> . Implicit in this premise is that a significant number of women are lying about being raped simply to get the government to pay for an abortion.
And this is particular sick because so many women don't report sexual assault, leaving these criminals to walk free, because of these kinds of attitudes that blame the women. When Sandy Middleton and I talk about sexual assault in public, perfectly educated people often respond, "But don't women fake it, too?"
Seriously, people, this is a crime epidemic, and your first comment is whether some woman occasionally lies about being raped?!? For the love of God, start believing women and supporting them unlike these freaks in Congress.
Also, we can't give others -- such as Ryan and Nunnelee -- a break on this even as Republicans distance from Akin and try to throw him under the bus. They're all on the same bus on these issues; he said today that meant "forcible rape" instead of "legitimate rape," but it's the very same point they've all been pushing since all of them tried to pass a law making it more difficult for teen girls to get abortions after being raped. They all agree on it.
They want to draw a distinction so that they can try to get around concerns that even conservatives have about forcing women to give birth to babies resulting from rape. But they also have a logical and moral problem: How can they argue those babies have less a right to be born than unwanted children from non-rape situations? Or that only non-rape situations result in "murder"? So they're trying to parse the language -- and somehow assure parents that if their daughter is raped by a scary stranger that she can get an abortion. Meantime, they're trying to give an out for statutory rape, or acquaintance rape--the teens would have to carry those to term. Because none of this is actually about the young woman and her needs.
The worst part, of course, is how discriminatory all this is. Nunnelee knows full well that his well-to-do friends can arrange abortions in doctor's offices: services many poor women cannot afford.
Here is how [Planned Parenthood responded][1] to Nunnelee's attempt to restrict insurance coverage of abortion. Money quote:
> Federal law already prohibits federal funds being used for abortion, except in the instances of rape, incest, or when the woman's life is threatened—a restriction Planned Parenthood strongly opposes. The Nunnelee amendment to the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill would go even further and impose an unprecedented restriction on women’s ability to purchase private health insurance that includes coverage for abortion.
Note that Nunnelee, Akin, Ryan and others tried to limit the number of teenagers who could get an abortion under the so-called rape exception -- by trying to change the definition of rape to "forcible rape." Therefore, a 35-year-old convinces a 14-year-old to say OK to sex, she would be exempt from the "rape" exemption. Make sense?
And I shudder to think how they would try to determine the difference between forcible rape and the other, less "legitimate" kinds (which is Akin's point; he said today he should have said "forcible rape," as if that makes his statements less horrifying). Where, for instance, would a teen girl who willingly went to her rapist's home, allowed him to kiss her and such, and then he held her down and raped her fall? There is no gun or knife or dark alley involved? I'm guessing these guys wouldn't want that called "forcible rape" and would say she has to have the child because she went there with him.
All of this is so, so, so sick. As the president said today: "Rape is rape." You idiots need to stop harassing American women and trying to take away our rights. Seriously. This is not going to work, and you're going to look so great in the history books. Enjoy your legacy.
Lisa, I'm so sorry to hear about this: I can only imagine how many similar stories happened to women in our hometown. Bless you. Hear me: It was not your fault. Draw strength from knowing that and, if possible, from using your story to help other women (and men). Big hug.
BTW, if you want to figure out who they are, or respond to them, these guys are on the JFP Facebook page posting and commenting. Apparently, this column annoyed them, and they are employing more leaps in logic. Enjoy.
So, I just peeked at the dentist's Facebook page to see how he's reacting to this column: predictably by hurling empty insults at the JFP, but not actually addressing anything. He did post this in response, though, because you know when you speak out any gays, you are of course speaking out against violence against Christians:
> Don't mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta "rage" in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions.
donnaladd says...
Amen, Brian. You really hit on it here:
> . Implicit in this premise is that a significant number of women are lying about being raped simply to get the government to pay for an abortion.
And this is particular sick because so many women don't report sexual assault, leaving these criminals to walk free, because of these kinds of attitudes that blame the women. When Sandy Middleton and I talk about sexual assault in public, perfectly educated people often respond, "But don't women fake it, too?"
Seriously, people, this is a crime epidemic, and your first comment is whether some woman occasionally lies about being raped?!? For the love of God, start believing women and supporting them unlike these freaks in Congress.
On Are Republicans really trying to redefine rape? Seriously?
