge. Your contribution to the solution to our current crises will be much appreciated by those less fortunate..

  • Anyway, glad you’re still here. For a while I thought you were expelled.

  • Hey Roger,

    Expelled? No, that’s supposed to be me – as in banned, as in censorship and intellectual freedom, transparency and accountability, etc.

    Oh BTW, you mean one of them 450 Horse Power, super-turbo charged dildos, cross-ribbed with A Persian lamb-skinned shaft? Sorry, ain’t doin’ the job, got to find one with more Horse Power and perhaps a lot more Torque too.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    jc –

    I wonder if you’d feel the same way if your 12 year-old daughter was “non-forcibly” raped and impregnated. I wonder if you’d feel the same way if your daughter didn’t graduate high school because she was overwhelmed by taking care of her rapist’s child. I wonder if you’d feel the same way watching your daughter become a lifetime welfare case with low self-esteem, not caring who she slept with anymore because she didn’t feel she was good enough for a proper romantic relationship with a good boy.

    Yeah, I hear lots of self-righteous Righties who hold the fetus to be more important than the future of a young mother who is likely to never, ever reach her potential because of being forced to bear a child because she was raped. But I suspect very, very few of those same Righties ever keep the same attitude when it happens to their little girls….

  • Dear comrade Glenn [Edited] Contrarian,

    First off, you rather self-righteously and solipsistically and self-assuredly offer up the rather fallacious argument of the “false dichotomy.”

    If a child is raped and has a child, which of course is rather personally traumatic – no doubt about that. But does that necessarily mean and automatically translate into that girl growing up into and becoming a typical “welfare queen” with all the social pathology and social dysfunction associated with that unfortunate circumstance? Furthermore, exactly how many times does this occur each year? Is it million, ten million, a hundred million?

    This latter question is also a fallacious argument, an argumentum ad extremum. Which means to say, when one has a rather shallow and tenuous, illogical and unreasonable position, then one either resorts to or finds it necessary to argue from an extreme position, from extreme example in order to prove one’s point.

    So does ten or a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand isolated instances justify an extreme argument which literally effects millions? And the key, operative word here is “legitimate” – how many of these rather rare instances are truly legitimate?

    Is it enough for you and your ilk to justify and defend abortion on demand and the consequent genocide of over a million and a half unborn, thoroughly innocent, guileless, guiltless, blameless children, of people, of human beings at their truly, very most vulnerable stage in all of life; each and every single year now for almost the past 40 years to date? I think not!

    And according to your author’s bio, you claim to be a Christian. But doesn’t Christianity always, always protect, defend and affirm the sanctity of life? Of not only “homo sacer” but also of “vita sacra”, of sacred life, of the sanctity of life, that, simply stated, all life is sacred? Well, then isn’t the knee-jerk defense and choice of abortion on your part, isn’t that rather unChristian and a hypocritical contradiction, a paradox?

  • Clavos

    Well said, Irv (Hm. I never thought I’d say that!).

    You even kept the redundancies to a minimum.


  • Indeed, especially from the standpoint of the orthodox Christian perspective.

    Perhaps the spat with Steve is having positive effect.

  • Good article Glenn. Here’s an idea.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Irvin –

    Do you really want a conversation on abortion? You asked for it –

    Case #1 – Tell me, how many abused mentally-challenged girls have you tried to raise in your household? We tried for nearly a year with one as a Foster child until she ‘aged out’ of the system. She was seventeen, had severe seizure disorders among (and other mild physical disorders) and had the mental capacity of perhaps a ten year-old. My wife even heard her tell her dad over the phone that when he visited, she’d go take a shower and leave the door open so he could come inside, too. But it was my wife’s word against her dad – and so it went nowhere.

    She had a habit of ‘accidentally’ becoming naked and leaving her door open whenever she saw my nephew around. We kept a very tight watch on her even to the point of setting alarms on all the doors (with the prior approval of the social worker, of course).

    So if this girl had been successful in attracting my nephew (she wasn’t) or her dad (we think she did), then it would have been a case of statutory rape, and if she had been impregnated she would not be eligible for Medicaid funding for an abortion since the rape was not ‘forcible’ under the proposed law. Do you really think that if she’d become pregnant, that she should be forced to bear the child? Do you really?


