Republicans redefining rape?
SO there is this bill, in the process of being passed that would allow women to seek government money to fund an abortion only in the event of forcible rape. I was under the impression that force is an inherent part of rape. Along with loss of dignity, a violated vagina, STDs, and illegitimate unwanted rape babies. But according the dicknose GOP, rape really isn't that bad? In the bill abortion coverage would be denied for women who were not forcibly raped, including victims of statutory rape and date rape.
About time someone cleared up the hazy distinction between rape-rape and non-rape-rape. I am sure women who are raped by their husbands wouldn't be covered either? Cause if you're married to the bastard, than you're just asking for it.
All things awesome on the rape subject--- so, one third of rape kits go unprocessed and are expiring in evidence boxes everyday. So what does this mean for all the sistas?
well if your raped, not only will you go through a horribly traumatic experience; but the chances of someone catching the jerk are scant. Actually, the chance of anyone caring in general are slim. And who knows you might just get a little baby out of the whole shabang.
Could the government do one thing good for the victims of rape, and not create a fine printed footnote on the definition of rape that reads, "not all rape is forced."
Is that tear for the victims of rape? OR just victims of forced rape?
-Mo
No comments:
Post a Comment