Sunday, February 27, 2011


In Feb., 2011, a friend posted on her Facebook page a link to an article at The title of the article was “Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP’s War on Women.” My friend is pretty conservative on most things, and posted this strictly to start conversation and get people’s reactions to it. The first several responses were critical of the article and of I wanted to read it for myself, and see what sorts of things they were talking about. I read the article, and decided to look carefully into the first item on it: “Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.”
After doing my research, I posted a reply in the thread on my friend’s Facebook page. This reply, and some of the conversation that followed, is the subject of this blog post.

Here is the link to

And here is my response to the article:

Let's look at the first of's charges, that Republicans want to "redefine rape." First, the authority for this claim is an op-ed on "The Huffington Post," long known for its objective reporting of the news. That article, in turn..., references an op-ed in the "New York Times," ditto and ditto. Neither article contained a link that I could find to the text of the bill, H.R. 3. So I, left-brained, white male that I am, looked it up. Here's the page with the text: --

And here's the text that deals with rape:

"The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--
"(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or..." [the next paragraph deals with the health of the mother.]

Clearly, this does NOT redefine rape. It attempts to define the circumstances under which the Federal Government will pay for an abortion. (Personally, I think "forcible rape" is a redundancy. If it isn't forcible, as in the seduction of an underage girl, we need another term for it because it's a different thing - NOT less heinous or despicable! - but different.)

However, see that statement, "The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion-?" Well, those sections say only that no federal funds shall be used to provide abortion, nor to fund any insurance plan that pays for abortion coverage.

Now here's the kicker: sections 305-308 very specifically state that this bill will not be construed as restricting the ability of states or non-federally funded insurance programs from providing abortion coverage. I gave you the link. Go read it, yourself.

So - huge surprise! - has twisted and propagandized the real story to promote their pet agenda - that Republicans are moral cannibals. They deliberately misused the concept of "define," and they deliberately failed to include the entire context. They also very carefully avoided any reference to the bill, itself, using instead other cookie-cutter liberal bilge.

I will not waste my time dissecting their other charges. If this does not thoroughly discredit them in the eyes of all who read this, oh, well.

Feb., 2011


  1. What follows is part of the exchange between myself and other respondents to the thread. I have included only their initials, in order to make it easier to tell who said what.

    CB ~
    "Anytime anyone speaks of rape or any other crime against women with an unlying attitude that "most" cases are "usually" a made up attempt by a deranged woman to hurt a man - that attitude really raises my blood pressure. Although I'm aware that there are some instances of women falsely accusing men - I do not believe that is the norm. "Redefining" rape to lesson the offense is an insult to all women no matter who suggests it."

    LF ~
    "But speaking as a mother of only boys that whole Duke University lacrosse thing really made me wonder about false accusations. But that isn't why I posted this. I wanted to see how Republicans responded to being accused of "raging a war on women". I think these things were tied to economic entitlement reasons. But it was really interesting to hear everyone's opinions....especially yours C, being so out numbered, as you are on the other side of the aisle. :-)"

    Rebsarge ~
    "Rape is so reprehensible an act, whether committed against a man or a woman, that it is impossible to discuss it without arousing powerful emotions. Because of the intensely personal, degrading nature of the crime, discussing it in court to determine guilt is difficult for both the accused and the accuser. (There is no adjective in front of "difficult" because I can't comprehend how difficult it would be; anything I put in there would be hollow and patronizing.)

    "It is a fact that women have falsely accused men of rape, and innocent men have been imprisoned or executed. I have been so accused of sexual misconduct with a female coworker, and, while I can't speak on testifying in a rape case, I can most assuredly speak on how humiliating and infuriating it is to have to stand, helpless and defenseless, forbidden to even speak in my own defense, and to then be told that my accuser would suffer no punishment because that might "...inhibit other women who really had been molested."

    "However, bill H. R. 3 is not about redefining rape. It is about defining - "delimiting" might be a better term - the circumstances under which the federal government would pay for abortions. This bill excuses the federal government from the task of determining guilt, and from deciding if an underage girl was forcibly raped or consented to the act. The bill explicitly leaves to the states the authority of determining guilt, and of assessing penalties.

