If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   New Pennsylvania bill includes provision requiring women to prove they were raped. Want to guess which party inserted the provision?   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 474
    More: Sick, Pennsylvania, Equal Pay Act, welfare benefits, Paycheck Fairness Act, Priebus tried, shiny objects, Priebus, Violence Against Women Act  
•       •       •

8714 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Oct 2012 at 1:53 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



474 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-24 08:55:22 PM  
ah, yes - the rape-publican party strikes again.
 
2012-10-24 08:58:59 PM  
A bill in the Pennsylvania House proposing the reduction of welfare benefits for low-income women contains a provision requiring a woman who became pregnant from rape to prove that she reported her assault.

As ThinkProgress reported, the measure, proposed by five Republican state lawmakers, seeks to eliminate an increase in benefits if a child is conceived while a woman is covered under the Temporary Assistance To Needy Family program. A woman can seek an exception to this if the child is conceived as a result of rape. However, she must prove that she reported the incident to the authorities and gave the police her assaulter's identity


Jesus Christ, you heartless bastards.

Ok, this is clearly a unified thing the GOP is pushing. But why? Simply because 'abortion bad, even in case of rape, oh rape is bad, well let's change that'?
 
2012-10-24 09:01:22 PM  
Well, to be fair, it says they have to prove they reported they were raped, not prove they were raped.
 
2012-10-24 09:01:57 PM  
For the record, I do not support this bill or those who sponsored it.
 
2012-10-24 09:02:06 PM  
What if you don't know who raped you? My daughter doesn't. She was drugged. I love the Republicans. They're throwing away their power by waging a war on rape victims. Brilliant.
 
2012-10-24 09:12:07 PM  

Nadie_AZ: A bill in the Pennsylvania House proposing the reduction of welfare benefits for low-income women contains a provision requiring a woman who became pregnant from rape to prove that she reported her assault.

As ThinkProgress reported, the measure, proposed by five Republican state lawmakers, seeks to eliminate an increase in benefits if a child is conceived while a woman is covered under the Temporary Assistance To Needy Family program. A woman can seek an exception to this if the child is conceived as a result of rape. However, she must prove that she reported the incident to the authorities and gave the police her assaulter's identity

Jesus Christ, you heartless bastards.

Ok, this is clearly a unified thing the GOP is pushing. But why? Simply because 'abortion bad, even in case of rape, oh rape is bad, well let's change that'?


Because WELFARE QUEENS

/these are puerile, sexually repressed control freaks we're dealing with here
 
2012-10-24 09:25:36 PM  
i110.photobucket.com
Republicans are assholes
 
2012-10-24 09:42:39 PM  
What ever happened to the Fark(tm) proposal to start referring to the GOP as the "White Male Christian Nationalist Party"?
 
2012-10-24 09:44:38 PM  

Parmenius: What ever happened to the Fark(tm) proposal to start referring to the GOP as the "White Male Christian Nationalist Party"?


Is there a reason we need to state the obvious with many more words? It's like calling the KKK racists; we know all ready. No need to waste time with it.
 
2012-10-24 10:09:52 PM  
See, I understand what they're getting at. I do, I really do. It's a bit of a loophole, and theoretically some Ebul Welfare Queen could claim that all seven of her chil'uns is rape-babies, BUT THAT'S WHAT AUDITS ARE FOR.

You think people are abusing the system? Fine. Look for warning signs, and check the suspicious ones. You don't go around assuming every single welfare mother is lying and demand they prove otherwise. That's the "guilty until proven innocent" theory of law, and it has no place in the American legal system.

Coincidentally though, do you fundie wackadoos know where "guilty until proven innocent" is the core of the law? Muslim countries that practice Sharia law. Y'know, Sharia law, that thing you all seem so insanely worried about taking root here? Ringing any bells?
 
2012-10-24 10:12:44 PM  

Parmenius: What ever happened to the Fark(tm) proposal to start referring to the GOP as the "White Male Christian Nationalist Party"?


Too long... Maybe the National Social Party.
 
2012-10-24 10:14:51 PM  
I'm convinced Republican voters are concerned more with needlessly punishing their fellow Americans than they are with helping their country.

These people are petty. They're ignorant beyond description. And, they are malicious, childish and very very sick.
 
2012-10-24 11:37:55 PM  
And people wondered why I switched to Democrat....

keep this up and i'm going to have to actually run for office.
 
2012-10-24 11:50:37 PM  
Rich, white people seem to enjoy the rape culture. I guess they either call them family reunions or slumming.
 
2012-10-25 12:01:38 AM  
FTA: "According to the Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network, 54 percent of rapes and sexual assaults are not reported to the police."


And those are just the ones that are reported as not being reported.
 
2012-10-25 12:03:22 AM  

LadyHawke: Well, to be fair, it says they have to prove they reported they were raped, not prove they were raped.



Well, in any case, they're gonna' fill a lot of that vacant prison space.


/Create jobs
 
2012-10-25 12:06:39 AM  
If the GOP really cared about clamping down on welfare or at least getting more out of it they'd require that welfare recipients who are not employed volunteer at least 20 hours a week.

But they don't care about that, they care about controlling women and infliction a protestant caliphate on the rest of the country.
 
2012-10-25 12:14:18 AM  
Rapeublicans love inserting unwanted things into places they shouldn't go.
 
2012-10-25 12:21:23 AM  
Drafted by Pennsylvania lawmakers - State Reps. RoseMarie Swanger (R), Tom Caltagirone (D), Mark Gillen (R), Keith Gillespie (R), Adam Harris (R), and Mike Tobash (R).
 
2012-10-25 12:29:21 AM  

Fark It: If the GOP really cared about clamping down on welfare or at least getting more out of it they'd require that welfare recipients who are not employed volunteer at least 20 hours a week.


So your solution to reducing welfare is to make volunteering a job? You realize you can't call it volunteering if you're required to do it right? Then it's a job that you aren't being paid for.
 
2012-10-25 12:32:13 AM  

Weaver95: And people wondered why I switched to Democrat....

keep this up and i'm going to have to actually run for office.


Dibs on being your chief of staff.
 
2012-10-25 12:35:52 AM  
They just can't stop.
 
2012-10-25 12:48:00 AM  

MorrisBird: What if you don't know who raped you? My daughter doesn't. She was drugged. I love the Republicans. They're throwing away their power by waging a war on rape victims. Brilliant.


This is a thinly-veiled response to the idea that...well, any female that is "raped" was, in some way, asking for it.

If she was home studying the bible, she couldn't have been raped.

..unless it was her father, in which case the resulting RapeBaby[tm] was God's will.

...sorry.

Let's just all say what we're thinking: Conservatives hate/are afraid of women.

Remember that not-so-many thousands of years ago, women were revered because stupid men thought that women just...well, EJECTED new babies. They had no grasp of how babies were made.

Conservatives grasp that even though a married woman gets pregnant, there is no 100% guarantee that her husband is the father.

And they hate that.
 
2012-10-25 12:55:01 AM  

GAT_00: Fark It: If the GOP really cared about clamping down on welfare or at least getting more out of it they'd require that welfare recipients who are not employed volunteer at least 20 hours a week.

So your solution to reducing welfare is to make volunteering a job? You realize you can't call it volunteering if you're required to do it right? Then it's a job that you aren't being paid for.


Isn't there another word for forced labor for food?
 
2012-10-25 01:05:39 AM  
Just to be specific, and you can quote me:

Anti-abortion legislation is always, and without fail, anti-f**king legislation.

Without fail.
 
2012-10-25 01:31:33 AM  

Amos Quito: FTA: "According to the Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network, 54 percent of rapes and sexual assaults are not reported to the police."


And those are just the ones that are reported as not being reported.


Many don't want to feel raped again by the process of reporting it.
These men have absolutely no business inserting themselves into women's health issues. They need a f*cking hobby like hanging out in public restrooms.
 
2012-10-25 01:34:56 AM  
So, they'll help you raise your rape baby, but your broken condom baby gets nothing?
 
2012-10-25 01:42:37 AM  

MorrisBird: What if you don't know who raped you? My daughter doesn't. She was drugged. I love the Republicans. They're throwing away their power by waging a war on rape victims. Brilliant.


No. Actually they're gaining votes by going after all the ignorant bigots out there with crap like this. They know -- well, most of them know -- that this kind of logic is cynical and messed-up, but they also know it works.
 
2012-10-25 01:45:04 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: So, they'll help you raise your rape baby, but your broken condom baby gets nothing?


If you spent a little less money on cigarettes and beer, you could have bought the better brand condoms and avoided the broken condom baby altogether. Personal responsibility... The More You Know™...
 
2012-10-25 01:52:54 AM  

MorrisBird: What if you don't know who raped you? My daughter doesn't. She was drugged. I love the Republicans. They're throwing away their power by waging a war on rape victims. Brilliant.


Sorry for your daughter.
 
2012-10-25 01:59:18 AM  
Green party?
 
2012-10-25 02:02:50 AM  
This is getting sick, and redundant.

It's a two-fer. Hurt poor women, and calling rape victims liars.
 
2012-10-25 02:03:46 AM  
Was it inserted forcefully?
 
2012-10-25 02:04:28 AM  
It kind of makes you wonder how many of these Republican politicians are rapists themselves. Not necessarily recently, but more likely when they were in high school or college. They may have committed their crimes years ago, but they still are, and always will be, rapists.

How else can you explain their sympathy--and even affinity--for rapists?
 
2012-10-25 02:04:52 AM  
Yea, at this point, this stuff just makes me feel tired.

The anti-abortion movement is and always has been deeply rooted in the desire to control women and our bodies. This is one more glaring example. This one can't even make the dubious claim that it's about "protecting life". This one is about punishing slutty sluts for having sex.

This is the party of making sure that poor women can't afford contraception and preventative health services... and the same party that then says "Oh and if you get pregnant, we're not helping you take care of your punishment baby."

Also, lots of victims choose not to report rape for good reasons. This is pretty well established as fact.
 
2012-10-25 02:06:37 AM  
I'll just leave this here...

Also, to debunk the myth of "welfare queens":
• Less than 2% of the budget of the Dept. of Health and Human Services (DHHS) goes to
TANF (the program that gives money to poor families). Link
•Only 24% of the entire federal budget went to DHHS last year. Link
• Doing the math, that means 0.5% of the federal budget went to TANF last year. Less
than one percent of our federal budget went to "welfare queens" last year. I hardly
think they are the ones bankrupting our economy.
• TANF assistance is also capped (lifetime) at 5 years (since 1996). You cannot be on
welfare indefinitely (unless you have a physical disability). The average amount of time
families spend on TANF is about 3 years. Also, the average number of kids in a family
receiving TANF benefits is 2.3 children, with only 10% of recipients having more than 3
children
(very long report): Link
 



/fark these guys in TFA
 
2012-10-25 02:06:58 AM  

Fark Me To Tears: Lionel Mandrake: So, they'll help you raise your rape baby, but your broken condom baby gets nothing?

If you spent a little less money on cigarettes and beer, you could have bought the better brand condoms and avoided the broken condom baby altogether. Personal responsibility... The More You Know™...


If I spend less money on beer I won't need condoms. Duh.
 
2012-10-25 02:07:12 AM  

andino: How else can you explain their sympathy--and even affinity--for rapists?


80% of serial killers are Republicans.
 
2012-10-25 02:07:35 AM  

LadyHawke: Well, to be fair, it says they have to prove they reported they were raped, not prove they were raped.


It doesn't even say that. It says they have to submit a signed, notarized statement indicating that she reported it to the authorities. A law that encourages the reporting of rape to the proper authorities? The horror. Truly PA republicans are monsters.

Oh, and I like how Huff Po goes from "prove they were raped" in the headline to "prove that she reported her assault" in the article, and then three paragraphs in reveal that both the headline and the opening sentence were lies. Your blog sucks.

dramboxf: Anti-abortion legislation is always, and without fail, anti-f**king legislation.


This isn't anti-abortion legislation. It's anti 'get pregnant while poor and on welfare' legislation, which contains an exception for women who were victims of rape or incest and reported it (or are willing to submit a signed notarized statement that they reported it).

MorrisBird: They're throwing away their power by waging a war on rape victims.


They may well be doing that in other places, but this isn't one of them. This is waging a war on 'welfare moms' that contains an exception for rape victims.

There's plenty not to like about this bill, but so far Huff Po and the vast majority of the people posting in this thread are too farking stupid to figure out what it actually is.
 
2012-10-25 02:08:31 AM  

Fark Me To Tears: MorrisBird: What if you don't know who raped you? My daughter doesn't. She was drugged. I love the Republicans. They're throwing away their power by waging a war on rape victims. Brilliant.

No. Actually they're gaining votes by going after all the ignorant bigots out there with crap like this. They know -- well, most of them know -- that this kind of logic is cynical and messed-up, but they also know it works.


Exactly, and, in many ways for me, that's the most disgusting part of it all, it's not that they all actually believe this f**kery that they're spouting, it's that they're simply playing the game to win the votes, preying on the "ignant" extremists who still view women as the purveyors of all sin and thus sacrificing innocent people upon the altar for their gorram votes. I wish some of the victims would just flood into their office, demanding to speak to them face to face and not leave until those slimy bastards had to actually defend their causes to real people, not just speeches given to a crowd of supporters and surrounded by twenty bodyguards and police.

/rant
//yeah, it'll never happen, accountability being nonexistent in politics
 
2012-10-25 02:08:44 AM  
ok honestly - I'm confused. So it's ok for a woman to claim - in welfare benefits - that she was raped...without having actually filed a charge with anyone? The woman isn't required to prove anything other than that she filed a report - the burden of proof of the actual crime isn't on her. Normally I'd be all "ah, another stupid anti-human (both genders, lets be real here) repub law..." but...really? Misleading rewording of headline much, subby? What exactly is /wrong/ about what they're doing here?
 
