Mark Critz, you suck

January 28, 2011

Some PA news for anyone interested…I heard of this first through diaries on Daily Kos, but as you can see I had to look up stuff all over the place to figure it out.

The new Congress’ H.R. 3 is all about jobs. No? Oops. It’s about restricting abortion. Imagine my surprise when I found this fellow from PA among the co-sponsors. So maybe I know some people who are in his district, not sure…

The district, located in the southwestern portion of the state, stretches from Johnstown to the southern suburbs of Pittsburgh.

It’s not just restricting abortion, but the particularly nasty provisions that have earned my ire. Republicans, after all, have been bringing up abortion funding bans often lately, as if it weren’t a done deal. As if it hasn’t been one since the mid-1970s. Well…part of the Hyde amendment is not a done deal. Although it is somewhat revolting to consider the part that is not.

The original measure made no exceptions for cases of pregnancies that were the result of rape or incest or that threatened the lives of pregnant woman, provoking an outcry from women’s rights advocates. As a result, beginning in 1977 language was added to provide for such circumstances; however, the exact wording has varied from one year to the next, subject to the outcome of Congressional bargaining on the issue.

So nice to see that rape, incest, and the life of the woman are subject to yearly Congressional bargaining. Disgusting. And on that note, we have H.R. 3.

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to “forcible rape.” This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible.

Forcible rape? WTF is that? Redundant, perhaps? Think again.

The bill hasn’t been carefully constructed, Levenson notes. The term “forcible rape” is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill’s authors don’t offer their own definition. In some states, there is no legal definition of “forcible rape,” making it unclear whether any abortions would be covered by the rape exemption in those jurisdictions.

So we have a Republican bill designed to restrict access to abortion through more restrictive funding of the same; and, restricted access by narrowing what qualifies as ‘rape’ under the typical ‘rape or incest’ exceptions. You know, the sort of exceptions that most everyone seems to agree upon. Except when they don’t.

And a Democrat from Pittsburgh is co-sponsoring this.

What are you on about? Is it desirable somehow that victims of statutory rape, children, should be compelled to bear children resulting from it? Are they trying to excuse date rape? I understand Critz is pro-life on the abortion issue, and the funding ban obsession is foolish as Obama has already signed off on it, but whatever floats your boat. What is this finagling over rape? Do you care what this will do to women? To girls? Kids?

I am tempted to root for the demise of the Y chromosome.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: