Skip to main content

It is time to propose practical changes that would actually cut public expenditures, protect rape victims and make the anti-women animus that motivates these proposals visible for all to see.

Written by June Carbone for RHRealityCheck.org - News, commentary and community for reproductive health and justice. This article is cross-posted.

This post was originally published at New Deal 2.0, a project of the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute.

The Republican leadership is at it again.  House Republicans rode  into office on claims that President Obama and the Democratic Congress  were promoting a "liberal" agenda rather than focusing on the real task  at hand — job creation.  Yet the first act of the new Republican House  was a symbolic repeal of health care followed by a focus on the true  conservative passion: regulating the sex lives of the most vulnerable  and politically powerless women.  The latest proposal, which would limit benefits for rape victims unless they could show that the rape was "forcible," reintroduces a  distinction that women fought for decades to eliminate — the notion that  "real rape" can only occur when a stranger jumps out of the bushes and  holds a woman at gunpoint.  Otherwise, the woman must necessarily be  complicit in the resulting pregnancy and should be forced to bear the  child.

Anyone who seriously cares about women’s lives will oppose the  measure.  Merely trying to defeat it, however, is not enough.  It  continues the practice of letting the far right define the reproductive  debate while those who champion reproductive justice play defense.  It  is time to turn the tables and propose practical changes that would  actually cut public expenditures, protect rape victims and make the  anti-women animus that motivates these proposals visible for all to see.

Wisconsin offers an inspiring example.  It joined sixteen other states and the District of Columbia in signing a "Compassionate Care for Rape Victims" act into law in 2008.  (For other states, see here.)   The law, passed with significant support from pro-life legislators,  requires that emergency rooms provide rape victims with information  about and access to emergency contraception.  The contraception, better  known as "the morning after pill," involves administering a high dose of  progestin, the active ingredient in the birth control pill.  The  hormone prevents or delays ovulation but cannot dislodge an existing  pregnancy.  The treatment is relatively inexpensive, effective up to 72  hours after intercourse, and part of the ordinary standard of care for  emergency room treatment. Yet a 2006 study indicated that 66% of Wisconsin emergency rooms failed to mention it to patients seeking assistance after a rape.

It took an impressive coalition of legislators, rape victims, and  reproductive justice advocates to pass the bill.  The victims testified  movingly — and courageously — about their experiences.  Doctrinaire  conservatives, not unlike the Congressional Republicans urging the  current restrictions, used intemperate language that referred to the  "alleged" victims and questioned whether the rapes were "real."  Their  callousness in the face of women testifying to terrifying experiences  exposed the extremism of the opposition, which objects not just to  abortion, but to contraception.  The heartlessness embarrassed and split  pro-life ranks and led to the passage of a measure that provided a real  service to rape victims and reduced both abortions and government  spending.  Most importantly, it spared already traumatized women an  unnecessary pregnancy or later abortion.

Women’s groups can gain ground only if we change the terms of the  debate.  We need to make compassion for victims the issue, not some  abstract debate about whether rape is real.  The only way to do so is to  find a way to get what should be consensus proposals a hearing —  proposals that take the trauma of rape seriously, make the real problem  visible, offer workable solutions and expose the pro-life posturing in  Congress for what it is: an ideological crusade that succeeds only so  long as true victims remain invisible.

Originally posted to RH Reality Check on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 08:40 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  "only if we change the terms of the debate" (6+ / 0-)

    Women’s groups can gain ground only if we change the terms of the  debate.  We need to make compassion for victims the issue, not some  abstract debate about whether rape is real.

    I think I'd like to change the terms a bit more than that.  For instance, why are we accepting that it's okay to deny this medical care to women as long as they aren't pregnant as a result of rape?  

  •  Take a page from their playbook and use (7+ / 0-)

    simple direct language: Rapist Reproductive Rights Act.  

    Congressman, why are you so concerned for the rights of rapists?

  •  Thank you for writing this diary. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lamzdotes, swampyankee

    These people as Marcos calls them, the American Taliban, are poisoning our democracy. And they are prone to the most ridiculous displays of projection and paranoia that one would think they couldn't gain any power at all.

    And yet they are driving the discourse of this country. If we want to put the reins back in the hands of sane people, we are going to have to do it one victory at a time. Your plan is sound advice.

  •  Defeat HR3 facebook group (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lamzdotes, melpomene1, swampyankee

    Bumper sticker seen on I-95; "Stop Socialism" my response: "Don't like socialism? GET OFF the Interstate highway!"

    by Clytemnestra on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 09:08:31 AM PST

  •  What I wrote to Idaho's co-sponsor (5+ / 0-)

    with a copy to my own representative:

    Re: H.R. 3: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act
    Dear Rep. Simpson,
    I am extremely disappointed in your co-sponsorship of H.R.3.
    The bill itself fails to define the term "forcible rape." Neither federal criminal code nor the criminal codes of some states define the term. If this bill were to become law who would determine whether a rape victim was subjected to sufficient force to enable her to obtain an abortion paid for with "federal" funds? If a female is threatened with future violence to herself or others but is neither beaten or restrained nor threatened with a deadly weapon doesn't such a threat to which she succumbs rise to the level of force necessary to prosecute a rape charge? Or must a girl or woman be impregnated by her rapist only after being beaten, restrained or threatened by a deadly weapon in order to avail herself of "federal" assistance in obtaining an abortion? What about cases when the female has been first rendered incapable of consent  by the surreptitious use of drugs or alcohol by the rapist?
    Why is statutory rape excluded from the limitations and prohibitions set forth in the bill? Rape is rape. If a female is legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse said intercourse is rape.
    Please don't bother having a staffer respond to this email. The party line is abundantly clear.
    Sincerely,

    This space for sale.

    by lamzdotes on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 09:17:15 AM PST

    •  Good letter. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lamzdotes

      I doubt that Simpson will give a rats ass.

      It's so hard to be an Idahoan.

      My dogs think triciawyse is smart and pretty. They think I'm a strange, frumpy woman wth limitless snacks.

      by martydd on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 09:58:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site