2012-10-25 02:09:11 AM  

Tarkus: Drafted by Pennsylvania lawmakers - State Reps. RoseMarie Swanger (R), Tom Caltagirone (D), Mark Gillen (R), Keith Gillespie (R), Adam Harris (R), and Mike Tobash (R).


They're both bad, so vote Republican.
 
2012-10-25 02:09:15 AM  

stainedglassdoll: I'll just leave this here...

Also, to debunk the myth of "welfare queens":
• Less than 2% of the budget of the Dept. of Health and Human Services (DHHS) goes to
TANF (the program that gives money to poor families). Link
•Only 24% of the entire federal budget went to DHHS last year. Link
• Doing the math, that means 0.5% of the federal budget went to TANF last year. Less
than one percent of our federal budget went to "welfare queens" last year. I hardly
think they are the ones bankrupting our economy.
• TANF assistance is also capped (lifetime) at 5 years (since 1996). You cannot be on
welfare indefinitely (unless you have a physical disability). The average amount of time
families spend on TANF is about 3 years. Also, the average number of kids in a family
receiving TANF benefits is 2.3 children, with only 10% of recipients having more than 3
children (very long report): Link 



/fark these guys in TFA


Actually, I should correct myself: "The average number of persons in TANF families was 2.3, including an average of 1.8 recipient children. One in two recipient families had only one child. One in 10 families had more than three children. The average number of children in closed-case families was 1.8. Nearly one in two closed case families had one child, and only six percent had more than three children."

Yea, the problem is TANF recipients are having too many kids. UNFARKINGBELIEVABLE
 
2012-10-25 02:09:21 AM  
Blaming the GOP is kind of a dodge, as it would be more accurate to say that Christians inserted this, from entirely valid Christian principles well-supported by the bible. Which is a book that has occasional statements to the effect of love and peace as the advertising claims, but for every one has two more condoning something on par with murder or slavery. Ten more if you count the old testament.

Some day Christianity's going to have to stop passing the buck and accept that y'all's religion makes you demonstrably worse people than you would otherwise be on a regular basis. God knows I've successfully been convinced to stop regarding the imaginary king in the sky shiat as a fun and harmless delusion over the last few months.

//Not that the GOP isn't bad on non-religious matters as well, but things related to a Christian philosophy are most of the worst, it's where the warmongering and the desire to poke Iran with a sharp stick repeatedly comes from, too. At least being bad at budgeting isn't tantamount to an attempt to start WW3.
 
2012-10-25 02:09:45 AM  
I'm waiting for the bills that make your prove your miscarriages were natural.
You know they are coming. In fact, they will HAVE to come if Roe v Wade is ever overturned.
 
2012-10-25 02:11:10 AM  
I'm glad all of this crazy shiat is coming out now, before the election. Faux News viewers will never hear about it, but the rest of the country sure as fark will.
 
2012-10-25 02:11:23 AM  

IamAwake: ok honestly - I'm confused. So it's ok for a woman to claim - in welfare benefits - that she was raped...without having actually filed a charge with anyone? The woman isn't required to prove anything other than that she filed a report - the burden of proof of the actual crime isn't on her. Normally I'd be all "ah, another stupid anti-human (both genders, lets be real here) repub law..." but...really? Misleading rewording of headline much, subby? What exactly is /wrong/ about what they're doing here?


You're not supposed to actually read the article.
 
2012-10-25 02:11:37 AM  

0Icky0: I'm waiting for the bills that make your prove your miscarriages were natural.
You know they are coming. In fact, they will HAVE to come if Roe v Wade is ever overturned.


Creepy but possible.
 
2012-10-25 02:13:22 AM  

Talondel: It doesn't even say that. It says they have to submit a signed, notarized statement indicating that she reported it to the authorities. A law that encourages the reporting of rape to the proper authorities? The horror. Truly PA republicans are monsters.


You're kidding right? You really think a rape vicitm's first thought upon being raped is going to be "Oh, I've just been raped! Clearly I need to go to the police right now because if I don't and I get pregnant and can't afford to raise a child, a year or so from now I'm going to be totally screwed."

Because I'm pretty sure for most people, it's more like numbness, rage, grief, horror, anger and the general beginnings of PTSD.

Don't be obtuse. This doesn't "encourage reporting". This punishes women who get pregnant, don't have abortions, and then have the nerve to require basic assistance... that is, the very, very minimal assitance that's available.

And if you want to encourage poor women not to get pregnant, MAKE CONTRACEPTIVES EASILY AVAILABLE TO POOR WOMEN. Any other approach to this particular problem trends towards authoritarian bullshiat.
 
2012-10-25 02:13:39 AM  
i159.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-25 02:14:30 AM  
Wait, why are they bothering with this shiat? There ARE NO RAPE BABIES. Aren't these the same buttholes that believe a woman can't get pregnant if she's raped?

/Illegitimate legislation is illegitimate.
 
2012-10-25 02:14:31 AM  
"I'm pregnant again."
"Why? You know this eliminates your benefits"
"I was raped."
"Ok. Did you report the assault?"
"No."
"But you want me to believe that you were raped."
"Yes."
"Even though you're providing no proof whatsoever."
"Yes."
"And even if the sex was consensual, it's in your best interests to lie about being raped to keep your benefits."
"Yep."
...
 
2012-10-25 02:15:03 AM  

IamAwake: ok honestly - I'm confused. So it's ok for a woman to claim - in welfare benefits - that she was raped...without having actually filed a charge with anyone? The woman isn't required to prove anything other than that she filed a report - the burden of proof of the actual crime isn't on her. Normally I'd be all "ah, another stupid anti-human (both genders, lets be real here) repub law..." but...really? Misleading rewording of headline much, subby? What exactly is /wrong/ about what they're doing here?


You're missing the big picture- why on earth does a woman NEED to discuss the circumstances surrounding her child's conception to obtain welfare benefits for that child?
 
2012-10-25 02:15:10 AM  
I support this bill. For one, the woman does not have to prove she was raped. She just has to prove that she reported it (as in showing a copy of the Police Report, which she will automatically receive a copy of when she reports it). Also, the intent is to prevent a woman from defrauding the government. As it is now a mother can only receive funds for up to and including X number of kids. She is not eligible for additional benefits for kid number X + 1, unless the child was conceived because the woman was raped. Up to now there was no way to vet whether or not this was true. Now all a woman has to do is provide a copy of the police report.
 
2012-10-25 02:16:53 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Some day Christianity's going to have to stop passing the buck and accept that y'all's religion makes you demonstrably worse people than you would otherwise be on a regular basis.


Maybe another 2000 years?

But then I'm really going to be out of patience.
 
2012-10-25 02:17:05 AM  

MorrisBird: What if you don't know who raped you? My daughter doesn't. She was drugged.


Did you even try reading the article, or just the typical lying HuffPo headline? It clearly says that the rapist must be identified IF KNOWN.
 
2012-10-25 02:17:14 AM  
Reading? WTF is it for?
 
2012-10-25 02:18:14 AM  

Talondel: They may well be doing that in other places, but this isn't one of them. This is waging a war on 'welfare moms' that contains an exception for rape victims.


Strawman. Might as well wage war on people struck by lightning twice.
 
2012-10-25 02:20:24 AM  

Weaver95: And people wondered why I switched to Democrat....


For the record, while 4 of the people who proposed this were Republicans, the 5th was a Democrat.
 
2012-10-25 02:21:54 AM  
If women were allowed easy access to abortion this wouldn't be an issue, but there we have another arena that the republicans have put their foot in. I can't imagine women even wanting a child that was forced on them through brutality.
 
2012-10-25 02:22:08 AM  
Heh, subby said "inserted". Heh.
 
2012-10-25 02:22:40 AM  

Talondel: LadyHawke: Well, to be fair, it says they have to prove they reported they were raped, not prove they were raped.

It doesn't even say that. It says they have to submit a signed, notarized statement indicating that she reported it to the authorities. A law that encourages the reporting of rape to the proper authorities? The horror. Truly PA republicans are monsters.

Oh, and I like how Huff Po goes from "prove they were raped" in the headline to "prove that she reported her assault" in the article, and then three paragraphs in reveal that both the headline and the opening sentence were lies. Your blog sucks.dramboxf: Anti-abortion legislation is always, and without fail, anti-f**king legislation.

This isn't anti-abortion legislation. It's anti 'get pregnant while poor and on welfare' legislation, which contains an exception for women who were victims of rape or incest and reported it (or are willing to submit a signed notarized statement that they reported it).

MorrisBird: They're throwing away their power by waging a war on rape victims.

They may well be doing that in other places, but this isn't one of them. This is waging a war on 'welfare moms' that contains an exception for rape victims.

There's plenty not to like about this bill, but so far Huff Po and the vast majority of the people posting in this thread are too farking stupid to figure out what it actually is.


As much as I hate the right wing if people read TFA it's a non issue that has nothing to do with proving rape and everything to do with making people on public aid act like responsible adults I wish I could find something wrong with the bill just because it was introduced by republicans but it looks like the blind squrril found a nutt for the first time in 10 years
 
2012-10-25 02:22:43 AM  

yukichigai: See, I understand what they're getting at. I do, I really do. It's a bit of a loophole, and theoretically some Ebul Welfare Queen could claim that all seven of her chil'uns is rape-babies, BUT THAT'S WHAT AUDITS ARE FOR.

You think people are abusing the system? Fine. Look for warning signs, and check the suspicious ones. You don't go around assuming every single welfare mother is lying and demand they prove otherwise. That's the "guilty until proven innocent" theory of law, and it has no place in the American legal system.

Coincidentally though, do you fundie wackadoos know where "guilty until proven innocent" is the core of the law? Muslim countries that practice Sharia law. Y'know, Sharia law, that thing you all seem so insanely worried about taking root here? Ringing any bells?


How exactly would you perform an "audit" if you can't even ask whether the alleged victim filed a police report or knows the name of her attacker? Refusing to report a rape while claiming rape for the purpose of getting free money from the government IS a "warning sign."
 
2012-10-25 02:23:03 AM  
Seriously, the ONLY reason to write a bill like this is malice towards poor women.
 
2012-10-25 02:24:10 AM  

AbbeySomeone: If women were allowed easy access to abortion this wouldn't be an issue, but there we have another arena that the republicans have put their foot in. I can't imagine women even wanting a child that was forced on them through brutality.


.
.
And we all know that PA is one of those states without access to abortions. Derp.
 
2012-10-25 02:24:24 AM  

GAT_00: Fark It: If the GOP really cared about clamping down on welfare or at least getting more out of it they'd require that welfare recipients who are not employed volunteer at least 20 hours a week.

So your solution to reducing welfare is to make volunteering a job? You realize you can't call it volunteering if you're required to do it right? Then it's a job that you aren't being paid for.


Ooh, I know a word for being forced to do a job you aren't paid for. That's a great thing to associate with racially-charged issues like welfare.

I'll bet that's something Republicans want to bring back. How ironic that one of them ended it. Today's Republicans would have despised Lincoln.
 
2012-10-25 02:24:38 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: [i159.photobucket.com image 483x1500]


i49.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-25 02:24:41 AM  

Alphax: Seriously, the ONLY reason to write a bill like this is malice towards poor all women.

 
2012-10-25 02:26:12 AM  

Bhruic: Weaver95: And people wondered why I switched to Democrat....

For the record, while 4 of the people who proposed this were Republicans, the 5th was a Democrat.


Hey now, facts have no business being in this thread. :P
 
2012-10-25 02:26:34 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: So, they'll help you raise your rape baby, but your broken condom baby gets nothing?


...unless you lie and say your baby daddy (I love that term) forced himself upon you, which will lead to more poor men going to jail for sexual assault.

This is win-win for the GOP, as more poor people in prison means more money for the for-profit prison system.

/Honestly starting to get physically sick of what's going on in this country.
 
2012-10-25 02:28:23 AM  

david_gaithersburg: And we all know that PA is one of those states without access to abortions. Derp.



82% of counties in Pennsylvania have no abortion provider. 46% of women in Pennsylvania live in those counties. Pennsylvania also has mandated counseling designed to discourage abortion and a mandatory 24 hour waiting period.

That may sound like no big deal until you consider the fact that someone who requires welfare benefits and qualifies is already pretty desperately poor... so affording not one, but two days off of work, plus transporatation to another county and lodgings there is actually a pretty big burden on abortion access.

 Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/pennsylvania.html 
 
2012-10-25 02:28:36 AM  

andino: It kind of makes you wonder how many of these Republican politicians are rapists themselves. Not necessarily recently, but more likely when they were in high school or college. They may have committed their crimes years ago, but they still are, and always will be, rapists.

How else can you explain their sympathy--and even affinity--for rapists?


What a dumb comment. The law is AGAINST rapists. It gives rape victims a financial incentive to report their rape to the police, which allows the rape to be investigated, so the rapist can get caught and be stopped from raping more women. Rape is already underreported, so they're putting a financial benefit behind speaking out, and at the same time, preserving limited tax resources to help rape victims instead of welfare queens who get pregnant irresponsibly and expect everyone else to pay for their decisions.
 
2012-10-25 02:29:30 AM  

sticky2shoes: andino: It kind of makes you wonder how many of these Republican politicians are rapists themselves. Not necessarily recently, but more likely when they were in high school or college. They may have committed their crimes years ago, but they still are, and always will be, rapists.

How else can you explain their sympathy--and even affinity--for rapists?

What a dumb comment. The law is AGAINST rapists. It gives rape victims a financial incentive to report their rape to the police, which allows the rape to be investigated, so the rapist can get caught and be stopped from raping more women. Rape is already underreported, so they're putting a financial benefit behind speaking out, and at the same time, preserving limited tax resources to help rape victims instead of welfare queens who get pregnant irresponsibly and expect everyone else to pay for their decisions.


