Todd Akin & Paul Ryan Partnered To Redefine Rape

Prince Of Dorkness

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/0 ... ?mobile=nc

Don't be too surprised by the rather insane "legitimate rape" lines from Todd Akin, he's run that flag up the pole before.

Because the primary target of Akin and Ryan’s effort was Medicaid recipients (women who couldn't afford an abortion on their own), the likely result of the bill would have been forcing women to carry their rapist’s babies.

Paul Ryan was one of the original co-sponsors of the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” a bill which, among other things, introduced the country to the bizarre term “forcible rape.”

Under H.R. 3, only victims of “forcible rape” would qualify for federally funded abortions. Victims of statutory rape—say, a 13-year-old girl impregnated by a 30-year-old man, would be on their own.

So would victims of incest if they’re over 18.

And while “forcible rape” isn’t defined in the criminal code, the addition of the adjective seems certain to exclude acts of rape that don’t involve overt violence—say, cases where a woman is drugged or has a limited mental capacity.

Zoso

doesn't surprise me... Ryan supports that terrible personhood bill also. asshiole who has no clue.

Prince Of Dorkness

Zoso wrote:

doesn't surprise me... Ryan supports that terrible personhood bill also. asshiole who has no clue.

Which is why we need to make sure everyone knows just how extreme he is.

comebackgirl

So they're in support of
1) re-traumatizing a rape survivor by invalidating her/his trauma
2) re-traumatizing survivors further by forcing them to carry a pregnancy resulting from rape to term
3) and then they'll blame the women from the lower socio-economic class when they can't support their family on their own and bash them for taking "governmental handouts."

Rings of setting people up to fail and blaming the victim on many levels. This is just ridiculous and extremely offensive.

DS1119

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

the likely result of the bill would have been forcing women to carry their rapist’s babies.

Quite the "assumption" here. "Likely" is such a strong word. :fp: I suggest you dig harder into the issue.

Prince Of Dorkness

comebackgirl wrote:

Rings of setting people up to fail and blaming the victim on many levels. This is just ridiculous and extremely offensive.

But I still think that this is more about keeping the public bickering about reproductive rights and gay marriage so we're distracted from the glaring economic war taking place on the middle and lower classes.

DS1119

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

Rings of setting people up to fail and blaming the victim on many levels. This is just ridiculous and extremely offensive.

But I still think that this is more about keeping the public bickering about reproductive rights and gay marriage so we're distracted from the glaring economic war taking place on the middle and lower classes.

WOw. You do realize the general American public really doens;t care about same sex marriage correct? It may be important to some...but the general public no. I watched NBC news today...Abc news today....Meet The Press...a little CNN...all they talked about was the economic issues. Not many care about who is marrying whom at this point so close to an election. Sorry to burst a bubble here.

Who Princess

DS1119 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

Rings of setting people up to fail and blaming the victim on many levels. This is just ridiculous and extremely offensive.

But I still think that this is more about keeping the public bickering about reproductive rights and gay marriage so we're distracted from the glaring economic war taking place on the middle and lower classes.

WOw. You do realize the general American public really doens;t care about same sex marriage correct? It may be important to some...but the general public no. I watched NBC news today...Abc news today....Meet The Press...a little CNN...all they talked about was the economic issues. Not many care about who is marrying whom at this point so close to an election. Sorry to burst a bubble here.

I think that's kind of his point--that most people don't care. But if politicians can keep stirring up voters' emotions about inconsequential issues, they don't have to discuss how they're going to fix the economy.

comebackgirl

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

Rings of setting people up to fail and blaming the victim on many levels. This is just ridiculous and extremely offensive.

But I still think that this is more about keeping the public bickering about reproductive rights and gay marriage so we're distracted from the glaring economic war taking place on the middle and lower classes.

I agree - the good old distraction technique. Lots of people are one issue voters, and these are the issues that divide. The people impacted by these bills are just collateral damage in their minds

Prince Of Dorkness

comebackgirl wrote:

But I still think that this is more about keeping the public bickering about reproductive rights and gay marriage so we're distracted from the glaring economic war taking place on the middle and lower classes.

I agree - the good old distraction technique. Lots of people are one issue voters, and these are the issues that divide. The people impacted by these bills are just collateral damage in their minds[/quote]

Well and issues like social wedges are easy to take sides so long as you don't really get too deep into the details.

Being able to really grasp economic concepts is above the ability for a lot of people.

DS1119

Who Princess wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

WOw. You do realize the general American public really doens;t care about same sex marriage correct? It may be important to some...but the general public no. I watched NBC news today...Abc news today....Meet The Press...a little CNN...all they talked about was the economic issues. Not many care about who is marrying whom at this point so close to an election. Sorry to burst a bubble here.

I think that's kind of his point--that most people don't care. But if politicians can keep stirring up voters' emotions about inconsequential issues, they don't have to discuss how they're going to fix the economy.

Kind of his point? :? And yet the OP posts links to obviuosly non Republican papers and very liberal thought...but somehow the Republican Conesrvatives are trying to distract voters? Really?

DS1119

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Being able to really grasp economic concepts is above the ability for a lot of people.

Like defining the people who have money?

Johnny Abruzzo

Kind of off topic, but...

I read that National Democrats ran TV ads to help Todd Akin win the primary, so McCaskell would have an easier opponent to beat in the General. This is a cynical political move and increases the likelihood that this nutcase could actually become a Senator.

Zoso

Paul Ryan is an extremist when it comes to social issues and mustn't be VP.

Jeanwah

comebackgirl wrote:

So they're in support of
1) re-traumatizing a rape survivor by invalidating her/his trauma
2) re-traumatizing survivors further by forcing them to carry a pregnancy resulting from rape to term
3) and then they'll blame the women from the lower socio-economic class when they can't support their family on their own and bash them for taking "governmental handouts."

Rings of setting people up to fail and blaming the victim on many levels. This is just ridiculous and extremely offensive.

What's even worse is that women support not only this party, but this politician!

Zoso

Jeanwah wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

So they're in support of
1) re-traumatizing a rape survivor by invalidating her/his trauma
2) re-traumatizing survivors further by forcing them to carry a pregnancy resulting from rape to term
3) and then they'll blame the women from the lower socio-economic class when they can't support their family on their own and bash them for taking "governmental handouts."

Rings of setting people up to fail and blaming the victim on many levels. This is just ridiculous and extremely offensive.

What's even worse is that women support not only this party, but this politician!

because they believe whatever is said without any education or researching the topic..

comebackgirl

Jeanwah wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

So they're in support of
1) re-traumatizing a rape survivor by invalidating her/his trauma
2) re-traumatizing survivors further by forcing them to carry a pregnancy resulting from rape to term
3) and then they'll blame the women from the lower socio-economic class when they can't support their family on their own and bash them for taking "governmental handouts."

Rings of setting people up to fail and blaming the victim on many levels. This is just ridiculous and extremely offensive.

What's even worse is that women support not only this party, but this politician!

That's what boggles my mind.

inmytree

DS1119 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

the likely result of the bill would have been forcing women to carry their rapist’s babies.

Quite the "assumption" here. "Likely" is such a strong word. :fp: I suggest you dig harder into the issue.

"likely" is a "strong" word to you...?


tell me more...? which word is less "strong" that "likely"...?