I’ve mentioned several times on here that I don’t write about politics. Let’s change this to mean, I prefer not to.
In another life, I would have been a great politician. I am passionate, I am demanding, I have high standards of ethics and morality, I am open-minded and try to be fair, even with those I disagree with.
However, not only am I unwilling (or unable) to look the part, I have this annoying habit of crying whenever I get really mad. I’m not saying they’re Alice-drowns-a-town type of sobs but there’s a lot of stuff about politics that make me really really really mad and I decided that I would be far too emotionally invested to be of any use. (And yes, I’m aware of how someone could argue the exact opposite.)
Today is one of those days where I would be of no use.
This article has been posted on FaceBook several times. And it’s most important passage, for me at least, is this:
Not only does H.R. 3 raise taxes on small businesses in attempt to make it impossible to purchase abortion care coverage — even with an individual’s own money — it imposes even more draconian measures than already exist on those who seek these services.
As has been reported in Mother Jones, H.R.3 could compel the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to audit rape and incest survivors who seek abortion services. And while Republicans publicly claimed to have caved to public outcry and removed a provision to redefine rape, they are still attempting to do exactly that. A committee report for H.R. 3 explicitly excludes statutory rape from acceptable exemptions to the federal subsidy ban, a dramatic departure from present law.
(Bolded emphasis added by me.)
Let’s be frank, I’m not sure what H.R. 3 technically is, whether it’s a bill or what, what I do know is that this has to stop.
Who does it serve to “redefine” rape and what’s wrong with our current understanding?
Well, I can think of a few things wrong with our understanding of rape but they’re certainly issues that are causing actions like the above and not the other way around.
This site, EMILY’s List, is a site dedicated to electing pro-choice women to office. I don’t know much about it but if you believe in their goals, you should certainly look into their efforts.
All I want to say is this: Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973 and according to Wikipedia (that I acknowledge has its own faults) it
decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state’s two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother’s health.
Setting the actual issue of abortion aside, along with it the interest of “protecting prenatal life,” what we are left with is the decision to protect the mother.
In this case, those mothers are the victims of rape and possibly incest. Tell me how any of this protects them.
Tell me how we are keeping everyone’s best interests in mind. Tell me how this helps people because I’d like to understand.
I know this post is in some ways tangential to what is actually going on in this document. I’m rambling and I admit, I could be better informed.
But in a country that is demanding again and again for equal rights for all of its citizens, we can’t allow a backslide like this.
And when someone asks if this is okay, stand up and say no.