OW! I just bruised my forehead.
 
2012-10-25 02:30:12 AM  
It's Catch-22 Yossarian. You can't have an abortion unless you were raped, but if you were legitimately raped, you don't NEED an abortion because your body will protect itself from the sperm, so you can't have an abortion.
 
2012-10-25 02:30:30 AM  

dramboxf: Just to be specific, and you can quote me:

Anti-abortion legislation is always, and without fail, anti-f**king legislation.

Without fail.


This law promotes MORE abortion. Get pregnant from consensual sex = no more welfare money to raise the child = more likely to have an abortion.
 
2012-10-25 02:30:31 AM  

Alphax: OW! I just bruised my forehead.



Right there with you.
 
2012-10-25 02:31:25 AM  
An observation: TFA said many rapes go unreported. Every unreported rape means that rapists DNA is not put in law enforcement computers. That scumbag is free to rape again without worry of arrest or conviction. Every rapist whose DNA does not go on file has a good chance of never being punished for what he has done.
 
2012-10-25 02:31:46 AM  

Genevieve Marie: david_gaithersburg: And we all know that PA is one of those states without access to abortions. Derp.


82% of counties in Pennsylvania have no abortion provider. 46% of women in Pennsylvania live in those counties. Pennsylvania also has mandated counseling designed to discourage abortion and a mandatory 24 hour waiting period.

That may sound like no big deal until you consider the fact that someone who requires welfare benefits and qualifies is already pretty desperately poor... so affording not one, but two days off of work, plus transporatation to another county and lodgings there is actually a pretty big burden on abortion access.

 Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/pennsylvania.html


Add to that transportation issues, childcare and cost. I don't know if state benefits cover abortion in that area and I am sure that funding for PP has been cut.
 
2012-10-25 02:32:49 AM  
Oooh, a rape incentive program!
 
2012-10-25 02:33:07 AM  
So, once again, the Republican Party proves they are "Pro-Birth" and "Anti-Life. Every fetus must be saved, but once it is here, we are going to do every farking thing we can think of to make sure you single mothers have as little support as possible.
 
2012-10-25 02:34:24 AM  

Genevieve Marie: Talondel: It doesn't even say that. It says they have to submit a signed, notarized statement indicating that she reported it to the authorities. A law that encourages the reporting of rape to the proper authorities? The horror. Truly PA republicans are monsters.

You're kidding right? You really think a rape vicitm's first thought upon being raped is going to be "Oh, I've just been raped! Clearly I need to go to the police right now because if I don't and I get pregnant and can't afford to raise a child, a year or so from now I'm going to be totally screwed."

Because I'm pretty sure for most people, it's more like numbness, rage, grief, horror, anger and the general beginnings of PTSD.


You made up the part where she has to report it immediately. The law only says that she has to report it before demanding that taxpayers give her free money.
 
2012-10-25 02:34:41 AM  

Vodka Zombie: I'm convinced Republican voters are concerned more with needlessly punishing their fellow Americans than they are with helping their country.

These people are petty. They're ignorant beyond description. And, they are malicious, childish and very very sick.


Well, in all fairness, if Americans are stupid enough to vote for Republicans, don't they deserve to be punished?
 
2012-10-25 02:36:03 AM  

sticky2shoes: Genevieve Marie: Talondel: It doesn't even say that. It says they have to submit a signed, notarized statement indicating that she reported it to the authorities. A law that encourages the reporting of rape to the proper authorities? The horror. Truly PA republicans are monsters.

You're kidding right? You really think a rape vicitm's first thought upon being raped is going to be "Oh, I've just been raped! Clearly I need to go to the police right now because if I don't and I get pregnant and can't afford to raise a child, a year or so from now I'm going to be totally screwed."

Because I'm pretty sure for most people, it's more like numbness, rage, grief, horror, anger and the general beginnings of PTSD.

You made up the part where she has to report it immediately. The law only says that she has to report it before demanding that taxpayers give her free money.


'Demanding that taxpayers give her free money'. That's loaded language. And makes it sound bad that we're helping the least among us. How unchristian of you.
 
2012-10-25 02:36:06 AM  

sticky2shoes: What a dumb comment.


Yes, your comment certainly is.

"Pro-life", are ya?
 
2012-10-25 02:36:35 AM  

AbbeySomeone: Add to that transportation issues, childcare and cost. I don't know if state benefits cover abortion in that area and I am sure that funding for PP has been cut.



State benefits only cover in the case of rape or incest, which means for the most part, nope, no benefits. Planned Parenthood hasn't been defunded yet, but it's been proposed.

It's an ugly pattern, this making it difficult for women to access reproductive care and then blaming them for getting pregnant. Very authoritarian and anti-sex.
 
2012-10-25 02:39:18 AM  

Genevieve Marie: Alphax: OW! I just bruised my forehead.


Right there with you.


Very logical responses...not surprising coming from people who can't even tell that the headline of the article is a blatant lie that contradicts the actual law in question.
 
2012-10-25 02:40:15 AM  

Alphax: 'Demanding that taxpayers give her free money'. That's loaded language.



Yes it is. This virulent hatred for the people in this country who are the most marginalized is reallly depressing. I'm really tired of people acting like poverty is indcative of some great moral failing and the corollary, that wealth is proof of moral superiority and responsibility.
 
2012-10-25 02:40:52 AM  

sticky2shoes: Genevieve Marie: Alphax: OW! I just bruised my forehead.


Right there with you.

Very logical responses...not surprising coming from people who can't even tell that the headline of the article is a blatant lie that contradicts the actual law in question.


Quiet, you. I'm getting some asprin for my head.
 
2012-10-25 02:41:17 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: [i159.photobucket.com image 483x1500]


Damn, Republicans know their rape.
 
2012-10-25 02:42:34 AM  

sticky2shoes: Genevieve Marie: Alphax: OW! I just bruised my forehead.


Right there with you.

Very logical responses...not surprising coming from people who can't even tell that the headline of the article is a blatant lie that contradicts the actual law in question.


englishedithelp.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-25 02:44:04 AM  

Genevieve Marie: Alphax: 'Demanding that taxpayers give her free money'. That's loaded language.


Yes it is. This virulent hatred for the people in this country who are the most marginalized is reallly depressing. I'm really tired of people acting like poverty is indcative of some great moral failing and the corollary, that wealth is proof of moral superiority and responsibility.


Not having a baby from consensual sex when you can't afford to raise a child IS proof of responsibility.
 
2012-10-25 02:46:06 AM  

sticky2shoes: Genevieve Marie: Alphax: 'Demanding that taxpayers give her free money'. That's loaded language.


Yes it is. This virulent hatred for the people in this country who are the most marginalized is reallly depressing. I'm really tired of people acting like poverty is indcative of some great moral failing and the corollary, that wealth is proof of moral superiority and responsibility.

Not having a baby from consensual sex when you can't afford to raise a child IS proof of responsibility.


The important thing is that the baby pays the price for mom and dad's irresponsibility.
 
2012-10-25 02:46:43 AM  
I love all this Hate Mongering by "tolerant open minded liberals" talking about what hate mongers all Republicans are. The headline was so sensationalized it did not even match the article. Just another day of Left-wing yellow journalism. I love how "all" Republicans are labeled as racist woman haters, female Republicans are called traitors and black Republicans are called Uncle Toms and worse, while any sexist comments by female liberals or racist comments by liberal minorities are tolerated and encouraged. Every time I hear some complaint about Republicans/conservatives are turning extreme, it just comes off as a Projection. 
It is funny how it came out 24 hours ago the Obama White House lied about Benghazi on day 1 for the election and the President went campaigning. This is disgusting behavior, but not a peep and no green light article on Fark.
 
2012-10-25 02:46:54 AM  

sticky2shoes: Genevieve Marie: Alphax: 'Demanding that taxpayers give her free money'. That's loaded language.


Yes it is. This virulent hatred for the people in this country who are the most marginalized is reallly depressing. I'm really tired of people acting like poverty is indcative of some great moral failing and the corollary, that wealth is proof of moral superiority and responsibility.

Not having a baby from consensual sex when you can't afford to raise a child IS proof of responsibility.


Whether or not someone can afford to raise a child is something that can change without notice in the space of a DAY. Just the way the wealthy like it.
 
2012-10-25 02:47:12 AM  

mediablitz: sticky2shoes: What a dumb comment.

Yes, your comment certainly is.

"Pro-life", are ya?


Huh? How is a law that encourages people to get more abortions by cutting off welfare "pro-life"?
 
2012-10-25 02:47:33 AM  

Talondel: This isn't anti-abortion legislation. It's anti 'get pregnant while poor and on welfare' legislation, which contains an exception for women who were victims of rape or incest and reported it (or are willing to submit a signed notarized statement that they reported it)


Oh do please tell me precisely in which ways small government, freedom-loving Republicans are justified in using government power to pressure people into choosing whether or not to have a baby.
 
2012-10-25 02:47:36 AM  

sticky2shoes: Genevieve Marie: Alphax: 'Demanding that taxpayers give her free money'. That's loaded language.


Yes it is. This virulent hatred for the people in this country who are the most marginalized is reallly depressing. I'm really tired of people acting like poverty is indcative of some great moral failing and the corollary, that wealth is proof of moral superiority and responsibility.

Not having a baby from consensual sex when you can't afford to raise a child IS proof of responsibility.


Or just weak ass Republican sperm.
 
2012-10-25 02:48:40 AM  

SanchezSucio: I love all this Hate Mongering by "tolerant open minded liberals" talking about what hate mongers all Republicans are. The headline was so sensationalized it did not even match the article. Just another day of Left-wing yellow journalism. I love how "all" Republicans are labeled as racist woman haters, female Republicans are called traitors and black Republicans are called Uncle Toms and worse, while any sexist comments by female liberals or racist comments by liberal minorities are tolerated and encouraged. Every time I hear some complaint about Republicans/conservatives are turning extreme, it just comes off as a Projection. 
It is funny how it came out 24 hours ago the Obama White House lied about Benghazi on day 1 for the election and the President went campaigning. This is disgusting behavior, but not a peep and no green light article on Fark.


Not one thing you said is true. Looks like another old account reactivated and given to a troll.
 
2012-10-25 02:48:43 AM  

sticky2shoes: Genevieve Marie: Alphax: 'Demanding that taxpayers give her free money'. That's loaded language.


Yes it is. This virulent hatred for the people in this country who are the most marginalized is reallly depressing. I'm really tired of people acting like poverty is indcative of some great moral failing and the corollary, that wealth is proof of moral superiority and responsibility.

Not having a baby from consensual sex when you can't afford to raise a child IS proof of responsibility.


Yes, I understand. This is why many of us have worked for a long time to try and make sure that all women can access affordable, accessible birth control so that women can decide when to have children. Unfortunately, those efforts have been systematically dismantled by the same people who deride poor women with children as "welfare queens".
 
2012-10-25 02:49:35 AM  

MorrisBird: What if you don't know who raped you? My daughter doesn't. She was drugged. I love the Republicans. They're throwing away their power by waging a war on rape victims. Brilliant.


I'm so sorry that happened to your daughter. Not all men are evil, but a few certainly are. I'm so very sorry.
 
2012-10-25 02:50:22 AM  

The Southern Dandy: sticky2shoes: Genevieve Marie: Alphax: OW! I just bruised my forehead.


Right there with you.

Very logical responses...not surprising coming from people who can't even tell that the headline of the article is a blatant lie that contradicts the actual law in question.

[englishedithelp.files.wordpress.com image 300x200]


Trouble reading? The headline says that the applicant must prove that she was raped. The law says that she must certify that she reported that she was raped. They contradict each other as to what is required of a welfare applicant.
 
2012-10-25 02:50:35 AM  
No wonder people call my god damned state Pennsyltucky. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you people?
 
2012-10-25 02:52:32 AM  
This wouldn't be so bad if it were a different bill, but seriously, folks - requiring women to prove they were raped before receiving the photo ID they need to vote? Isn't that just a little bit over the line?
 
2012-10-25 02:53:31 AM  

sticky2shoes: mediablitz: sticky2shoes: What a dumb comment.

Yes, your comment certainly is.

"Pro-life", are ya?

Huh? How is a law that encourages people to get more abortions by cutting off welfare "pro-life"?


I'm asking YOU if you consider yourself "pro-life".

Simple question
 
2012-10-25 02:53:40 AM  
"Want to guess which party inserted the provision?"

Both? *checks article* Oooh, I'm going to the kitchen for a cookie.
 
2012-10-25 02:54:47 AM  
Not that this would drive me away on its own, but the cumulative not giving a crap about people who arent them....

I am DONE with the republican party. Ive been telling myself Im going to vote for Gary Johnson, but I am still basically a republican, but the social side of the republican party is just not something I am comfortable associating with.
 
2012-10-25 02:56:00 AM  

I sound fat: Not that this would drive me away on its own, but the cumulative not giving a crap about people who arent them....

I am DONE with the republican party. Ive been telling myself Im going to vote for Gary Johnson, but I am still basically a republican, but the social side of the republican party is just not something I am comfortable associating with.


You think Libertarians give a shiat about other people??!?!
 
2012-10-25 02:57:07 AM  

mediablitz: sticky2shoes: mediablitz: sticky2shoes: What a dumb comment.

Yes, your comment certainly is.

"Pro-life", are ya?

Huh? How is a law that encourages people to get more abortions by cutting off welfare "pro-life"?

I'm asking YOU if you consider yourself "pro-life".

Simple question


Irrelevant question, but the answer is no since you're curious.
 
2012-10-25 03:00:14 AM  

I sound fat: Not that this would drive me away on its own, but the cumulative not giving a crap about people who arent them....

I am DONE with the republican party. Ive been telling myself Im going to vote for Gary Johnson, but I am still basically a republican, but the social side of the republican party is just not something I am comfortable associating with.


