Republicans would exclude the following situations from coverage: women who say no but do not physically fight off the perpetrator, women who are drugged or verbally threatened and raped, and minors impregnated by adults. As the National Women’s Law Center’s Steph Sterling puts it, this new standard of force “takes us back to a time where just saying no was not enough.”The latest bill on the floor of the House has me going back and forth; on one hand, as a part-time date rape enthusiast I should be tickled pink, but as a somewhat normal person with a reasonable level of sanity, I'm wondering (other than, of course, the inane, immoral substance of the bill itself) why this is what the House is choosing to deal with right now. What happened to "jobs, jobs, JOBS!" (to be read like Ms Garrett saying "girls, girls, GIRLS!")? I mean, redefining rape? Really? Sure it's a sexy topic, but one that can wait a little while? Or are there some impending personal lawsuits coming up soon that Republicans lawmakers are worried about?
Also, shouldn't they take care of making sure people really can't get health insrance first, then deal with this? One soul-sucking, anti-humane thing at a time I'd think would be the way to go, no? Bankrupt people for getting back acne, and THEN make it easier to date rape girls! Camon guys, eyes on the ball here. Really.
1 comment:
So the fact that it's beginning was violently 'forced' gives that particular child LESS right to live than the child whose beginnings were the result of it's mother being taken by drugs/alcohol?
http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/index.html
Post a Comment