(UNREAL, INSANE BIAS) House Republicans Plan to Redefine Rape

ABC (A Bunch of Communists) ^ | Jan. 31, 2011 | By NICK BAUMANN

[Lazamataz]

Drugged, Raped, and Pregnant? Too bad -- Republicans are Pushing to Limit Rape and Incest Cases Eligible for Government Abortion Funding

Rape is only really rape if it involves force, according to the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.

For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, with another exemption covering pregnancies that could endanger the life of the mother.

But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to drastically limit the definition of rape and incest in these cases. The bill, with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors, has been dubbed a top priority in the new Congress by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

[Lazamataz]

The level of bias is breathtaking.

Opinion is heartily mixed with occasional facts, in this State Run Media (ABC) article.

I seriously expect the following news headline from ABC by the end of the year: "Republicans Suck. They Are Demons From Hell. They Eat Infants."

[Lazamataz]

Doing your job, today. LOL

[GeronL]

What part of “no funding or abortion” do these people not understand??

Even the Republicans don’t really seem to get it.

[broken_arrow1]

"Raped" by her boyfriend, who she is still living with, qualifies her for government funded abortion?

[rarestia]

“Oh, but he didn’t mean it. He love me!”

[Lazamataz]

I'll give 'em forcible rape, but I'm not an abortion purist. I'll respect your opinion, if we disagree about it.

But mostly, this post is to demonstrate about a 95% anti-Republican bias level.

[EternalVigilance]

Any politician who says they think it’s fine to butcher babies, no matter who pays for the butchery, should be impeached. In fact, they should probably be incarcerated as a danger to society as well.

[Lazamataz]

"Raped" by her boyfriend, who she is still living with, qualifies her for government funded abortion?

According to Democrats, "Rape" is what a fetus does when existing in the womb. Therefore, all pregnancy is rape.

[Lazamataz]

I’m more amazed at the incredible bias in this article.

[The_Media_never_lie]

Rape is only really rape if it involves force, according to the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.

Rape involves force. Statuatory rape does not involved force. WTF?

[GeronL]

Why should taxpayers pay for it just because it was forcible rape?

[Lazamataz]

I have a low concern level about abortion, so I probably won’t join in a discussion about that. Again, my focus is the fact that opinion — pure, raw opinion — is being presented as news.

[SgtHooper]

What truly confuses me is the large number of religious people who ignore this and vote as demorats. Inconceivable.

[henkster]

Raped by her boyfriend, with whom she is still living? Around here, I refer to that has a “hillbilly rape.” It goes like this:

“You were my boyfriend yesterday, and you might be my boyfriend again tomorrow, but we’re split up today so if we have sex it’s rape.”

I was a prosecutor for 18 years; these cases crossed my desk more often than you could guess. None of them got filed in Court. You do not get “raped” by a boyfriend you still live with. Sorry ladies, but “rape” is a big grown up word with big grown up consequences (like the sex offender registry) and it should not be cheapened like that.

[Lazamataz]

I’m so glad there (was) a prosecuter with a lick of sense. Pity you won’t consider coming out of retirement — we need more like you.

[Red Badger]

Eventually a “blood libel” will come from their talking heads..............

[Miss_Meyet]

I seriously expect the following news headline from ABC by the end of the year: "Republicans Suck. They Are Demons From Hell. They Eat Infants."

...With ketchup.

[Objective Scrutator]

The opinion that one should be pro-life with exception to rape/incest/health reasons/etc. almost makes less sense to me than being pro-abortion. By that logic, one should go around euthanizing the elderly and children who receive inadequate care simply because they’re ‘burdens’ on a family economy. I’d hazard a guess that many of these people who want abortion ‘exceptions’ are indifferent towards the coming death panels Obamacare is going to be mandating.

[pnh102]

Why is the financing of the murder of unborn children a federal concern anyway? There is no interstate commerce involved.

[Eagle of Liberty]

What part of “no funding or abortion” do these people not understand?

No joke. The Republicans are NOT calling for abortions from rape to be illegal. Simply wanting GOVERNMENT FUNDING removed.

And it is simply the same old playbook. The State Controlled ABC find one little SOCIAL nugget to make a story out of and go after it, DESPITE what the actual country's reaction was to Stupak's announcement last year that he would be voting for Obamacare after receiving some Obama deal.

Will the Stupak coalition fall for the Obama/Pelosi/Reid double cross?

Not too long ago, when I first heard the possible deal in the works about a seperate bill that Steny Hoyer was floating, I thought this was a hoodwink effort to get the Stupak coalition of votes of which if Pelosi doesn’t get those, Obamacare’s demise is certain.

Bottom line: These PROGRESSIVES need to learn to live without Government! Abortion is NOT illegal. This legislation will not do one thing to change that. This legislation will remove FUNDING. If so many people want to see Planned Parenthood centers all across the country, find your sources of funding elsewhere!!!