This law is even more libertarian (low taxes, no using power of the government to force people to donate money to poor people) than traditionally Republican (subsidizing childrearing because "be fruitful and multiply", discourage abortion, etc.)
 
2012-10-25 03:00:19 AM  
Maybe I've missed it in another thread or above, but is there a FARKING REASON the GOP is obsessive about rape?

The only thing I can think of is a high number of spoiled rich male children (as well as their fathers) wanting protection as they physically fark over women. Has the number of allegations and investigations of rich kids accused of rape increased in recent years?
 
2012-10-25 03:01:54 AM  
This provision accomplishes nothing. There's not a deadline on when a woman can file rape charges. So, if a woman with a (for example) six month old child (product of rape or not) files for assistance and is told she has one kid too many, she can simply call the cops and report that she was raped fifteen months ago (whether that's the case or not) and has no idea who attacked her. She gets her police report, she gets her assistance, nothing changes except the woman, already in a desperate state, had to bear the added insult of being treated like a second class citizen.

This does not encourage women to report rapes, though it could be argued it encourages the filing of false claims. It makes it harder to get assistance. I can't stand the mentality that making a child suffer is a productive way to punish that child's parent (which is what happens when "x" number of children get assistance but "x+1" is too many). I understand preventing abuse of the system is a desirable goal, but treating people with a sense of humanity should also be a desirable goal.

Hey, wanna reduce the number of "welfare queens" in the country? Stop cutting the farking education budget. Stop restricting contraception and abortion. Stop treating women like they're all slutty whores.
 
2012-10-25 03:02:42 AM  

Alphax: SanchezSucio: I love all this Hate Mongering by "tolerant open minded liberals" talking about what hate mongers all Republicans are. The headline was so sensationalized it did not even match the article. Just another day of Left-wing yellow journalism. I love how "all" Republicans are labeled as racist woman haters, female Republicans are called traitors and black Republicans are called Uncle Toms and worse, while any sexist comments by female liberals or racist comments by liberal minorities are tolerated and encouraged. Every time I hear some complaint about Republicans/conservatives are turning extreme, it just comes off as a Projection. 
It is funny how it came out 24 hours ago the Obama White House lied about Benghazi on day 1 for the election and the President went campaigning. This is disgusting behavior, but not a peep and no green light article on Fark.

Not one thing you said is true. Looks like another old account reactivated and given to a troll.


Same guy. I see you just drink all the party koolaid. Have you seen the reaction to Stacey Dash supporting Romney? Its disgusting behavior. Libs never put their great leaders or commentators under any of the scrutiny they put the political right under. All the things you hate Bush for, which abama continued, the outrage seems to have disappeared.
 
2012-10-25 03:04:24 AM  
i don't see the problem with reporting rape if you have been raped.
instead of making it a punishment, make it a 'reward' or 'normal'.

if you're going to accuse someone of raping you, that's serious business.
it's just not right that rape is the only crime where someone's word
is supposed to be 'good enough'. .. and there is no defense for the falsely accused.

you want to claim rape, do the right thing: press charges.
or shut the fk up.
 
2012-10-25 03:04:39 AM  

SanchezSucio: Alphax: SanchezSucio: I love all this Hate Mongering by "tolerant open minded liberals" talking about what hate mongers all Republicans are. The headline was so sensationalized it did not even match the article. Just another day of Left-wing yellow journalism. I love how "all" Republicans are labeled as racist woman haters, female Republicans are called traitors and black Republicans are called Uncle Toms and worse, while any sexist comments by female liberals or racist comments by liberal minorities are tolerated and encouraged. Every time I hear some complaint about Republicans/conservatives are turning extreme, it just comes off as a Projection. 
It is funny how it came out 24 hours ago the Obama White House lied about Benghazi on day 1 for the election and the President went campaigning. This is disgusting behavior, but not a peep and no green light article on Fark.

Not one thing you said is true. Looks like another old account reactivated and given to a troll.

Same guy. I see you just drink all the party koolaid. Have you seen the reaction to Stacey Dash supporting Romney? Its disgusting behavior. Libs never put their great leaders or commentators under any of the scrutiny they put the political right under. All the things you hate Bush for, which abama continued, the outrage seems to have disappeared.


Fine, fine, you're the same guy. Plonk!
 
2012-10-25 03:05:34 AM  

Tarkus: Drafted by Pennsylvania lawmakers - State Reps. RoseMarie Swanger (R), Tom Caltagirone (D), Mark Gillen (R), Keith Gillespie (R), Adam Harris (R), and Mike Tobash (R).


So of course, that makes it all okay.
 
2012-10-25 03:06:35 AM  

sticky2shoes: Irrelevant question, but the answer is no since you're curious.


It is relevant, considering the confirmation bias in your earlier post.

"Welfare Queens', shows you WANT to believe the worst. Everyone having kids before they can "afford" them is irresponsible.

The average cost of a child is about a million dollars to 18 years old. You think everyone who has a kid without having a million bucks on hand is "irresponsible", or do you plan to equivocate?

You are clearly angry, lack empathy, and (I'm guessing) consider yourself a "Libertarian" or some other BS that allows you to justify (to yourself) being such a close minded, shiatty human being.
 
2012-10-25 03:07:07 AM  
If you would just sign this official Proof of Rape certificate on your way out, I would be much obliged, sir. No, it's okay, I'm a notary.
 
2012-10-25 03:08:57 AM  
You know what brand of assholes is even worse than the people who propose this sort of legislation? The people who defend them. Nothing incenses me so much as people who are willing to defend assholes and cover up for them. It's bad enough that we have evil motherfarkers in this world -- do we really need people who go around defending them and covering up for them? Well. I know where your loyalties lie, and I say this: fark you, you evil motherfarking assholes.
 
2012-10-25 03:09:09 AM  

sticky2shoes: Irrelevant question, but the answer is no since you're curious.


When my daughter was born in 1990, I was making a little over 100k a year. She had some very serious medical issues at birth that insurance didn't want to cover.

We nearly had to file for bankruptcy over the medical bills. CLEARLY, based on your post, we were irresponsible for having a child when we "couldn't afford it".

That is how farking idiotic your blanket condemnations are.
 
2012-10-25 03:10:46 AM  
I hope someday Republicans learn to love their children more than they hate their fellow Americans.
 
2012-10-25 03:10:57 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Parmenius: What ever happened to the Fark(tm) proposal to start referring to the GOP as the "White Male Christian Nationalist Party"?

Too long... Maybe the National Social Party.


They're hardly social. Maybe they should be called the National Anti-Social Independent Party.

/I did NASI that
 
2012-10-25 03:11:39 AM  

blueviking: //yeah, it'll never happen, accountability being nonexistent in politics


In my experience, this is the truth. Accountability is a rare orchid that almost always germinates from people holding themselves accountable; whole communities rise up to block external calls for it.
 
2012-10-25 03:11:56 AM  

mediablitz: sticky2shoes: Irrelevant question, but the answer is no since you're curious.

It is relevant, considering the confirmation bias in your earlier post.

"Welfare Queens', shows you WANT to believe the worst. Everyone having kids before they can "afford" them is irresponsible.

The average cost of a child is about a million dollars to 18 years old. You think everyone who has a kid without having a million bucks on hand is "irresponsible", or do you plan to equivocate?

You are clearly angry, lack empathy, and (I'm guessing) consider yourself a "Libertarian" or some other BS that allows you to justify (to yourself) being such a close minded, shiatty human being.


This post contains at least 3 more incorrect assumptions about me and my views, on top of the "pro-life" remark. Try sticking to the debate at hand instead of reading minds.
 
2012-10-25 03:13:09 AM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: i don't see the problem with reporting rape if you have been raped.
instead of making it a punishment, make it a 'reward' or 'normal'.

if you're going to accuse someone of raping you, that's serious business.
it's just not right that rape is the only crime where someone's word
is supposed to be 'good enough'. .. and there is no defense for the falsely accused.

you want to claim rape, do the right thing: press charges.
or shut the fk up.



It is a very emotionally charged subject, and it's difficult to take any sort of objective practical position without being labeled a nazi baby killer rapist cannibal. But, in some circumstances I can see the point of this. I can't, for example, make an insurance claim for a robbery, if I never reported a robbery to the police and can't prove anything was taken.
 
2012-10-25 03:14:02 AM  

sticky2shoes: This post contains at least 3 more incorrect assumptions about me and my views, on top of the "pro-life" remark. Try sticking to the debate at hand instead of reading minds.


What? You don't like it when someone makes incorrect assumptions about YOU?

But you happily call women "welfare queens"? Happily make assumptions about people YOU DON'T KNOW?

GASP. It's as if... You are a douche bag hypocrite!

/my work is done here
//you'll ignore your own failings
 
2012-10-25 03:14:10 AM  

SanchezSucio: Alphax: SanchezSucio: I love all this Hate Mongering by "tolerant open minded liberals" talking about what hate mongers all Republicans are. The headline was so sensationalized it did not even match the article. Just another day of Left-wing yellow journalism. I love how "all" Republicans are labeled as racist woman haters, female Republicans are called traitors and black Republicans are called Uncle Toms and worse, while any sexist comments by female liberals or racist comments by liberal minorities are tolerated and encouraged. Every time I hear some complaint about Republicans/conservatives are turning extreme, it just comes off as a Projection. 
It is funny how it came out 24 hours ago the Obama White House lied about Benghazi on day 1 for the election and the President went campaigning. This is disgusting behavior, but not a peep and no green light article on Fark.

Not one thing you said is true. Looks like another old account reactivated and given to a troll.

Same guy. I see you just drink all the party koolaid. Have you seen the reaction to Stacey Dash supporting Romney? Its disgusting behavior. Libs never put their great leaders or commentators under any of the scrutiny they put the political right under. All the things you hate Bush for, which abama continued, the outrage seems to have disappeared.


Blah blah blah.

Obviously, you weren't here for the intense subatomic dissection of the "Bengazi lie" that we did just last week when your precious "lie" came out. The scrutiny was intense and blistering. And at the end, nobody on the right could tell anyone on the left exactly what would have been accomplished had the President said on 9/12 "Yes, this was a terrorist attack" that wasn't accomplished by waiting till he knew for sure two weeks later that it was in fact a terrorist attack. And neither will you be able to. What we do know, by your bringing it up in a totally unrelated thread, is that you are someone's precious little alt, probably kept in reserve for just such an occasion, and you need to crawl back under your bridge now.
 
2012-10-25 03:14:52 AM  

dramboxf: Just to be specific, and you can quote me:

Anti-abortion legislation is always, and without fail, anti-f**king legislation.

Without fail.


Anti-f**king is gender neutral. Or rather, would or should affect either gender. The anti-abortion platform has been, and will always be, the anti-women-enjoying-sex-for-the-sake-of-sex platform.
 
2012-10-25 03:15:15 AM  

sticky2shoes: mediablitz: sticky2shoes: Irrelevant question, but the answer is no since you're curious.

It is relevant, considering the confirmation bias in your earlier post.

"Welfare Queens', shows you WANT to believe the worst. Everyone having kids before they can "afford" them is irresponsible.

The average cost of a child is about a million dollars to 18 years old. You think everyone who has a kid without having a million bucks on hand is "irresponsible", or do you plan to equivocate?

You are clearly angry, lack empathy, and (I'm guessing) consider yourself a "Libertarian" or some other BS that allows you to justify (to yourself) being such a close minded, shiatty human being.

This post contains at least 3 more incorrect assumptions about me and my views, on top of the "pro-life" remark. Try sticking to the debate at hand instead of reading minds.


Incorrect? So you were lying about your views on all of your posts in this thread?

Either you lied before, or you are lying now.
 
2012-10-25 03:16:29 AM  

geek_mars: This provision accomplishes nothing. There's not a deadline on when a woman can file rape charges. So, if a woman with a (for example) six month old child (product of rape or not) files for assistance and is told she has one kid too many, she can simply call the cops and report that she was raped fifteen months ago (whether that's the case or not) and has no idea who attacked her. She gets her police report, she gets her assistance, nothing changes except the woman, already in a desperate state, had to bear the added insult of being treated like a second class citizen.

This does not encourage women to report rapes, though it could be argued it encourages the filing of false claims. It makes it harder to get assistance. I can't stand the mentality that making a child suffer is a productive way to punish that child's parent (which is what happens when "x" number of children get assistance but "x+1" is too many). I understand preventing abuse of the system is a desirable goal, but treating people with a sense of humanity should also be a desirable

What this law accomplishes is enabling a punishment for people who lie about being raped to get welfare, because they can be charged with filing a false police report. They may not be the brightest people to begin with, but "I could go to jail for lying to the police to get welfare" will play into their decision to raise the baby without welfare, give it up for adoption, move to a state with different rules, abort, or abstain or use contraception the next time around.
 
2012-10-25 03:17:50 AM  

SanchezSucio: I love all this Hate Mongering by "tolerant open minded liberals" talking about what hate mongers all Republicans are.


If you Publicans don't want to be called evil, then stop promoting evil policies.

You want to defund the welfare queens? So do I. The likes of Halliburton, Northrup Grumman and Monsanto can get bootstrappy and make their own damn profits. Rmoney, OTOH, has already started beating the war drums against Iran. It's one of the few things he hasn't flip-flopped on.
 
2012-10-25 03:18:18 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: ExperianScaresCthulhu: i don't see the problem with reporting rape if you have been raped.
instead of making it a punishment, make it a 'reward' or 'normal'.

if you're going to accuse someone of raping you, that's serious business.
it's just not right that rape is the only crime where someone's word
is supposed to be 'good enough'. .. and there is no defense for the falsely accused.

you want to claim rape, do the right thing: press charges.
or shut the fk up.


It is a very emotionally charged subject, and it's difficult to take any sort of objective practical position without being labeled a nazi baby killer rapist cannibal. But, in some circumstances I can see the point of this. I can't, for example, make an insurance claim for a robbery, if I never reported a robbery to the police and can't prove anything was taken.


It's money to feed the children of desperately poor women. You people will come up with any justification so you don't have to shell out a few pennies for people who aren't you/your family that you like.

Also, pretty much every guy that opens his mouth and says "women should have to prove they were raped or they should shut up" has no women in his life who think he's worth opening up too about anything bad that has happened to them - they know you have no sympathy.
 
2012-10-25 03:20:19 AM  

mediablitz: sticky2shoes: This post contains at least 3 more incorrect assumptions about me and my views, on top of the "pro-life" remark. Try sticking to the debate at hand instead of reading minds.

What? You don't like it when someone makes incorrect assumptions about YOU?

But you happily call women "welfare queens"? Happily make assumptions about people YOU DON'T KNOW?

GASP. It's as if... You are a douche bag hypocrite!

/my work is done here
//you'll ignore your own failings


You really do have reading comprehension issues. You made several false assumptions about ME (while ignoring all of the relevant issues and misunderstanding the article itself.) I made a statement about welfare queens without labeling any particular person as a part of that group. Unless you just think that there is no such thing as a welfare queen, which is outright delusional.
 
2012-10-25 03:21:05 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: But, in some circumstances I can see the point of this. I can't, for example, make an insurance claim for a robbery, if I never reported a robbery to the police and can't prove anything was taken.



It always amazes me that the best comparison many men can come up with for rape is property crime. It's... a very dehumanizing way to discuss the subject.
 
Besides the point though. As I said above- there is no reason on earth why the circumstances around a child's conception should affect whether or not their parents can receive minimal government assistance to help keep them fed.

 Seriously, these benefits are next to nothing. The people who receive them are STILL living in desperate poverty.
 
2012-10-25 03:21:32 AM  

Genevieve Marie: IamAwake: ok honestly - I'm confused. So it's ok for a woman to claim - in welfare benefits - that she was raped...without having actually filed a charge with anyone? The woman isn't required to prove anything other than that she filed a report - the burden of proof of the actual crime isn't on her. Normally I'd be all "ah, another stupid anti-human (both genders, lets be real here) repub law..." but...really? Misleading rewording of headline much, subby? What exactly is /wrong/ about what they're doing here?

You're missing the big picture- why on earth does a woman NEED to discuss the circumstances surrounding her child's conception to obtain welfare benefits for that child?


Exactly. If the GOP is truly pro-life, well, here's a real-life god-sworn living person, the newly minted child straight out of the vajayjay chute. Now show me how pro-life you are. Make that person get the most of his one chance here on earth. Or would you rather condemn that newborn to poverty and misery for its possibly short span here on earth?
 
2012-10-25 03:22:24 AM  
Feh, did any of you morons even read the article?

The Pennsylvania House is trying to pass a bill that if a woman is already on TANF she can't get an increase in benefits if she conceives and gives birth again. And what really is wrong with that? If you're on government assistance already why should you get more taxpayer money by having another kid? Shouldn't a woman be expected to control her reproductive situation? So with that, this bill has an exception saying that if a woman can show she was raped and decides to have the child then she will be granted an exception.

Meaning, she's being held responsible for her own actions, but if she gets pregnant outside of her control(yes, rape, as horrible as that is) she'll be granted an exception and receive more government assistance for the child. The whole rape exception is the government acknowledging that if a woman is raped, gets pregnant, and doesn't want to abort the baby, the government(meaning you, me, the taxpayer) will provide for the baby. It's an exception made out of compassion, you dolts.

And by the way, there was a Democrat who sponsored the bill.

But hey, don't actually put any effort into reading and thinking, that might actually cause a a new synapse to form between two nuerons in that thick skull of yours. Much easier to get pissed, turn to your own preconceived notions about the other team, and rage on fark.
 
2012-10-25 03:22:51 AM  

Big Dave: It's money to feed the children of desperately poor women. You people will come up with any justification so you don't have to shell out a few pennies for people who aren't you/your family that you like.

Also, pretty much every guy that opens his mouth and says "women should have to prove they were raped or they should shut up" has no women in his life who think he's worth opening up too about anything bad that has happened to them - they know you have no sympathy.


So other than "think of the children!" and personal attacks about how I am friendless, did you have some point that doesn't involve purely irrational emotion?
 
2012-10-25 03:23:09 AM  

sticky2shoes: Unless you just think that there is no such thing as a welfare queen, which is outright delusional.



There is no such thing as a welfare queen. That implies that welfare provides a very high standard of living, which is a blantant mischaracterization. Also, welfare benefits in this country are not permanent and have time restrictions imposed, unless someone is disabled and unable to work.

So yes, I think it's quite delusional to think there are people living on easy street because of government benefits.
 
2012-10-25 03:23:42 AM  
Lets legalize rape and end this discussion, Join the Republicans for rape ticket.
 
2012-10-25 03:24:33 AM  

Alphax: sticky2shoes: mediablitz: sticky2shoes: Irrelevant question, but the answer is no since you're curious.

It is relevant, considering the confirmation bias in your earlier post.

"Welfare Queens', shows you WANT to believe the worst. Everyone having kids before they can "afford" them is irresponsible.

The average cost of a child is about a million dollars to 18 years old. You think everyone who has a kid without having a million bucks on hand is "irresponsible", or do you plan to equivocate?

You are clearly angry, lack empathy, and (I'm guessing) consider yourself a "Libertarian" or some other BS that allows you to justify (to yourself) being such a close minded, shiatty human being.

This post contains at least 3 more incorrect assumptions about me and my views, on top of the "pro-life" remark. Try sticking to the debate at hand instead of reading minds.

Incorrect? So you were lying about your views on all of your posts in this thread?

Either you lied before, or you are lying now.

Huh? Link to where I said that I was pro-life, a libertarian, etc? Thanks.
 
2012-10-25 03:25:30 AM  

blindpreacher: Feh, did any of you morons even read the article?

The Pennsylvania House is trying to pass a bill that if a woman is already on TANF she can't get an increase in benefits if she conceives and gives birth again. And what really is wrong with that? If you're on government assistance already why should you get more taxpayer money by having another kid? Shouldn't a woman be expected to control her reproductive situation? So with that, this bill has an exception saying that if a woman can show she was raped and decides to have the child then she will be granted an exception.

Meaning, she's being held responsible for her own actions, but if she gets pregnant outside of her control(yes, rape, as horrible as that is) she'll be granted an exception and receive more government assistance for the child. The whole rape exception is the government acknowledging that if a woman is raped, gets pregnant, and doesn't want to abort the baby, the government(meaning you, me, the taxpayer) will provide for the baby. It's an exception made out of compassion, you dolts.

And by the way, there was a Democrat who sponsored the bill.

But hey, don't actually put any effort into reading and thinking, that might actually cause a a new synapse to form between two nuerons in that thick skull of yours. Much easier to get pissed, turn to your own preconceived notions about the other team, and rage on fark.


Yes, we all understand the article. Fully. It's offensive. It's about time for another "Lucky Ducky" cartoon about the people who defend this shiat.
 
2012-10-25 03:25:42 AM  

blindpreacher: Shouldn't a woman be expected to control her reproductive situation?


Not when that control is taken out of her hands by draconian legislation that defunds clinics that provide contraception and that make abortion inaccessible.

I don't know why this is so hard to grasp: it is cruel and punishing to remove all the tools women use to control our reproductive health and then blame us for having no control over our reproductive situations.

 
 
2012-10-25 03:27:08 AM  

Alphax: Yes, we all understand the article. Fully. It's offensive. It's about time for another "Lucky Ducky" cartoon about the people who defend this shiat.


God forbid in this day and age an adult woman should be expected to be responsible for her own reproduction.
 
2012-10-25 03:28:35 AM  

Genevieve Marie: blindpreacher: Shouldn't a woman be expected to control her reproductive situation?

Not when that control is taken out of her hands by draconian legislation that defunds clinics that provide contraception and that make abortion inaccessible.

I don't know why this is so hard to grasp: it is cruel and punishing to remove all the tools women use to control our reproductive health and then blame us for having no control over our reproductive situations.


No where in the article is it mentioned the bill is trying to limit access to birth control or abortions. You're trying to fit the article to your own narrative.
 
2012-10-25 03:30:00 AM  

blindpreacher: No where in the article is it mentioned the bill is trying to limit access to birth control or abortions. You're trying to fit the article to your own narrative.



Yea, you're either being willfully obtuse or you've only just now awakened from a Rip Van Winkleesque sleep and you've missed the last two or three years of legislation on contraceptive access and abortion rights.
 
2012-10-25 03:30:26 AM  

StopArrestingMe: Oh great, more of the fake "war on women".


Horror movies. The category is horror movies.

(I love these!)
 
2012-10-25 03:30:29 AM  

Genevieve Marie: blindpreacher: Shouldn't a woman be expected to control her reproductive situation?

Not when that control is taken out of her hands by draconian legislation that defunds clinics that provide contraception and that make abortion inaccessible.

I don't know why this is so hard to grasp: it is cruel and punishing to remove all the tools women use to control our reproductive health and then blame us for having no control over our reproductive situations.


If you weren't raped, you had control. If you were raped, the law still allows you to get welfare.
 
2012-10-25 03:30:35 AM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: i don't see the problem with reporting rape if you have been raped.
instead of making it a punishment, make it a 'reward' or 'normal'.

if you're going to accuse someone of raping you, that's serious business.
it's just not right that rape is the only crime where someone's word
is supposed to be 'good enough'. .. and there is no defense for the falsely accused.

you want to claim rape, do the right thing: press charges.
or shut the fk up.


I can think of at least two examples of why a woman may have reservations about reporting that she was raped, especially if she ended up pregnant as a result:

1. Rape trials are often very messy, traumatizing sagas in which the victim's entire life is exposed and the defense attorney will do anything they can to shift the blame to the victim.

2. In 31 states the law allows the rapist to sue for parental rights. The first time I read this I thought "that's ridiculous, that can't be true", but it is.
 
2012-10-25 03:31:57 AM  

Genevieve Marie: blindpreacher: No where in the article is it mentioned the bill is trying to limit access to birth control or abortions. You're trying to fit the article to your own narrative.


Yea, you're either being willfully obtuse or you've only just now awakened from a Rip Van Winkleesque sleep and you've missed the last two or three years of legislation on contraceptive access and abortion rights.


In the Pennsylvania House by the same four Republicans and one Democrat that are sponsoring this bill?
 
2012-10-25 03:31:58 AM  

blindpreacher: Alphax: Yes, we all understand the article. Fully. It's offensive. It's about time for another "Lucky Ducky" cartoon about the people who defend this shiat.

God forbid in this day and age an adult woman should be expected to be responsible for her own reproduction.


Stop talking. Step away from the thread before you dishonor yourself further.
 
2012-10-25 03:33:27 AM  

mediablitz: sticky2shoes: Irrelevant question, but the answer is no since you're curious.

When my daughter was born in 1990, I was making a little over 100k a year. She had some very serious medical issues at birth that insurance didn't want to cover.

We nearly had to file for bankruptcy over the medical bills. CLEARLY, based on your post, we were irresponsible for having a child when we "couldn't afford it".

That is how farking idiotic your blanket condemnations are.


The law in question applies to people who ALREADY have a child on welfare and then get pregnant again through consensual sex. Doesn't sound like that applies to you if you were making 100k.
 
2012-10-25 03:34:00 AM  

brukmann: blueviking: //yeah, it'll never happen, accountability being nonexistent in politics

In my experience, this is the truth. Accountability is a rare orchid that almost always germinates from people holding themselves accountable; whole communities rise up to block external calls for it.


As though one is automatically "irresponsible" for not reporting their own assault. In the case of many sexual abuses of children, a lot of brainwashing occurs, and the victim is unable to see their own victimization in their circumstances or their own families and friends bar them from reporting it. Plenty of rape victims are scared to death of reliving their assaults, over and over again as they have to recount it in police reports, having their lives threatened by their attackers, or not being believed and stigmatized by their report takers, community, or even family and friends. Talk to such victims, and, given the cruelty under which the justice system and its enforcers sometimes operate, you could see why they would sometimes rather try to let it go or forget and move on. And, with many lovely abortion laws like the one here in Texas to prevent being thrown into debt over having a child, they try to go in to get one and are violated again by a doctor telling them why they're wrong for doing so and a transvaginal ultrasound, not the kinder "jelly on the belly".

I would hope that I would have the strength to make a report and go up against my attacker(s), if I were ever put in a situation like this, but that hardly gives me the right to look down upon those who couldn't bring themselves to do so.
 
2012-10-25 03:34:09 AM  

sticky2shoes: If you weren't raped, you had control. If you were raped, the law still allows you to get welfare.



Ah, and we are right back to the idea that poor women should just be abstinent unless they're in a committed relationship and are  wealthy enough to afford children or birth control.

Because that is totally realistic and an excellent basis for determining policy.

*facepalm*
 
2012-10-25 03:34:23 AM  
The Republicans are lucky that men can't get pregnant.
 
2012-10-25 03:34:31 AM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: i don't see the problem with reporting rape if you have been raped.
instead of making it a punishment, make it a 'reward' or 'normal'.

if you're going to accuse someone of raping you, that's serious business.
it's just not right that rape is the only crime where someone's word
is supposed to be 'good enough'. .. and there is no defense for the falsely accused.

you want to claim rape, do the right thing: press charges.
or shut the fk up.


We can't do that to Baby Daddy.
 
2012-10-25 03:36:18 AM  

L.D. Ablo: The Republicans are lucky that men can't get pregnant.


Yes, but that doesn't stop them from trying.
 
2012-10-25 03:37:17 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-25 03:37:40 AM  

sticky2shoes: geek_mars: This provision accomplishes nothing. There's not a deadline on when a woman can file rape charges. So, if a woman with a (for example) six month old child (product of rape or not) files for assistance and is told she has one kid too many, she can simply call the cops and report that she was raped fifteen months ago (whether that's the case or not) and has no idea who attacked her. She gets her police report, she gets her assistance, nothing changes except the woman, already in a desperate state, had to bear the added insult of being treated like a second class citizen.

This does not encourage women to report rapes, though it could be argued it encourages the filing of false claims. It makes it harder to get assistance. I can't stand the mentality that making a child suffer is a productive way to punish that child's parent (which is what happens when "x" number of children get assistance but "x+1" is too many). I understand preventing abuse of the system is a desirable goal, but treating people with a sense of humanity should also be a desirable

What this law accomplishes is enabling a punishment for people who lie about being raped to get welfare, because they can be charged with filing a false police report. They may not be the brightest people to begin with, but "I could go to jail for lying to the police to get welfare" will play into their decision to raise the baby without welfare, give it up for adoption, move to a state with different rules, abort, or abstain or use contraception the next time around.


I really have to disagree with you on this one, for several reasons.
1: I don't consider denying aid for a child to be an acceptable punishment for the parent. That's sort of like saying, "Sorry kid, we can't help feed you because your mom should never have had you."
2: Good luck convicting a woman who makes a false rape claim of filing a false police report. If she claims she was raped and has no idea of her attackers identity, then there's a total lack of evidence; total. Can't prove she was raped; can't prove she wasn't.
3: "They may not be the brightest people to begin with," is a terrible statement to use when trying to make a point. There are plenty of people who need assistance that are in no way unintelligent.
4: "...give it up for adoption, move to a state with different rules, abort, or abstain or use contraception the next time around." The only part of this that makes any sense is the abstain part.
Adoption? Requesting assistance is what people do when they want to keep the child, not when they want to give it up. Not many parents want to give up a child.
Move to a different state? You don's just do that like talking about it. Moving is expensive and often not an option for people who are so broke they have to ask for government assistance.
Abortion/contraception? You say that as if it were a casual option without countless hurdles and roadblocks with various legislatures trying to add more every day.

Consider this, and I mean seriously consider it...
What is gained (gained by society, but government, by communities, by parents, by children) by punishing someone who is so desperate, or so immoral, that they would claim rape to get more government aid? These are the exact people who we should be helping. Desperate people need opportunities, education, etc. Immoral people need to get their minds right, counseling, therapy, education, mentoring, etc.

Punishing someone in this situation doesn't put an end to their situation, it just kicks the can down the road and makes it easier to ignore. Punishment is not a satisfactory solution, especially when you look at the number of people not abusing the system.
 
2012-10-25 03:39:16 AM  

apoptotic: ExperianScaresCthulhu: i don't see the problem with reporting rape if you have been raped.
instead of making it a punishment, make it a 'reward' or 'normal'.

if you're going to accuse someone of raping you, that's serious business.
it's just not right that rape is the only crime where someone's word
is supposed to be 'good enough'. .. and there is no defense for the falsely accused.

you want to claim rape, do the right thing: press charges.
or shut the fk up.

I can think of at least two examples of why a woman may have reservations about reporting that she was raped, especially if she ended up pregnant as a result:

1. Rape trials are often very messy, traumatizing sagas in which the victim's entire life is exposed and the defense attorney will do anything they can to shift the blame to the victim.

2. In 31 states the law allows the rapist to sue for parental rights. The first time I read this I thought "that's ridiculous, that can't be true", but it is.


As for number 1, this law doesn't require them to testify at trial. It just requires them to file a police report and the person's name if they know it. As traumatic as that must be, reporting the rapist so that he can get caught can save a lot of other women from trauma by stopping him from doing it again. Haven't heard of number 2 before, that's terrible if true.
 
2012-10-25 03:43:41 AM  
Where is the bill requiring a woman who gets pregnant while already claiming the EITC for one or more existing children to prove she reported the rape or incest that caused her current pregnancy before she is allowed another EITC deduction?

These welfare queens popping out another kid every year just to get another $3,500 of MY tax dollars must be stopped! I'm looking at you Mrs. Duggar!
 
2012-10-25 03:44:00 AM  

blindpreacher: Genevieve Marie: blindpreacher: No where in the article is it mentioned the bill is trying to limit access to birth control or abortions. You're trying to fit the article to your own narrative.


Yea, you're either being willfully obtuse or you've only just now awakened from a Rip Van Winkleesque sleep and you've missed the last two or three years of legislation on contraceptive access and abortion rights.

In the Pennsylvania House by the same four Republicans and one Democrat that are sponsoring this bill?


I am exceedingly irked that I had to turn away from a fun thread to be your research assistant but here you go, the record of the six people that sponsored this bill:

RoseMarie Swanger: http://www.kungahuset.se/kungafamiljen/aktuellahandelser/aktuellt2012 o ktoberdecember/prinsessanmadeleineochherrchristopheroneillforlovade.5. 292a62ce13848168ac52a4e.html?state=showFolder&skip=2&sv.url=12.292a62c e13848168ac52a54&folderId=19.292a62ce13848168ac52a5a 

Summary: Voted against allowing insurance to cover abortions and voted for building codes on abortion clinics that were designed to force closures.

Thomas Caltagirone: http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/9097/thomas-caltagirone/2/ab o rtion-issues#.UIjsWxiVg7A 

Summary: same as Swanger

Gillen: http://votesmart.org/candidate/119604/mark-gillen?categoryId=2#.UIjst x iVg7A 

Summary: Funnily enough! Same record as the other two

Gillespie: http://votesmart.org/candidate/46909/keith-gillespie?categoryId=2#.UI j s5hiVg7A 

Summary: OMG! SAME VOTES AS ALL THE OTHERS! I THINK I AM GOING TO HAVE A HEART ATTACK AND DIE FROM THE SURPRISE

Harris: http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/46957/c-adam-harris/2/aborti o n-issues#.UIjtIRiVg7A 

Summary: Motherfarker. Same goddamned record. It's almost like these guys are all anti-choice and yet pro-punishing poor women for having babies! SHOCKED I TELL YOU, SHOCKED

Tobash: http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/119600/mike-tobash/2/abortio n -issues#.UIjtdhiVg7A

Summary: You're a bad person and should feel bad about yourself for making me research very, very obvious truths. 
 
2012-10-25 03:45:20 AM  
Oh dammit. On my link for Swanger, I accidentally copied Princess Madeleine's engagement announcement instead. (Which by the way, was far more interesting than this thread)

Here's her voting record: http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/60129/rosemarie-swanger/2/ab o rtion-issues#.UIjuAxiVg7A 
 
2012-10-25 03:47:43 AM  

Genevieve Marie: Ah, and we are right back to the idea that poor women should just be abstinent unless they're in a committed relationship and are  wealthy enough to afford children or birth control.

Because that is totally realistic and an excellent basis for determining policy.

*facepalm*


I agree with you that birth control and access to abortions should be made as available as possible to all women in this country.

I even can see the point that it's counter productive to cut women off from welfare increases when they have more children while already on the government tit. It's a similar argument to why it's counter productive to drug test all welfare recipients.

But what is I find so disingenuous is:

1) The article doesn't mention birth control or abortions once. The only reason it's brought up in this thread is because it loosely fits the narrative that Republicans are united in taking away women's rights. The bill was co sponsored by a Democrat for crying out loud.

2) The mention of 'rape' is emotionally charged, but if one reads the language it's actually meant as an exception to allow a woman to continue to receive an increase in government benefits. If you want to rag on the concept behind what comes down to a bill meant to hold welfare recipients responsible for their actions instead of taxpayers being on the hook for them, then fine, but the portion where it grants an exception to this is not the part to do it. The only reason that part is a big deal in this thread is because of four charged letters.
 
2012-10-25 03:48:22 AM  

Genevieve Marie: It's almost like these guys are all anti-choice and yet pro-punishing poor women for having babies!


They prefer "pro-life"

...oddly enough 
 
2012-10-25 03:49:13 AM  

blindpreacher: 1) The article doesn't mention birth control or abortions once. The only reason it's brought up in this thread is because it loosely fits the narrative that Republicans are united in taking away women's rights. The bill was co sponsored by a Democrat for crying out loud.


Do you really need it spelled out that when legislators work to close clinics and restrict abortion rights and then turn around and try to make sure that women who have children can't get basic assistance, they're putting poor women in an impossible situation?

 
 
2012-10-25 03:49:33 AM  

Genevieve Marie: sticky2shoes: If you weren't raped, you had control. If you were raped, the law still allows you to get welfare.


Ah, and we are right back to the idea that poor women should just be abstinent unless they're in a committed relationship and are  wealthy enough to afford children or birth control.

Because that is totally realistic and an excellent basis for determining policy.

*facepalm*

You're the one who said "all the tools" to control reproduction have been taken away. One of those tools is--gasp--abstinence. If you don't want to use it, fine, but don't come knocking on my door demanding money to pay for your voluntary decisions.
 
2012-10-25 03:49:49 AM  

blindpreacher: Genevieve Marie: Ah, and we are right back to the idea that poor women should just be abstinent unless they're in a committed relationship and are  wealthy enough to afford children or birth control.

Because that is totally realistic and an excellent basis for determining policy.

*facepalm*

I agree with you that birth control and access to abortions should be made as available as possible to all women in this country.

I even can see the point that it's counter productive to cut women off from welfare increases when they have more children while already on the government tit. It's a similar argument to why it's counter productive to drug test all welfare recipients.

But what is I find so disingenuous is:

1) The article doesn't mention birth control or abortions once. The only reason it's brought up in this thread is because it loosely fits the narrative that Republicans are united in taking away women's rights. The bill was co sponsored by a Democrat for crying out loud.

2) The mention of 'rape' is emotionally charged, but if one reads the language it's actually meant as an exception to allow a woman to continue to receive an increase in government benefits. If you want to rag on the concept behind what comes down to a bill meant to hold welfare recipients responsible for their actions instead of taxpayers being on the hook for them, then fine, but the portion where it grants an exception to this is not the part to do it. The only reason that part is a big deal in this thread is because of four charged letters.


1) You have to live alone in a cave to ignore what Republicans are doing to restrict women's rights. You can't ignore that.

2) Poor people already have it bad off. Trying to make it worse for them is pure malice.
 
2012-10-25 03:54:25 AM  

geek_mars: sticky2shoes: geek_mars: This provision accomplishes nothing. There's not a deadline on when a woman can file rape charges. So, if a woman with a (for example) six month old child (product of rape or not) files for assistance and is told she has one kid too many, she can simply call the cops and report that she was raped fifteen months ago (whether that's the case or not) and has no idea who attacked her. She gets her police report, she gets her assistance, nothing changes except the woman, already in a desperate state, had to bear the added insult of being treated like a second class citizen.

This does not encourage women to report rapes, though it could be argued it encourages the filing of false claims. It makes it harder to get assistance. I can't stand the mentality that making a child suffer is a productive way to punish that child's parent (which is what happens when "x" number of children get assistance but "x+1" is too many). I understand preventing abuse of the system is a desirable goal, but treating people with a sense of humanity should also be a desirable

What this law accomplishes is enabling a punishment for people who lie about being raped to get welfare, because they can be charged with filing a false police report. They may not be the brightest people to begin with, but "I could go to jail for lying to the police to get welfare" will play into their decision to raise the baby without welfare, give it up for adoption, move to a state with different rules, abort, or abstain or use contraception the next time around.

I really have to disagree with you on this one, for several reasons.
1: I don't consider denying aid for a child to be an acceptable punishment for the parent. That's sort of like saying, "Sorry kid, we can't help feed you because your mom should never have had you."
2: Good luck convicting a woman who makes a false rape claim of filing a false police report. If she claims she was raped and has no idea of her attackers identity, then ...


Women who make false rape claims are convicted of filing a false police report all the time. And this law doesn't require you to prove that you were raped, it only require you to report it. A lack of evidence is no obstacle here--hence HuffPo lying in the headline to make it sound bad. Rest of your post Won't quote on my tablet for some reason, sorry,
 
2012-10-25 03:54:42 AM  

Mock26: I support this bill. For one, the woman does not have to prove she was raped. She just has to prove that she reported it (as in showing a copy of the Police Report, which she will automatically receive a copy of when she reports it). Also, the intent is to prevent a woman from defrauding the government. As it is now a mother can only receive funds for up to and including X number of kids. She is not eligible for additional benefits for kid number X + 1, unless the child was conceived because the woman was raped. Up to now there was no way to vet whether or not this was true. Now all a woman has to do is provide a copy of the police report.


So now the woman will report a rape that didn't happen, perhaps even falsely accusing an innocent man, and still defraud the government. Brilliant!
 
2012-10-25 03:54:42 AM  

sticky2shoes: Genevieve Marie: sticky2shoes: If you weren't raped, you had control. If you were raped, the law still allows you to get welfare.


Ah, and we are right back to the idea that poor women should just be abstinent unless they're in a committed relationship and are  wealthy enough to afford children or birth control.

Because that is totally realistic and an excellent basis for determining policy.

*facepalm*
You're the one who said "all the tools" to control reproduction have been taken away. One of those tools is--gasp--abstinence. If you don't want to use it, fine, but don't come knocking on my door demanding money to pay for your voluntary decisions.


Yea, somehow I doubt these women are actually knocking on your door to demand your help. A very miniscule portion of your tax dollars goes to help the poorest people in this country eke out a basic standard of living.

If you really have a problem with that, I don't know what to tell you. You're ostensibly a grown up. Paying taxes is part of the deal, and making sure kids get fed is one of the more reasonable ways tax dollars are used. 
 
2012-10-25 03:54:50 AM  

apoptotic: 2. In 31 states the law allows the rapist to sue for parental rights. The first time I read this I thought "that's ridiculous, that can't be true", but it is.


sticky2shoes: Haven't heard of number 2 before, that's terrible if true.



Despinified version - It would be more accurate to say that 31 states don't have laws that explicitly block convicted rapists from being legal parents. Though more and more states are drafting such laws in the past few years. Historically, the cases where rapists sue for custody are exceedingly rare so it hadn't been seen as a major legislative issue. (In other words, they don't actually have a law that says "the rapist can have custody if he wants.")
 
2012-10-25 03:55:29 AM  

blindpreacher: 1) The article doesn't mention birth control or abortions once. The only reason it's brought up in this thread is because it loosely fits the narrative that Republicans are united in taking away women's rights. The bill was co sponsored by a Democrat for crying out loud.


Birth control and abortion were brought up because the natural argument against "too many welfare babies" is "make it easier for there to be fewer babies". It's disingenuous to suggest that women should be denied the ability to reduce the output of children and also be denied assistance in supporting the children they were denied the ability to keep from having.

At some point, legislators have to say something other than "No" on everything that would benefit women.
 
2012-10-25 03:58:48 AM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Where is the bill requiring a woman who gets pregnant while already claiming the EITC for one or more existing children to prove she reported the rape or incest that caused her current pregnancy before she is allowed another EITC deduction?

These welfare queens popping out another kid every year just to get another $3,500 of MY tax dollars must be stopped! I'm looking at you Mrs. Duggar!


Nice try, but the EITC is phased out at $30k income with a maximum of 3 kids or something like that. I'm pretty sure the Duggars don't qualify.
 
2012-10-25 03:59:27 AM  

sticky2shoes: geek_mars: sticky2shoes: geek_mars: This provision accomplishes nothing. There's not a deadline on when a woman can file rape charges. So, if a woman with a (for example) six month old child (product of rape or not) files for assistance and is told she has one kid too many, she can simply call the cops and report that she was raped fifteen months ago (whether that's the case or not) and has no idea who attacked her. She gets her police report, she gets her assistance, nothing changes except the woman, already in a desperate state, had to bear the added insult of being treated like a second class citizen.

This does not encourage women to report rapes, though it could be argued it encourages the filing of false claims. It makes it harder to get assistance. I can't stand the mentality that making a child suffer is a productive way to punish that child's parent (which is what happens when "x" number of children get assistance but "x+1" is too many). I understand preventing abuse of the system is a desirable goal, but treating people with a sense of humanity should also be a desirable

What this law accomplishes is enabling a punishment for people who lie about being raped to get welfare, because they can be charged with filing a false police report. They may not be the brightest people to begin with, but "I could go to jail for lying to the police to get welfare" will play into their decision to raise the baby without welfare, give it up for adoption, move to a state with different rules, abort, or abstain or use contraception the next time around.

I really have to disagree with you on this one, for several reasons.
1: I don't consider denying aid for a child to be an acceptable punishment for the parent. That's sort of like saying, "Sorry kid, we can't help feed you because your mom should never have had you."
2: Good luck convicting a woman who makes a false rape claim of filing a false police report. If she claims she was raped and has no idea of her attackers iden ...


I'd want to see some numbers on convictions of women making false rape claims (which I can't look up right now). I'd be willing to bet that a fair number would involve identifying their attackers. And yes, this provision only requires a rape be reported, which makes the provision useless as I argued in my earlier post.
 
2012-10-25 04:00:41 AM  
The report it and you have to name your attacker part seems especially stupid- not all women know their rapist. Not only does it seem designed to be assholish and punitive to women, it also creates a financial incentive for a woman to name a specific man as her rapist. Now....I believe the vast majority of women wouldn't just pick some guy they really really hate, but you know there's going to be one or two vicious crackheads or meth addicts who do. This seems stupid on every single level.
 
2012-10-25 04:00:52 AM  
I'd foward this to the local blog everyone in my town reads, but...

I live in rube farking retards rural PA.

And they will just say something about obummer's communist conspirator huffington made it up to keep the welfare funding going to ALL the obama voters (because they know, KNOW, those are the only people that vote for him).

You can meet the nicest people going out for a beer and a pool game. You really can.
But don't mention politics unless you want to end the night killing after losing all faith in humanity.
 
2012-10-25 04:02:19 AM  

MurphyMurphy: unless you want to end the night killing after losing all faith in humanity.


I meant to say "killing yourself after"
but, that works too
 
2012-10-25 04:03:46 AM  

vrax: Oooh, a rape incentive program!


This was my first thought.

/Well, second technically, behind "Hmmm, Rape-publicans really like rape", of course.

Who decided it would be a good idea to pay an extra benefit to women who raise their God's PlanTM approved rape-babbies in the first place?
 
2012-10-25 04:04:22 AM  

ambercat: The report it and you have to name your attacker part seems especially stupid- not all women know their rapist. Not only does it seem designed to be assholish and punitive to women, it also creates a financial incentive for a woman to name a specific man as her rapist. Now....I believe the vast majority of women wouldn't just pick some guy they really really hate, but you know there's going to be one or two vicious crackheads or meth addicts who do. This seems stupid on every single level.


While I agree with you, it should be pointed out that there's a provision within the provision:
"...including the identity of the offender, if known..."
 
2012-10-25 04:05:02 AM  
Whats next? Two male witnesses required as like Sharia Law?

Sounds more like a porn shoot.
 
2012-10-25 04:05:45 AM  

bonobo73: "I'm pregnant again."
"Why? You know this eliminates your benefits"
"I was raped."
"Ok. Did you report the assault?"
"No, it was my pimp that raped me and if I tell the police it was my pimp I'll go to prison for prostitution and then when I get out he'll slit my throat and put my body in a dumpster and no one will so much as bat an eyelash.."
"But you want me to believe that you were raped."
"Yes."
"Even though you're providing no proof whatsoever."
"Yes."
"And even if the sex was consensual, it's in your best interests to lie about being raped to keep your benefits."
"Yep."
...


Welcome to the really real world asshole, where fathers rape their stepdaughters and husbands rape their wives. Where 14 year old girls have sex with strangers for food and drugs and some men would just as soon as kill you and your unborn child then face ever having to pay child support. The world is a scary farked up place and apparently you've been lucky enough to avoid the vast vast vast majority of it's terrors. So how about you go rest your head on your $5k bed set and let adults deal with he aftermath of what your ignorance breeds.

part of that includes giving women an anonymous support network so the men in their life don't gut them like fish and dump them in a lake.
 
2012-10-25 04:07:47 AM  

Mr. Carpenter: bonobo73: "I'm pregnant again."
"Why? You know this eliminates your benefits"
"I was raped."
"Ok. Did you report the assault?"
"No, it was my pimp that raped me and if I tell the police it was my pimp I'll go to prison for prostitution and then when I get out he'll slit my throat and put my body in a dumpster and no one will so much as bat an eyelash.."
"But you want me to believe that you were raped."
"Yes."
"Even though you're providing no proof whatsoever."
"Yes."
"And even if the sex was consensual, it's in your best interests to lie about being raped to keep your benefits."
"Yep."
...

Welcome to the really real world asshole, where fathers rape their stepdaughters and husbands rape their wives. Where 14 year old girls have sex with strangers for food and drugs and some men would just as soon as kill you and your unborn child then face ever having to pay child support. The world is a scary farked up place and apparently you've been lucky enough to avoid the vast vast vast majority of it's terrors. So how about you go rest your head on your $5k bed set and let adults deal with he aftermath of what your ignorance breeds.

part of that includes giving women an anonymous support network so the men in their life don't gut them like fish and dump them in a lake.


Oh yeah, bold part is my real world addition to your little welfare queen fantasy.
 
2012-10-25 04:12:11 AM  

ambercat: The report it and you have to name your attacker part seems especially stupid- not all women know their rapist. Not only does it seem designed to be assholish and punitive to women, it also creates a financial incentive for a woman to name a specific man as her rapist. Now....I believe the vast majority of women wouldn't just pick some guy they really really hate, but you know there's going to be one or two vicious crackheads or meth addicts who do. This seems stupid on every single level.


It says name the attacker IF KNOWN. There is no financial incentive to falsely accuse a certain person than to say it was an unknown person.
 
2012-10-25 04:17:16 AM  

sticky2shoes: It says name the attacker IF KNOWN. There is no financial incentive to falsely accuse a certain person than to say it was an unknown person.



So basically, it's a meaningless provision that requires women to take the time to file a report that they know no one will ever be able to follow up on, wasting police time and resources and further traumatizing the victim by forcing them to tell their story whether they're comfortabe doing it or not.

And this is all so that they can obtain minimal government assistance that covers very basic needs.

Yea. Imagine being so poverty stricken that you're desperate enough to have to need that money, and then imagine you've been raped and now you're being forced to tell your story in order to obtain the money to keep the lights on.
 
What about that sounds fair to you? What about that sounds like anything but absolute torture?
 
2012-10-25 04:21:51 AM  

dramboxf: Just to be specific, and you can quote me:

Anti-abortion legislation is always, and without fail, anti-f**king legislation.

Without fail.


Yep:
www.amptoons.com
 
2012-10-25 04:30:24 AM  

Genevieve Marie: blindpreacher: Genevieve Marie: blindpreacher: Links, citations, Win


blindpreacher just got legitimately raped via the internet.
 
2012-10-25 04:30:27 AM  

Mock26: I support this bill. For one, the woman does not have to prove she was raped. She just has to prove that she reported it (as in showing a copy of the Police Report, which she will automatically receive a copy of when she reports it). Also, the intent is to prevent a woman from defrauding the government. As it is now a mother can only receive funds for up to and including X number of kids. She is not eligible for additional benefits for kid number X + 1, unless the child was conceived because the woman was raped. Up to now there was no way to vet whether or not this was true. Now all a woman has to do is provide a copy of the police report.


What about the women who will feel forced to falsely report a rape? I'm not saying this will happen in a majority of cases, but you know it'll happen. There will be policemen wasting time following up on the false reports. There will be more actual rapes reported-which is probably a good thing (in most instances)-but the false reports will likely make the officers jaded (think "crying wolf"). The already taxed justice system will be gummed up in this SNAFU. What about the people who will be falsely arrested or convicted because a woman was scared that her baby (that was conceived unintentionally) would go hungry if she didn't report her one-night stand as a rape.

I think if this law is enacted: outreach groups ought to hand out flyers with the names and pictures and identifying characteristics (height, weight, birthmarks, eye color, vehicle description, etc.) of the people that proposed it-that way when a woman feels a need to report a rape to feed her baby-she can ID someone who will have the resources to fight it in court instead of giving cops binders full of suspect descriptions to pull out whenever they want to harass someone but can't find a legitimate reason. You know this law will lead to false reporting, false arrests and ultimately-false convictions.

Good jorb, douches.
 
2012-10-25 04:33:08 AM  
Can anyone point to some Republican authored/sponsored bill of any type that is a good idea and improves the lives of the average American?

I can't find any.
 
2012-10-25 04:34:50 AM  

JohnnyC: Can anyone point to some Republican authored/sponsored bill of any type that is a good idea and improves the lives of the average American?

I can't find any.


Have you tried looking in the archives? Possibly something from the last century? I can't imagine you'll find anything current (and by current, I mean during my lifetime).
 
2012-10-25 04:37:41 AM  

dramboxf: Just to be specific, and you can quote me:

Anti-abortion legislation is always, and without fail, anti-f**king legislation.

Without fail.


Not at all! It's only to punish those evil women if they have the temerity to like or enjoy sex. Now men, we get to manwhore it up all we want and it's OK. Though if we're poor we probably deserve to be punished too.

Look at virtually any of the far-right pricks who rant about "family values" and invariably at some point seem to get caught doing something kinky (bathroom tapping), creepy (Bachmann at the lesbian rally comes to mind...), gay (too many to list), and/or serially adulterous ("Newt likes blowjobs"). On rare occasions managing all four at once (Ted Haggard comes to mind)...

But it's OK, because they say how much they love Jesus. And the dumbasses just lap it up. Oy, I am so not looking forward to how these people are going to melt down on election day because I'm legitimately afraid of what they'll do.

/Inb4 simpering "b b but it's OK because some Dem once did something bad"
//lol, not a chance...
 
2012-10-25 04:38:04 AM  

sticky2shoes: The Southern Dandy: sticky2shoes: Genevieve Marie: Alphax: OW! I just bruised my forehead.


Right there with you.

Very logical responses...not surprising coming from people who can't even tell that the headline of the article is a blatant lie that contradicts the actual law in question.

[englishedithelp.files.wordpress.com image 300x200]

Trouble reading? The headline says that the applicant must prove that she was raped. The law says that she must certify that she reported that she was raped. They contradict each other as to what is required of a welfare applicant.


Maybe you need to lookup the word contra and the word dict. "proved that she was raped" is not the opposite of "certify she reported she was raped". The are different, but not contra.
Comprehend English much?
 
2012-10-25 04:48:30 AM  

mediablitz: The average cost of a child is about a million dollars to 18 years old.


[citation needed]
 
2012-10-25 04:51:10 AM  

Genevieve Marie: It always amazes me that the best comparison many men can come up with for rape is property crime. It's... a very dehumanizing way to discuss the subject.


Just as dehumanising as those who think it's only the woman's body that matters.
 
2012-10-25 04:53:59 AM  
I'm hard pressed to imagine there are that many rape pregnancies to justify writing this into the law. What seems silly is that if a poor Republican woman on benefits gets accidentally pregnant (busted rubber, whatever), and then doesn't have an abortion based on her religious beliefs, the the law will punish her for not believing in abortion. People have a right to have sex and frankly accidents can happen to anyone.
 
2012-10-25 04:56:01 AM  

orbister: Genevieve Marie: It always amazes me that the best comparison many men can come up with for rape is property crime. It's... a very dehumanizing way to discuss the subject.