    "It does not say a word about the nature of rape, nor about the circumstances that differentiate rape from consensual sex. All it says is that the states have the authority and the responsibility of handling such matters. Personally, I think the word "forcible" should be deleted because its inclusion implies a federal responsibility to determine the nature of the crime."

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. BJ~
    "My concern is for low income women, and their ability to get proper medical care. It's a woman thing, not a Republican or Democrat thing. As a daughter of a Republican legislator in Idaho, and also a mom to foster daughters and one adopted daughter, I want to make sure that quality health care will be available to them."

    "BJ, I am the father of daughters, too. Getting the federal government out of the health care business, especially in the realm of abortion, is the best thing to do for low income women. For every dollar taken from the American people,... only a fraction of a penny actually comes back to them. Keeping tax monies local, and disbursing them locally, is VASTLY more efficient than letting Washington do it. The question, I suppose, is "What has the federal government ever done so right, or effectively, in the realm of health care, that we might think giving them control of abortion funding would be to ANYone's benefit?"

    "Rebsarge, in Idaho we have a budget crisis along with the rest of the nation. It would be a shame to let women's health suffer because there simply weren't dollars for it. For me, I'm self employed and pay out the you know what for medica...l insurance, yet I'm not a proponent of a national health care; I am a proponent in ensuring our most financially needy women are properly cared for. It's what any caring country should be doing.
    Also, I wasn't talking about abortion, although it was legalized some 40 years ago when our Supreme Ct declared it better to provide safe abortions than letting women die in back alleys. I am grateful that my adopted daughter's mom didn't choose this option. As to the federal gvt's role in abortion funding, I marvel at how many people are pro-life before a child is born, , but do so little to assist once that life is here...but that's another debate."

    "Whether you're talking about abortion (which is what I was talking about) or the larger issue of health care, in general, we will get more and probably better care if the feds stay out of it. The article that LF posted to start this thread accused the Republican party of waging war on women. I addressed the first item in that article and showed how it is a contemptible, propagandistic sham. The bill, H.R. 3, which that article referred to, does not strip a penny from health care of any sort. It specifically protects the rights of the states and non-federally funded insurance plans to do whatever they think best. In fact, by cutting the federal bureaucracy out of the equation, the bill will mean MORE money in the hands of the states. I made no reference to the morality or the legality of abortion - nor of socialized health care.

    "Nobody said anything about outlawing abortion or denying poor people health care, although, since you opened the can of ad homenim worms... I marvel at how many people deny the rights of humans to live, period, from murdering babies to enslaving adults in order to pay for the mechanism for murdering more babies.

    "In fact, the more I think about it, the more I smell a troll."


    The comments of both BJ and CB are beautiful examples of the primary polemic method of Liberals. Neither of them addressed what I had said. In fact, neither of them addressed the subject of the conversation! Both of them set up straw men - CB talked about the idea that "most" rapes are made up, and BJ talked about health care for poor women. Neither of these subjects were in my essay. Moveon's flagrantly dishonest post tried to make these claims, but I showed how the first, about defining rape, was utterly "made up."

    Liberals are utterly incapable of discussing a point. They bounce around like possessed rubber balls, from one to another. If you engage them on their first point, they instantly bounce to another, as both of these women did. If you press them, they will immediately attack you, personally, as BJ did me. They use the argument from intimidation, as BJ did when she implied that I did not care to help people live after birth. They use the argument from authority, as BJ did when she plopped down her mother credentials.

    It is not possible that a single group of humans could so consistently use the same techniques, across the span of so many years, across the range of so many topics, and against so many opponents - by accident. These patterns give proof of the innate perversity and dishonesty of the Liberal mind. There is no excusing these people. They are not, "the loyal opposition."

    The Liberal mind is the destroyer of the human race, and of all that makes the race viable or worthwhile.

  6. It's nice to see someone doing their own homework rather than believing whatever publishes.