Dear Republicans, How The Fu*k Do You Redefine Rape?

Rep. Chris Smith and House Speaker, John Boehner

Are we ever surprised at the lengths to which certain Republicans and other narrow-thinking politicians will go to push this country backward instead of forward? The latest example of shamefully poor judgment comes in the form of a piece of legislation introduced by Republican Chris Smith. The No Taxpayer funding for Abortion act is designed to slash abortion access, eliminate federal abortion funding, and potentially change the definition of rape.

Among many talking points that this bill provides, it reminds us of is the importance and value of language and its ability to strip away the severity of a crime. The bill suggests that if you change the wording, then the act will change, which is far from the truth.

Here are a couple aspects of the bill:

The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion–

(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or

(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

 The language displayed is vague and flooded in semantics. In the first clause the term “forcible” is placed in front of “rape.” It seems to go without saying that rape always occurs with force—whether this force is physical, verbal, psychological, (or by any other means of coercion) should and does not matter. What is truly dangerous about this redundancy is the fact that anyone believes that an adjective is needed to modify the word “rape.” Rape is rape—its gravitas stands alone. The notion that there could be “gradients of rape” is disturbing and should disgust all of us. 

This bill ultimately states that if a 14 or 15 year old is raped and gets pregnant the government will step in and ask, “Was it forcible rape?” And, it prolongs any chance a woman has of having an abortion if she is raped. 

Currently, federal dollars cannot be used for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is in danger. But this proposed bill would narrow that use to cases of “forcible” rape, but not statutory or coerced rape. 

It isn’t only women or victims who should be concerned by this bill. Why do individuals create these bills, enforcing and stepping in the lives of women, and  tell them what they can and cannot do with their bodies?  This bill isn’t only wrong but walks the line of invading on women’s privacy. Would Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), be spearheading this bill if his mother, sister, or aunt was in the position of countless other women?

In a statement Cecile Richards, the President of Planned Parenthood said:

“Smith’s bill goes far beyond any other proposal ever introduced in Congress to take health care coverage away from women, would put the lives of women with life-threatening pregnancies in danger, and would not even provide a