    Cases #2 and #3 – When we first began Fostering medically-fragile children over eleven years ago, we started out with two boys. One had fetal drug syndrome, and the other had fetal alcohol syndrome. Both breathed through trach tubes and were fed through g-tubes. Neither could walk. One of them had a vocabulary of ONE word – “Hi” – and the other has no vocabulary at all.

    #2 had a habit of pulling out his trach tube and g-tube to get attention. Due to a slight facial deformity, he had the biggest smile I’ve ever seen. He passed away about five years ago. The other is downstairs now.

    These two boys cost the taxpayers about a quarter million per year each in nursing fees and the (much lower) compensation we receive. This amount does not count the cost of the topamax, robinul, phenobarbital, diocto, cetrizine, and other meds they receive every day; nor does it count the $50/day that the Peptamin Jr. feeding costs the taxpayer.

    The one that is left is quite healthy. He may outlive me…and he WILL need the level of licensed nursing care (16 hours/day, 365 days/yr) that he presently receives for the rest of his life, all of it paid for by the taxpayers. Until about six years ago, it was 22 hrs/day of licensed nursing care per child, 365 days/yr. All paid by the taxpayer.


    Irvin, when I see abortion protesters, I wonder why the heck they aren’t being even MORE proactive about making sure that pregnant women don’t drink alcohol or do drugs (which is my my foster children had fetal alcohol/drug syndrome). Why aren’t they going to the bars, to the streets to keep the babies from being born with such terrible deformities? I can think of no birth defect that is more preventable than this!

    If you truly value life as you imply that you do – and if you want to save the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, per child – then get your anti-abortion protesters out there to prevent the fetal alcohol/drug syndrome babies.

    Otherwise, your anti-abortion protesters are hypocrites just as we liberals paint them – they care SO much for the unborn child, but once you’re out of the womb, you’re on your own! The pro-lifers are NOT “pro-life”…they’re pro-birth, and that’s about it.

    BECAUSE THINK ON THIS – if a week-old fetus is to be considered a full human being, then logic demands that a pregnant woman who does ANYthing that could harm that fetus in ANY way is guilty of reckless endangerment and (in case of miscarriage) could be brought up on manslaughter charges. This would include not only the drugs and alcohol I mentioned earlier, but ANYthing from diet to physical exertion to x-rays to prescription drug use.

    Are we to hold pregnant women to that standard, Irvin? BECAUSE THAT IS THE LOGICAL EXTENSION OF THE PRO-LIFE ARGUMENT.


    Lastly, I feel that if a child can survive on its own outside the womb, then it shouldn’t be aborted…but until that point, that fetus may be aborted because it does not truly have its own life yet.

  • Glenn,

    Your article does show a troubling undercurrent of ideas amongst some in the House GOP caucus. As a Republican myself, I hope that the co-sponsors of this bill understand the severity of what it is that they are proposing and see the error of their ways (Fat chance, I know). Should they choose not to, thankfully this piece of legislation will never get past the Senate. The stories you relayed above are heart-achingly sad and serve as examples of what many young women have to go through. When I wrote of the dangers of mingling the topic of women’s reproductive rights with partisan politics last week, this is exactly the sort of thing I feared would happen.

  • Also, Glenn,

    I forgot to mention that I agree with you on enacting true preventative measures of deformities which may present themselves during the course of a pregnancy. Many who, today, go out into the streets of a given city and engage in vocal protests of abortion should try to be proactive rather than reactive. By doing this, they would stand a much better chance of meeting their goals of fostering an environment in which human life is held in higher regard than continuing on the course which they have been on since the Roe v. Wade ruling was made.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Joseph – thanks – I appreciate that.

  • Boeke

    Irv finally wrote an article shorter than my attention span, so here I am to pick an argument with this statement:

    “But doesn’t Christianity always, always protect, defend and affirm the sanctity of life?”

    No. Not at all. Christianity allows us to pick our enemies and slay them as necessary. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition, Irv.

    Maybe you’re thinking of Buddhism, or pre-modern Buddhism, anyway. I think there are Buddhist revolutionary mobs somewhere, now, looting and killing like everybody else. How modern of them.