Tue 1 Feb, 2011 01:18 pm
a tad dramatic perhaps, by NJ Representative Chris Smith, a Republican and a staunch anti-abortion worker, is seeking to redefine rape, removing statutory and coerced rape, leaving only forcible rape.
This would further limit a woman's right to treatment after a rape as federal funding would be limited.
You got the MoveOn email, eh?
They're a bit sensationalistic about it and are fudging what's at stake a bit. I just happened to have a few windows open about this, I'll plonk.
This is the actual bill:
This is a good run-down:
The main thing is that this is a pretty narrow focus, regarding when federal funds can go towards abortions
. (It's not about rape or treatment for rape more generally.)
It specifies that federal funding can still be used if rape is forcible -- but leaves open the question of, what if it's not forcible? And what is "forcible," anyway?
Thanks, soz. I did a little research on Smith which asked more questions than it answered. I also noticed that moveon was correct but not accurate when describing Smith on stem cell research.
I posted this to see who knows what about Smith.