Among the protests in Egypt and senseless murders right here in the U.S., newspapers and Internet articles are blazing with headlines with two specific words: 'redefining rape.' These articles all base off a recent proposed revision of the bill allowing women who have been the victim of rape to have a government funded abortion. This is not Roe versus Wade, abortion has been legalized since 1973. This is not a question of religion or the right to life. This is a question about whether or not a woman raped in one specific manner versus another is any less of a victim and therefor entitled to different or lesser available treatment than another.
A Republican named Chris Smith is proposing to revise this bill to only include a government funded abortion if the conception was spurned from a forcible rape, incest involving a minor or if the mother's life is in danger. That seems like a pretty broad spectrum at first, but then you realize that leaves out statutory and coerced rape. So what exactly is 'forcible' rape? To get down to the nitty gritty of it all, if a fourteen year old girl is groomed and seduced by an older man and it leads to a conception, she will not be eligible for this kind of funding. If a young woman goes out on a date with a man she knows and he forces himself on her, she is not eligible. If a young woman goes to a party and someone slips a tranquilizer into her drink with the sole purpose of taking advantage of her once she passes out, she is not eligible.
This proposition does not redefine what rape really is with in the confines of the law, which is sex without consent. It isn't going to re-write the judicial system, a man who uses a date rape drug or has a sexual interaction with a teenager is not going to have their sentences lessened by this proposed situation. It is not going to change how we handle offenders, it is going to change the options for victims if they're low income. In a sense I feel that in a case of statutory rape the offender should be forced to pay for the abortion. The reality of that situation is that by the time the legal proceedings get to a point that he finally has the blame placed on him and he's being held responsible for his actions, she may be too far along to have an abortion. In any case of rape that results in an abortion, I feel that the assailant should be forced to also pay the estimated average cost for that procedure as part of their legal dues.
Again, we aren't redefining rape in a sense of legal liability. They're attempting to redefine it to save tax dollars. It's easy to try to cut costs when the ones who are being affected aren't a part of your day to day life. Telling a young woman she isn't eligible for an abortion because she wasn't brutally assaulted by a stranger but instead was drugged at a party and taken advantage of by someone she just met wouldn't be a situation that the politicians behind this revision will ever have to go through. I dare a single one of them to take an hour out of their lives and visit a young woman who has been the victim of an assault. To watch as a doctor breaks the news to her that she is, in fact, pregnant. But I think at this point the opposing politician should step in and have the opportunity to explain to her that despite her low income status, she is not eligible for an abortion because she wasn't raped a certain way. To keep a straight face and an empty heart and tell her that because she wasn't conscious to tell them 'no', that essentially because she went on a date wearing that dress, that because she's underage and was seduced by an older man who took advantage of her, she's not eligible for government funding. That is pretty much what every councilor and social worker is going to have to do. They will have to tell them that in a sense they're less of a victim because they weren't violently attacked or because they weren't seduced by an adult family member.
Rape is defined by the Webster-Merriam Dictionary as : "unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent". That should be pretty cut and dry, don't you think? We aren't redefining what rape is by law or by definition, what they're trying to do is redefine which low income victims are eligible for pregnancy termination. By definition they are still a victim of the same crime, so why should they be considered less in need of assistance?
Rape isn't a poor man's crime, anyone can be a victim and anyone can be a predator. You aren't safe because of your financial status, race, gender or age. Our low income citizens are the ones that are the most susceptible as they tend to live in areas that have a higher crime rate. I've seen recent news articles regarding sexual assaults by a news reporter and two juvenile counselors. From time to time a priest or a boy scout leader is accused of assault. These are people with college educations that have the potential of living in a nice neighborhood. These people are not the ones that we would normally think of when it comes to a sexual predator. For the most part they seem to prefer to prey on lower income citizens. Another case recently in the news focused on men who were videotaping themselves sexually assualting disabled women, some that were so disabled that they had no idea what was going on or that were unable to communicate what had happened to them. What if one of these women became pregnant? They're on social security no doubt and their housing and medical is being paid for by the government, but if this bill gets redefined then this funding would not be available for them.
In the long run the young woman will be denied financial assistance to terminate an unwanted pregnancy resulting from having one too many drinks or being violated on a date. She wont be able to afford an abortion and will be forced to carry the baby to term. She'll be faced with the possibility of putting the baby up for adoption, but at some point during the pregnancy she'll feel it move and there will be that confirmation that she is really carrying a baby. A flood of emotion and hormones will follow and she'll be torn. She'll most likely keep the baby and for the next eighteen years our tax dollars will pay for the medicaid, food stamps and other government assistance that will be needed to raise this baby. This woman's life will be forever altered.
I know for those who are Pro-Life I may sound heartless. I mean, do we really want to end the life of an unborn baby? Honestly, I'm not thinking about the outcome. I'm thinking about the basic rights of the victims in question and I'm questioning the individuals who actually had the audacity to even begin proposing this.
This article was posted while I was writing this blog. It appears they've withdrawn their attempt at applying the term 'forcible rape' to this bill, attempting to explain that they never meant to exempt anyone from the funding at all. They're going to keep it per the language used in the Hyde Amendment. It makes you wonder if that was really the case, but if it was not then why would they have even attempt to revise it to begin with? As T. Bert Lance said "If it ain't broke don't fix it."
