Many of you readers may already
be aware of HR 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,"
introduced on January 20th by Rep. Chris Smith, (R-NJ) and further aware of the
attempt to redefine the definition of rape by limiting federally funded
abortion coverage only to victims of what the law defined as "forcible
rape." Is there another kind of rape?
Smith announced on January 27th
that he was dropping the "forcible rape" wording and replacing it
with language from the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for
abortions except for cases of rape, incest, or to save a mother's life.
HR 3 has the Republicans fighting
the Democrats and Pro-Choice groups fighting Pro-Life groups. This writer
refuses to become entrenched in this political and personal argument because it
doesn’t matter what political party one belongs to or whether one is Pro-Choice
or Pro-Life. What does matter is our representatives, so desperate for their
own personal gain, attempting to legally redefine the word rape. Did anyone
bother to think about the repercussions for victims of rape and how HR 3’s
redefinition could have opened the door for an easy out to anyone who commits
rape?
No comments:
Post a Comment