Paul Ryan to sponsor bill that will defend rapists

[Lord Falcon]

You know who just don’t have enough rights in this country? You guessed it, rapists. Thank goodness House Republicans are here to look after these put-upon American citizens.

As much of the nation focuses on the Steubenville gang rape story, your failed Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan (R-WI) was busy protecting rapists’ rights. Buried deep in the latest Fetus Rights Bill (aka, Sanctity of Human Life Act , H.R. 23: To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization), wherein fetuses are given more rights than the women carrying them, is a section that will allow a rapist to sue his victim in order to stop her from getting an abortion, specifically if she were trying to get an abortion in a state that allows them while she lives in a state that does not.

Section 2(2) states, “The Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.”

Kevin Drum of Mother Jones summed up the impact of this intentionally vague subsection, “In fact, if this bill were passed and the Supreme Court upheld it, I’ll bet that a rapist could go to court and sue to prevent his victim from getting an abortion. He’d argue that the fetus was legally a human being, and the court has no power to discriminate between one human being and another. He’d probably win, too.”

Yes, the rapist can sue to stop the abortion caused by the rape he perpetrated upon an unwilling female. Laura Beck at Jezebel points out, “Her rapist could theoretically sue to stop the abortion from happening, and probably win.”

This explains why Ryan was so busy listening to his iPod during the fiscal cliff negotiations. He has only introduced two bills that have passed over his entire 13 year career, one dealing with an excise tax for arrows and the other renaming a post office. His only other purpose in Congress is to keep reintroducing the Fetus Rights bill in order to avoid doing the math on his budget. Ryan started off the 113th congress with a bang by introducing his bill yet again.

It’s great that rapists have a voice in D.C., because what they crave the most is more power and control over their victims – and what better way to achieve that than to reward a rapist with the power to force his victim to carry his fetus to term. Representative Ryan has managed to incentivize rape.

Republicans haven’t addressed this hopefully unintentional consequence, but taken in context with their refusal to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, it is beginning to look as if Republicans are actively seeking to give criminals more access to women. But still, they deny that there is a Republican war on women. See, there wouldn’t be a war if you ladies would just be willing to turn over all of your rights to men, even if they are rapists (in Republicanese, we are to call the victim the “accuser” so as to suggest that most women lie about being raped… and then, if it was a legitimate rape, you would have shut that sh*t down, so this is all your fault).

Republican men in Congress may not know anything about the female body, including OB/GYN Rep. Gingrey who also co-sponsored this bill, but they still make better decisions about your body than you do, ladies. Think you’re going across state lines to exercise your rights? Not if the Republicans can stop you.

Luckily, this bill has as much chance of becoming law as House Republicans’ 34 attempts to overturn ObamaCare. But what else would you expect from Republicans’ Big Policy Wonk?

What else do you expect from the American Tealiban and their ongoing War on Women? Taken from PoliticsUSA.

[Joun_Lord]

Its too bad we don't have the tech to have guys carry babies. I bet the fucking rapists would be considerably less inclined to try to control their victims bodies if legally they had to carry their little bastard to term when they stop the abortion.

[Grumman]

There is something seriously wrong with you, Falcon. You and the authors of that article.

[biostem]

Here's something I don't get - you cannot force someone to give/use their body to/for another - a la forcing people to donate, say, blood or an organ they have 2 of, (kidney, lung). How is it legal to force a woman to use her body to incubate & feed a life she doesn't want?

[The Romulan Republic]

Rapists do have legal rights, of course, but the right to stop an abortion is not one of them. The Supreme Court already settled this.

[Kon_El]

Who wants to bet the law in question is phrased "biological father" or something along those lines and it is being phrased as being in defense of rapists as a way of smearing the law without actually disusing it. I'm not defending Ryan mind you but this smells like bullshit.

[Lord Revan]

without knowing the actual text of the (proposed) law it's hard to say either way. That said I highly dout the law literally says "lets force women to raise a baby they didn't want if their rapist doesn't want those women to have abortion", as stupid and out of touch some republican politicians are I have issues beliving they would be quite that stupid.

[The Romulan Republic]

Depends on the Republican.

Yes, I'd say their are some that really are that stupid and vile.

But Paul Ryan has at least a veneer of being a respectable mainstream politician.

[Purple]

If you rape a woman and than sue her to prevent an abortion would that not automatically count as a legal admission of the rape?

