What is it with the GOP and women?

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.telegram.com/article/20110206/COLUMN01/102060549

Dianne Williamson
[e-mail]

Sunday, February 6, 2011

It’s actually a good thing that House Republicans shot themselves in their two left feet by using loathsome language in an anti-choice bill that would have redefined rape.

According to the GOP, the only rapes that are real rapes are the “forcible” ones — a redundancy if we ever heard one — and the only true rapists are the monster-strangers who hide in the bushes. College frat boys who use drugs to have sex with unconscious women? Nah. Funny uncles who take advantage of young nieces? Tough luck. And if a woman is too frightened to fight back against an aggressive date who won’t take no for an answer, too bad.

But the GOP got so much well-deserved criticism for the bizarre provision in its “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” that on Thursday it removed the “forcible rape” language that attracted the most derision from women’s groups and attention from the media. Before the wording was excised, the bill would have ruled out federal funds for abortions in cases that weren’t, you know, rape-y enough.

But the controversy has produced instructive if not totally positive results. First, it confirmed beyond all doubts that the GOP is living in a cave when it comes to women’s rights. Next, it has shed needed light on an intrusive and offensive bill that bears watching. Lastly, it’s an important reminder that the abortion wars are still being fought, with increasingly wily tactics.

[WingDinger]

1. Im shocked you didnt include their now calling for ER's turning away dying women

if it might harm the zygote

[MH1]

8. Link that explains your post ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/04/antiabortion-lawmakers-ba_n_818842.html

[iamjoy]

2. It Wasn't Just About Abortion

It worried me that by redefining rape for the purposes of the abortion bill, it could lead to changing the legal definition of rape completely. In other words, a situation in which a man could not be prosecuted (or would receive a reduced sentence) for drugging a woman to have sex versus overpowering her. Now this may already be the way it really is based on rules of evidence and variations in sentencing for aggravated sexual assault vs. non-aggravated sexual assault, but we don't need to encourage that.

Most rapes are not a stranger jumping out of the shadows and overpowering a woman. Only an uneducated imbecile believes...oh, never mind.

[customerserviceguy]

14. I could be mistaken about this

but if I recall correctly, the term 'forcible' when applied to rape was part of the degree of criminal charge (and hence, potential sentence) that would be levied against an accused rapist.

Our society still practices distinctions in how well the victim 'knew' their attacker in murder/manslaughter cases, because it's implied that a victim who had every reason to believe that a dangerous person was in their midst somehow 'deserved' to be killed, because they had the chance to get far away from that individual.

Yes, it's fucked up thinking, but consider it the next time you see a light sentence being handed out for a killing involving family members, neighbors, or even co-workers. We just had a case in the news here this last week, of a Manhattanville mother who strangled her own 18 year old daughter:

http://www.lohud.com/article/20110201/NEWS02/102010368/-1/newsfront/Manhattanville-mom-admits-killing-college-student-daughter--will-be-sentenced-to-20-years

She's only going to get twenty years, max, for offing her own kid. If she jumped out of the bushes, and did it to some random 18 year old, we might actually lock her up for the rest of her life.

[lunatica]

3. I hate how they make us keep fighting the same fucking wars again and again

Don't these fuckers have mothers, wives and daughters?

Fuck!

[Darth_Kitten]

5. They do, but they think they are worthless, anyways.

n/t

[Darth_Kitten]

4. Can somebody post some comments there?

They seem to be taking over by dumb Freepers. :(

[sarcasmo]

6. Much like Muslims and Women.

[MH1]

9. Not all Muslims. Just as not all republicans are anti-homosexual or anti-women's rights.

In fact in the case of Muslims it might not even be a preponderance, just the most visible.

[XanaDUer]

7. It's also important that liberals and progressives

voice their concern a lot, and publicly, when the GOP starts their usual shit. Sunshine and cockroaches, my friend.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. "my friends"

John, is that you? ;-) :hi:

[Hello_Kitty]

13. And STOP compromising with anti-choicers

Oh come on, ladies, the Stupak Amendment doesn't really change anything!

The goal of the forced birth movement is a complete ban on abortion and contraception. Any inch yielded to them brings them an inch closer to that goal.

[ensho]

11. its because they are religiously insane

nt

[texshelters]

12. The Rethuglicans believe gun owners should have rights (fine)

but women should not (unacceptable!).

http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/okay-then-let%e2%80%99s-regulate-guns-like-many-want-to-regulate-abortion/

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[donheld]

15. You'd think Olympia Snow, Kay Bailey Hutchison and the

rest of the GOP Senate/Congresswomen would be the leaders of the protest agains these extremist bills.

Where are they