From MoveOn:
A far-reaching anti-choice bill, introduced by Republican Chris Smith and supported by 173 members of the House, includes a provision that could redefine rape and set women’s rights back by decades.
Right now, federal dollars can’t be used for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is in danger. But the Smith bill would narrow that use to “cases of ‘forcible’ rape but not statutory or coerced rape.”
As far too many women know, bruises and broken bones do not define rape – a lack of consent does.
Feminist Philosophers 
done! (dammit!)
Unfortunately, there are nine democrats co-sponsoring the bill too.
This issue is something that is extremely important to our ongoing struggle for women’s rights. At EMILY’s List, we know that over the past 26 years, our members have fought for the freedoms my generation enjoys today by helping to elect pro-choice Democratic women. We’re asking the GOP: what are your priorities? You spoke of an economic mandate, but your actions show a dedication to rolling back the rights of women.
Join EMILY’s List in sending this message to Speaker Boehner: we will not stand for these attacks on women’s rights.
Visit http://boehnersamerica.com today to join us.
Here’s what I sent to my dept:
Those crazy guys-and I do mean guys-are at it again. Legislation to redefine rape in order to restrict abortions. Here’s a petition by MoveOn to oppose it:
How evil can one be to think this isn’t just absolutely crazy?
@Kathryn (or anybody else who knows): Where do i find a list of co-sponsors? I looked a little yesterday and didn’t get anywhere but i don’t exactly know where to look… Thanks in advance!!!
Rachel, the bill can be found here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3
Click on “show co-sponsors” next to Christopher Smith’s name to see the list.
[…] probably heard by now about the anti-choice bill. It’s not only anti-choice, it also sets us back decades of fighting to get legal acknowledgment that rape is violence no matter what. But HR3 isn’t […]
Our friend Thom Brooks is always good, but his blog post on this is extra gratifying:
http://the-brooks-blog.blogspot.com/2011/02/orwellian-double-speak-part-8437-or.html
Many thanks for the kind plug. Needless to say, I am genuinely horrified by this bill and hope it never becomes law.
I’m a bit confused about one aspect of the bill, and I’m hoping someone might illuminate what’s going on here for me.
Everyone from Mother Jones to Jon Stewart has taken aim at the bill’s alleged redefinition of rape, which, according to their analyses, potentially excludes rape victims who are unconscious or unthreatened by physical force. A 1L suggested to me that this is false since “forcible rape” has a precise legal definition and actually “includes instances in which the victim is incapable of giving consent because of her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity”.
http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/uniform-crime-reporting-handbook/forcible-rape.html
I’m wondering if someone might specifically be able to address whether or not Stewart and company are simply mistaken, or if there’s something the law student is missing? Is a redefinition actually taking place here?
That language is being dropped: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/02/hyde_and_seek_on_forcible_rape.html
But, forcible rape legally does not cover all instances. Note, for example, the discussion of the marital exemption here: http://law.jrank.org/pages/1927/Rape-Legal-Aspects-Forcible-rape-elements-offense.html
[…] February 1 Jender brought Republican attempts to redefine rape to our attention. Now there is more. Georgia Republican state Rep. Bobby Franklin […]