[Lord Revan]

If you rape a woman and than sue her to prevent an abortion would that not automatically count as a legal admission of the rape?

If the rapist was not already convicted it might I'm not sure how the US law works in these cases.

[Sidewinder]

It took some effort to find the original article, which is dated January 14, 2013. The original text of the proposed law (dated January 3, 2013) is available here.

There is nothing in the text that says a rapist may sue to prevent the victim from getting an abortion. From the sensationalist titles the website uses, it seems full of left-wing propaganda.

[Broomstick]

If you rape a woman and than sue her to prevent an abortion would that not automatically count as a legal admission of the rape?

Not if the rapist claims the sex was actually consensual and the woman changed her mind later.

[Ralin]

Here's something I don't get - you cannot force someone to give/use their body to/for another - a la forcing people to donate, say, blood or an organ they have 2 of, (kidney, lung). How is it legal to force a woman to use her body to incubate & feed a life she doesn't want?

Presumably because people against legal abortion think there's a difference between refusing to donate organs to prevent someone's death and directly killing them via whatever is currently the standard method of abortion. One is like me taking the time to laugh at a beggar starving in the street and refusing to help. The other is like me beating the beggar to death like those thrill seeking rich kids who were murdering homeless people for kicks in that one episode of Walker: Texas Ranger

[Wild Zontargs]

God damn, people, this article has almost nothing to do with the actual bill:

Code: Select all

A BILL
To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Human Life Act'.
SEC. 2. DECLARATION.

In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress' power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States--
(1) the Congress declares that--
(A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and
(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and
(2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act:
(1) FERTILIZATION- The term `fertilization' means the process of a human spermatozoan penetrating the cell membrane of a human oocyte to create a human zygote, a one-celled human embryo, which is a new unique human being.
(2) CLONING- The term `cloning' means the process called somatic cell nuclear transfer, that combines an enucleated egg and the nucleus of a somatic cell to make a human embryo.
(3) HUMAN; HUMAN BEING- The terms `human' and `human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, beginning with the earliest stage of development, created by the process of fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent.

All it says is "fetuses are humans too, and governments have the authority to protect all humans in their jurisdictions". Nothing about rapists, biological fathers, or any other such thing. It's just yet another "we have the right to pass anti-abortion legislation, nyah nyah" bill. Holy fuck, the propaganda level on that article is astounding.

[Broomstick]

It's still an attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade.

[Irbis]

without knowing the actual text of the (proposed) law it's hard to say either way. That said I highly dout the law literally says "lets force women to raise a baby they didn't want if their rapist doesn't want those women to have abortion", as stupid and out of touch some republican politicians are I have issues beliving they would be quite that stupid.

I don't think you ever met any rabid anti-abortion politicians then. You know, like lovely people willing to plaster elementary school surroundings with extremely graphic photos of abortion in progress.

Or go to kid that was supposed to be aborted (due to pregnancy endangering life of her mother) their picketing of all neighbouring hospitals blocked until it was too late and fucking hiss in her face "you know mommy wanted to kill you?" in big fucking organized group

There is nothing in the text that says a rapist may sue to prevent the victim from getting an abortion.

Yeah, it's totally unprecendented that law crafted by idiot Pharisees has any unforeseen consequences. Like that one law that branded two 15 year old kids trying to have sex as both paedophile and rapist (since not legally old enough for consent) in papers by default?

(A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and
(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and
(2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.

The difference between raped woman being sued by rapist or state acting on his behalf to not have abortion later is:

A) Potato; B) Tomato, or C) Masai?

By that, in case anyone is too dumb to take a hint, there is no fucking iota of difference whatsoever, except that state can bring far greater resources to bear than one potentially imprisoned guy

[SAMAS]

It's still an attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade.

Yes, but that doesn't justify hyperbolic statements and flat-out LYING.

[Flagg]

It's still an attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade.

Yeah, it's basically worse than the "writer's" horrid grammar (which is worse than a pigs) and what the article from 2013 actually says, as it's an axe to the face of Roe v Wade, killing it.

It's essentially a "personhood bill" that if allowed to exist by SCOTUS will put the United States back to 1972 as far as abortion rights are concerned, only much, much, worse. And the Republicans need just one seat currently held by a liberal or the swinging dick Justice Kennedy to do away with Roe v Wade, so for all of our non-fundamentalist Abrahamites and non-mutant anti-choice atheists , let's hope Ginsberg doesn't fall and turn to ash or that if anyone chokes on a hambone it's a fat Justice of Italian descent if we have a Republican in the White House.

