Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

February-04-11

"Forcible Rape" Clause Removed from Chris Smith Bill

Following an outcry from women's rights groups and others, House Republicans have removed the "forcible" to describe the rape exception in H.R. 3, an anti-abortion bill introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), Congressional Pro-Life Caucus Co-Chair, with the support of House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA).

The bill, which purports to prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions and ensure that healthcare reform law does not cover the cost of abortions, had provided for an exception only when the woman's life is endangered, in cases of "forcible" rape, or in cases of incest if the woman was a minor. The exemption in the bill will now cover all forms of rape.

HR 3, which has a short title of "No Tax-Payer Funding for Abortion Act," goes far beyond that issue. If passed, the bill would permanently ban women in the military from obtaining an abortion in a military hospital overseas, even if they pay for it with their own (not federal) funds. This is particularly important to women stationed in areas where local clinics may be unsafe. Moreover, Americans who have private insurance plans that include abortion coverage would have to pay tax penalties, and federal workers who pay their own insurance premiums out of pocket would nonetheless be prohibited from having abortion coverage in their insurance.

Organizations including the Feminist Majority Foundation, the National Women's Law Center, Emily's List, and MoveOn.org, criticized the Smith bill, for changing the definition of rape to exclude statutory rape, date rape, drug-facilitated rape, and other instances when the woman was unconscious or otherwise unable to give consent. Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser at the National Women's Law Center, explained, "It speaks to a distinction between rape where there must be some element of force in order to rise to the standard, and rape where there is not. The concern here is that it takes us back to a time where just saying no was not enough."

The Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing next Tuesday on the bill.

Media Resources: Washington Post 2/3/11; Politico 2/3/11; Statement of National Women's Law Center 2/1/11; Committee on Judiciary 2/2/11; Huffington Post 2/2/11; Mother Jones 1/28/11; Feminist Daily Newswire 1/21/11, 1/10/11, 1/6/11


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

7/22/2014 Louisiana Pro-Choice Community Stands Up Against Operation Rescue - Saturday, Operation Rescue/Operation Save America launched an aggressive week-long siege against reproductive health clinics and abortion care providers in southern Louisiana. The annual siege is expected to run through Saturday, July 26, but already, several dozen Operation Rescue protesters have moved these forceful assemblies to doctors' private residences, riling neighbors in the process with their megaphones, explicit and invasive signage. . . .
 
7/21/2014 Detroit Maternal Death Rate Is Triple the US Average - Women in Detroit are dying from pregnancy-related complications at about three times the US average, according to the Michigan Department of Community Health. Twenty-six women died in Detroit over the period 2008-2011 as a result of pregnancy or childbirth, and Detroit has the highest rate of infant mortality among major US cities, with 13.5 infant deaths for every 1,000 live births. According to Dr. . . .
 
7/21/2014 White House: Corporations Must Inform Employees About Refusal to Cover Contraception - The White House clarified on Thursday that closely held for-profit corporations refusing to provide contraceptive coverage will be required to inform their employees. The clarification is a response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Hobby Lobby v. . . .