Posted 21 August 2012, 6:10 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Also, we can't give others -- such as Ryan and Nunnelee -- a break on this even as Republicans distance from Akin and try to throw him under the bus. They're all on the same bus on these issues; he said today that meant "forcible rape" instead of "legitimate rape," but it's the very same point they've all been pushing since all of them tried to pass a law making it more difficult for teen girls to get abortions after being raped. They all agree on it.
They want to draw a distinction so that they can try to get around concerns that even conservatives have about forcing women to give birth to babies resulting from rape. But they also have a logical and moral problem: How can they argue those babies have less a right to be born than unwanted children from non-rape situations? Or that only non-rape situations result in "murder"? So they're trying to parse the language -- and somehow assure parents that if their daughter is raped by a scary stranger that she can get an abortion. Meantime, they're trying to give an out for statutory rape, or acquaintance rape--the teens would have to carry those to term. Because none of this is actually about the young woman and her needs.
The worst part, of course, is how discriminatory all this is. Nunnelee knows full well that his well-to-do friends can arrange abortions in doctor's offices: services many poor women cannot afford.
On Are Republicans really trying to redefine rape? Seriously?
Posted 20 August 2012, 2:47 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
I hope he stays in. It will keep women's issues front and center nationally, especially if we all ensure that it does.
Excellent Obama quotes.
On Are Republicans really trying to redefine rape? Seriously?
Posted 20 August 2012, 2:39 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Here is how [Planned Parenthood responded][1] to Nunnelee's attempt to restrict insurance coverage of abortion. Money quote:
> Federal law already prohibits federal funds being used for abortion, except in the instances of rape, incest, or when the woman's life is threatened—a restriction Planned Parenthood strongly opposes. The Nunnelee amendment to the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill would go even further and impose an unprecedented restriction on women’s ability to purchase private health insurance that includes coverage for abortion.
Note that Nunnelee, Akin, Ryan and others tried to limit the number of teenagers who could get an abortion under the so-called rape exception -- by trying to change the definition of rape to "forcible rape." Therefore, a 35-year-old convinces a 14-year-old to say OK to sex, she would be exempt from the "rape" exemption. Make sense?
And I shudder to think how they would try to determine the difference between forcible rape and the other, less "legitimate" kinds (which is Akin's point; he said today he should have said "forcible rape," as if that makes his statements less horrifying). Where, for instance, would a teen girl who willingly went to her rapist's home, allowed him to kiss her and such, and then he held her down and raped her fall? There is no gun or knife or dark alley involved? I'm guessing these guys wouldn't want that called "forcible rape" and would say she has to have the child because she went there with him.
All of this is so, so, so sick. As the president said today: "Rape is rape." You idiots need to stop harassing American women and trying to take away our rights. Seriously. This is not going to work, and you're going to look so great in the history books. Enjoy your legacy.
[1]: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-…
On Nunnelee Wants Rape Definition Changed; Says Planned Parenthood Protects Rapists
Posted 20 August 2012, 2:37 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Thanks, CeCe. I really appreciate it!
On Yes, It Was That Bad
Posted 19 August 2012, 11:38 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Lisa, I'm so sorry to hear about this: I can only imagine how many similar stories happened to women in our hometown. Bless you. Hear me: It was not your fault. Draw strength from knowing that and, if possible, from using your story to help other women (and men). Big hug.
On Yes, It Was That Bad
Posted 19 August 2012, 7:13 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
BTW, if you want to figure out who they are, or respond to them, these guys are on the JFP Facebook page posting and commenting. Apparently, this column annoyed them, and they are employing more leaps in logic. Enjoy.
On A More Intolerant Nation
Posted 18 August 2012, 7:13 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
So, I just peeked at the dentist's Facebook page to see how he's reacting to this column: predictably by hurling empty insults at the JFP, but not actually addressing anything. He did post this in response, though, because you know when you speak out any gays, you are of course speaking out against violence against Christians:
http://clashdaily.com/2012/08/gays-prom…
(Remember: These aren't genuises of logic over there. Read my above column again.)
On A More Intolerant Nation
Posted 18 August 2012, 6:50 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
More from Morello:
> Don't mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta "rage" in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/…
On Rage Against the Machine Guitarist Rages Against Paul Ryan
Posted 17 August 2012, 9:26 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
You're welcome, Pilgram. Cheers to Jacob. He was there last night, of course.
On Jackson Redistricting Stirs Midtown
Posted 17 August 2012, 8:40 p.m. Suggest removal