Otherwise a rapist in Texas could sue his victim in California federally for custody of the 2 month old parasite in the victim's womb, to be turned over immediately upon birth, and odds are it would take too long for the for the case to be resolved for her to legally have an abortion assuming a baby hasn't already been born. And if she's poor and he's rich, he'll probably get the kid, even if charged with rape, because 'Murka!

But honestly that's barely scratching the surface of this particular shit pie. But on the plus side Republicans would almost certainly cease to exist as a viable party except in the south, but with white votes shrinking, women being more than pissed at the party forever, along with blacks, Latinos, and the LGBTQ+ community. It would probably take awhile to fix the abortion mess, but a woman's right to choose would be eventually be restored, hopefully expanded, and reinforced.

[Patroklos]

Do you have any evidence rapists, either convicted or while formally charged, have won custody hearings?

Also note that rapists can already claim custody of entities the state defines as people.

[amigocabal]

There is nothing in the text that says a rapist may sue to prevent the victim from getting an abortion.

Yeah, it's totally unprecendented that law crafted by idiot Pharisees has any unforeseen consequences. Like that one law that branded two 15 year old kids trying to have sex as both paedophile and rapist (since not legally old enough for consent) in papers by default?

So you are arguing that a judge would interpret this law in such a manner as to even entertain a suit by a rapist to enjoin his victim from getting an abortion?

For one thing, this would require a judge to effectively tell SCOTUS to go fuck itself.

Of course, as Rand Paul's father pointed out, it takes a shot of estrogen or something to stop such pregnancies from even happening, which has been available since at least the late 1990's. This sort of situation should be rare in America.

[Beowulf]

Do you have any evidence rapists, either convicted or while formally charged, have won custody hearings?

Also note that rapists can already claim custody of entities the state defines as people.

They have won child support.

[Flagg]

Do you have any evidence rapists, either convicted or while formally charged, have won custody hearings?

No, and I don't feel like looking for any, as I have just enough money to see 'Marvels The Avengers: Age is Just a Number' and thus am in a good mood I won't sully with disgust from really looking into the state of affairs in our Family Court System. So if you insist on picking nits about sardonic mocking of a state and country I despise, knock yourself out, just don't look too foolish doing it.

[Flagg]

Of course, as Rand Paul's father pointed out, it takes a shot of estrogen or something to stop such pregnancies from even happening, which has been available since at least the late 1990's. This sort of situation should be rare in America.

It's not rare in America due to most Southern and many Mid-Western States taking an "Abstinence Only" stance on sexual education. This consists mainly of church groups being invited into high schools and lying. Claiming that condoms don't really work, giving no information about contraception for women, and not teaching anything about SDI's as "Abstinence prevents them! If you don't have sex, you can't get a sexually transmitted infection or disease!" They fought like hell when Dick Hairy did one of the few good things in his 14(?) years in office by signing "mandatory" HPV vaccines for girls. Not because they were anti-vaxxers, mind you, but because they were afraid that their own daughters not fearing catching HPV (which can and does lead to cervical, the most deadly cancer (I could be wrong on that) women face!) and getting cervical cancer would lead them to be more likely to have pre-marital sex. This is the crazy we deal with here in America.

Also, though "Plan B" (also known in some circles as "The morning after pill" which is also given as SOP to rape victims unless they refuse due to ignorance, thinking it's an "abortion pill") can stop almost all pregnancies within 72 hours and is available over the counter, but only in places where the store managers and/or pharmacists are not religious nutbags and refuse to stock or sell it. So there are regions in this country where especially teenagers have no access to contraception, and the girl can get knocked up, while her now ex-boyfriend walks away and continues on with his life, her life is ruined if she or her parents are anti-choice.

All of this despite it being effectively proven by results that "Abstinence Only" sexual non-education is about as effective at curbing sex as circumcision was in the 1900's.

For people who were told by their sky fairy to "go, be plentiful and multiply", those Abrahamites (Christians, Muslims, and Jews. I make no real distinction between denominations ) really seem to hate it when people fuck. Well, at least they hate it when people fuck before THEY "sanctify" it making it "Ok". Idiots.