There is an issue that has come up in this country, which honestly shouldn’t even be being talked about in this nation anymore. There can be no question about the fact that bringing this subject to the debate table is cruel, heartless and is a service the government shouldn’t be able to withhold because of personal bias.
What should scare people is the fact that there are a lot of people who actually take a lot of what has been said recently about the reproductive rights of women and how they shouldn’t have any choice about their own bodies seriously.
This issue came to the table in a rather dramatic way. It was first introduced with on January 20th of this year. It came in the form of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which was introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J). It is a rather complicated piece of legislation, so let’s take it apart piece by piece.
“This legislation is really about whether the role of America’s government is to continue to fund [abortion] despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans—even some of those who consider themselves pro-choice—strongly object to their taxpayer dollars paying for abortion,” said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.). It sounds so innocent, but the fact is that this legislation is actually a lot more cold-hearted.
The fact is that there is already a law preventing the federal government for paying for abortions. It is called the Hyde Amendment. This was an unfair Amendment to pass because it took out the provisions for low-income families in programs like Medicaid that covered abortions.
But there is a catch. At first, the Hyde Amendment had no exception for cases of rape and incest. However, this rightly got women’s advocates to come together and protest this. Their protests worked, and since 1976, there has been an exception in the Hyde Amendment in cases of rape and incest.
And this is where the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act comes back into place. They originally wanted to remove this loophole altogether and it sounds cruel to even talk about.
The new rules stipulate that the exception to the Hyde Amendment is only in cases of “forcible rape.” Take a moment and think about that- forcible rape. The very phrase is demeaning to women who have been victims, because for women who are the victims of statutory or date rape, well, it’s tough luck.
Something very ugly is happening in the collective consciousness of this country. Not only are these acts basically telling women that they shouldn’t even have the option, they are also saying that certain kinds of rape are not “forcible.”
If these kinds of rape are not “forcible,” are they any less wrong? Is it any better for a woman to become pregnant with her rapists baby if he didn’t beat the stuffing out her? Is it any better for a young girl to be told that she is carrying her father’s baby? Where is the line that says that this kind of conversation is wrong?
Another idea that came to the table was the Protect Life Act. It was brought up by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) and Rep. Dan Lipiniski (D-Ill.). Under this law, not only would it make it almost impossible for women to get insurance coverage for abortion, but it also gives public hospitals the authority to refuse to provide emergency abortions to save the woman’s life.
Not only does this act fly in the face of the Hippocratic Oath, which stipulates that a doctor shall do no harm, but it is a genuine statement of hypocritical indecency. This bill is not made to protect life, it is making a doctor have the authority to end it, to let another human being die, and with no guarantee that the fetus will live anyway!
It isn’t if just the bill passing that matters on this issue. In fact, if the reaction of House and Senate Democrats is any indication, these provisions are going nowhere. The real issue here in that this conversation is happening at all.
This kind of thinking is a disease. It is a cancer of American society and all the progress that women have made to have full reproductive rights. It is kind of ironic that the Tea Party says that they want a smaller government, but now they want the government to basically reign over all pregnancies.
Remember Sharron Angle, the Tea Party candidate in Nevada? She was one of the Tea Party candidates who was in favor of granting government power over the lives of women.
She said that girls who didn’t have an abortion had, “made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade.”
Christine O’Donnell, another Tea Party candidate said, “We must renew the commitment to respect all human life on which the Republican Party was founded.”
The fact that H.R.3 is not going to pass is inconsequential, because now the topic has come up. Now it is apparently fair-game to talk about letting women in this country die, and not giving women who have suffered a horrible crime the right to choose. It used to be that even if the Republicans were against abortion, they wouldn’t talk about taking away a woman’s choice for rape and incest cases.
Now, their case for why abortion is wrong is most faith-based, and it does have at least a modicum of a point. A living creature is being terminated. But the issue here is the fact that this government should really have no right to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. It’s as simple as that.