Just as dehumanising as those who think it's only the woman's body that matters.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, unless that's an attempt to subtly suggest that abortion kills a child (which is a constantly argued point). But, in cases of rape (and contraception) it is only the woman's body that matters.
 
2012-10-25 04:56:09 AM  

JohnnyC: Can anyone point to some Republican authored/sponsored bill of any type that is a good idea and improves the lives of the average American?

I can't find any.


Lincoln freeing the slaves was a purty good idear.

I'm sure there are others. Can't think of any to be honest but there must be, right?
 
2012-10-25 04:58:38 AM  

Ebbelwoi: I'm hard pressed to imagine there are that many rape pregnancies to justify writing this into the law. What seems silly is that if a poor Republican woman on benefits gets accidentally pregnant (busted rubber, whatever), and then doesn't have an abortion based on her religious beliefs, the the law will punish her for not believing in abortion. People have a right to have sex and frankly accidents can happen to anyone.


The law is written to deal with non-rape pregnancies. The rapes are exceptions to the law.

Still stupid though.

Will create many more problems than the few it hopes to solve.
 
2012-10-25 04:59:24 AM  

Bhruic: For the record, while 4 of the people who proposed this were Republicans, the 5th was a Democrat.


For the record, you're not very good at counting to six. Both sides are not equally bad.
 
2012-10-25 04:59:39 AM  
R is for Racism. R is for Rape. R is for Rednecks. R is for Radical and Religious.

R is for Republican.
 
2012-10-25 04:59:55 AM  

Bullroarer_Took: Ebbelwoi: I'm hard pressed to imagine there are that many rape pregnancies to justify writing this into the law. What seems silly is that if a poor Republican woman on benefits gets accidentally pregnant (busted rubber, whatever), and then doesn't have an abortion based on her religious beliefs, the the law will punish her for not believing in abortion. People have a right to have sex and frankly accidents can happen to anyone.

The law is written to deal with non-rape pregnancies. The rapes are exceptions to the law.

Still stupid though.

Will create many more problems than the few it hopes to solve.


This law does not hope to solve problems. It hopes to demean and dis-empower women.
 
2012-10-25 05:01:56 AM  
(They're writing the exception into it because they don't want to appear insensitive, yet want to still appear tough.)

/Picture Chuck Norris in a kimono.
 
2012-10-25 05:03:09 AM  
After seeing this thread and all the bullshiat people are whipping up about either party, I'm surprised we aren't in a civil war.

To solve this, both parties must be dissolved, and all parties with over 1,000 unique members will be permitted onto the ballot. Either party may do whatever they please, except they must cite scholarly sources supporting their assertations. Any candidate who makes statements backed by religious texts of any kind will be immediately removed from the race. Religious statements of any kind are forbidden in the new government. In addition, all government staff must take a basic knowledge test consisting of locating countries on a map of the world, plus basic mathematics, literacy, reading comprehension. Employees who fail this test will be transferred to their state's equivalent of the Department of Motor Vehicles. They may only be permitted out of the DMV when they can pass the test.

The government will also be required to pass a budget every year. Each new law must also have an attached budget. Each budget must be examined by accountants to ensure it makes sense. In the event of an impasse, congress will be locked in to their respective Houses and fed only dogfood and coffee until they can work on a compromise, or until they all die of malnutrition. To encourage cooperation rather than conflict in congress, one pork barrel project (such as bridges, hospitals etc) will be awarded to each party involved in writing and passing a collaboratively constructed bill. Congressional pay will be determined by public popular vote.

Elections will be held on the same basis, and candidates will be held to the same standards as elected officials. Each statement made during a speech must be checked for accuracy by the Election Commission, and if found to be inaccurate, each candidate will be penalized by not being allowed to speak in public, appear on television (in either recorded or live form), or use social media for a week for each inaccurate remark. In the event of a stalemate, each candidate will be pitted against the other in a boxing ring.

/A man can dream.
 
2012-10-25 05:03:26 AM  

orbister: Genevieve Marie: It always amazes me that the best comparison many men can come up with for rape is property crime. It's... a very dehumanizing way to discuss the subject.

Just as dehumanising as those who think it's only the woman's body that matters.


What other body is involved?
 
2012-10-25 05:03:37 AM  

geek_mars: Bullroarer_Took: Ebbelwoi: I'm hard pressed to imagine there are that many rape pregnancies to justify writing this into the law. What seems silly is that if a poor Republican woman on benefits gets accidentally pregnant (busted rubber, whatever), and then doesn't have an abortion based on her religious beliefs, the the law will punish her for not believing in abortion. People have a right to have sex and frankly accidents can happen to anyone.

The law is written to deal with non-rape pregnancies. The rapes are exceptions to the law.

Still stupid though.

Will create many more problems than the few it hopes to solve.

This law does not hope to solve problems. It hopes to demean and dis-empower women.


Agreed. But they're hiding it in a problem-solving sheep's fleece.
 
2012-10-25 05:06:29 AM  

blindpreacher:
1) The article doesn't mention birth control or abortions once. The only reason it's brought up in this thread is because it loosely fits the narrative that Republicans are united in taking away women's rights. The bill was co sponsored by a Democrat for crying out loud.


I'm not sure why "co sponsored by a Democrat" is supposed to mean it's not a bad bill. All it really demonstrates is that there are some Democrats who are as morally bankrupt as some (these days it's looking like most) Republicans. If you check the Democrat in question's voting record, he's as anti-abortion as the Republicans, so it's no surprise he'd vote with them. Pretty much entirely explained by him being a Catholic, as they have extremely backward views on abortion, sexuality and rape (sadly I know quite a few Catholics who would agree with the "if you got pregnant from a rape, God intended you to" viewpoint).

While I'm not against the concept of combating welfare fraud, I tend to draw the line at "prove you were raped!" type legislation.
 
2012-10-25 05:09:57 AM  

Bhruic: blindpreacher:
1) The article doesn't mention birth control or abortions once. The only reason it's brought up in this thread is because it loosely fits the narrative that Republicans are united in taking away women's rights. The bill was co sponsored by a Democrat for crying out loud.

I'm not sure why "co sponsored by a Democrat" is supposed to mean it's not a bad bill. All it really demonstrates is that there are some Democrats who are as morally bankrupt as some (these days it's looking like most) Republicans. If you check the Democrat in question's voting record, he's as anti-abortion as the Republicans, so it's no surprise he'd vote with them. Pretty much entirely explained by him being a Catholic, as they have extremely backward views on abortion, sexuality and rape (sadly I know quite a few Catholics who would agree with the "if you got pregnant from a rape, God intended you to" viewpoint).

While I'm not against the concept of combating welfare fraud, I tend to draw the line at "prove you were raped!" type legislation.


It's not supposed to mean it's not a bad bill. It's supposed to mean "both sides are bad, so vote Republican."
 
2012-10-25 05:14:17 AM  

Bullroarer_Took: (They're writing the exception into it because they don't want to appear insensitive, yet want to still appear tough.)


That's what this mish-mash looks like to me too.

Look at us being all tuff on Welfare Queens and so compassionate to li'l rape-babbies!

4 Repugs and a token blue dog Dem in PA.

Go figure.
 
2012-10-25 05:15:57 AM  
Mark Gillen (R): Old, white republican dude, alma mater - Bob farking Jones University ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_M._Gillen )

Keith Gillespie, old, white, republican dude, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_J._Gillespie

RoseMarie Swanger, white republican lady, college dropout, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoseMarie_Swanger

Mike Tobash, old white republican dude, elected as part of the teabagger wave in 2010, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Tobash

God damn. That's a big ol' wave of derp right there.
 
2012-10-25 05:24:07 AM  
DNRTFA
DNRTFT

It's easier to cry rape than face the fact that you're a whore.
 
2012-10-25 05:35:09 AM  

letrole: DNRTFA
DNRTFT

It's easier to cry rape than face the fact that you're a whore.


1/10
the 1 is for the outrage, otherwise that trolling would have zero troll worthy qualities.
 
2012-10-25 05:42:09 AM  

geek_mars: letrole: DNRTFA
DNRTFT

It's easier to cry rape than face the fact that you're a whore.

1/10
the 1 is for the outrage, otherwise that trolling would have zero troll worthy qualities.


Read his handle aloud..
 
2012-10-25 05:46:54 AM  

Alphax: geek_mars: letrole: DNRTFA
DNRTFT

It's easier to cry rape than face the fact that you're a whore.

1/10
the 1 is for the outrage, otherwise that trolling would have zero troll worthy qualities.

Read his handle aloud..


Good grief, it's like a really bad clue on that old gameshow Bumper Stumpers. Let me clean my glasses...

let roll... le troll... literally...

great, now I have to give him 2/10
 
2012-10-25 05:54:07 AM  

MorrisBird: What if you don't know who raped you? My daughter doesn't. She was drugged. I love the Republicans. They're throwing away their power by waging a war on rape victims. Brilliant.


Hug her for me.
 
2012-10-25 05:57:18 AM  
Oh, goddamnit. Just when you think your political party couldn't get any more freaking stupid, they go and prove you wrong.

The modern Republican party: Bought and paid for by religious extremism. Farking idiots.
 
2012-10-25 06:00:13 AM  
Keep on rockin' in the free world.
 
2012-10-25 06:01:47 AM  

Genevieve Marie: Alphax: 'Demanding that taxpayers give her free money'. That's loaded language.


Yes it is. This virulent hatred for the people in this country who are the most marginalized is reallly depressing. I'm really tired of people acting like poverty is indcative of some great moral failing and the corollary, that wealth is proof of moral superiority and responsibility.


I was brought up to believe
The universe has a plan
We are only human
It's not ours to understand

The universe has a plan
All is for the best
Some will be rewarded
And the devil will take the rest

All is for the best
Believe in what we're told
Blind men in the market
Buying what we're sold

Believe in what we're told
Until our final breath
While our loving Watchmaker
Winds us all to death

In a world of cut and thrust
I was always taught to trust
In a world where all must fail
Heaven's justice will prevail

The joy and pain that we receive
Each comes with its own cost
The price of what we're winning
Is the same as what we've lost

All is for the best
Believe in what we're told
Blind men in the market
Buying what we're sold

Believe in what we're told
Until our final breath
While our loving Watchmaker
Winds us all to death

Until our final breath
The joy and pain that we receive
Must be what we deserve
I was brought up to believe

All is for the best
Believe in what we're told
Blind men in the market
Buying what we're sold

Believe in what we're told
Until our final breath
While our loving Watchmaker
Loves us all to
Loves us all to death
 
2012-10-25 06:04:34 AM  
Did anyone actually read TFA?
 
2012-10-25 06:05:09 AM  
scoophunters.com
 
2012-10-25 06:05:55 AM  
To all the white male conservatives posting how they support the fact women should report their rape OR ELSE.

Please volunteer for a butt-raping (it doesn't need to be FORCIBLE and I have it on good authority that your body will prevent you getting pregnant).

When the fellow has finished holding you down and pounding you hard, and has wiped off and left, please make your way down to the police station.

Tell the nice man in the policeman costume all about what happened, being careful to answer his questions in detail.

You may be asked to drop your pants so people can take a look, I recommend you just stare up at the light socket while they poke around down there.

When you are finished, go home and tell your mom, dad, brother, sister, friends and - if you have one - your girlfriend, all about your experience.

Because sharing these things is FUN, and I wouldn't want you to miss out on the kind of FUN you are demanding these women experience.
 
2012-10-25 06:15:08 AM  
Why does this thread have a harlot who's asking for it dancing in this thread?


No, but seriously, F- this law...

How many (R)apists have come in to point out 1 (D)umbass also helped propose this, thereby making this "bi-partisan"? Thread tl;dr
 
2012-10-25 06:17:30 AM  

Talondel: It doesn't even say that. It says they have to submit a signed, notarized statement indicating that she reported it to the authorities.


Because the constabulary doesn't keep good enough records... I guess?

Maybe not "monsters", but I can't imagine the purpose in insisting what a subject that is often difficult to talk to other people about (particularly when you're the victim) really needs is more red tape bureaucracy.

Unless that purpose is to discourage victims from reporting it. Because what you don't hear about doesn't exist, amirite?
 
2012-10-25 06:18:00 AM  
I wish the republicans would go after the Military spending portion of the budget with the same fanatical fervor that they are going after the welfare dollars.
 
2012-10-25 06:23:25 AM  
Just so everyone understands that 'reporting rape' actually entails:

"In most cases, the police will come to you and take a statement about what occurred. It helps to write down every detail you can remember, as soon as possible, so you can communicate the details to the police.

In addition to taking a statement, police will collect physical evidence. Also, your nurse or doctor may conduct an exam to collect hair, fluids, fibers and other evidence.

The police interview may take as long as several hours, depending on the circumstances of your case. Some questions will probably feel intrusive, and the officer will probably go over the details of your attack several times. The extensive questioning isn't because the police don't believe you; it is the officer's job to get every detail down precisely, to make the strongest possible case against your rapist.

Most local crisis centers have staff trained to help you through the reporting process. They can answer your questions and, if necessary, advocate on your behalf. To reach your local crisis center, call 1.800.656.HOPE (4673)."
 
2012-10-25 06:23:59 AM  
Micro-targeted campaigning for the rapist vote; non-story.
 
2012-10-25 06:44:44 AM  
I just had my local Republican rep come to my door. He wants me to vote for him and gave me his pamphlet for the upcoming election:


www.mediashow.ro
 
2012-10-25 06:45:28 AM  
A bill in the Pennsylvania House proposing the reduction of welfare benefits for low-income women contains a provision requiring a woman who became pregnant from rape to prove that she reported her assault.

So they will create situations where women will either be brought up on charges for filling improper assault charges or men will go to prison for sexual assault that should not.

/Great idea!
 
2012-10-25 06:54:56 AM  

cegorach: To all the white male conservatives posting how they support the fact women should report their rape OR ELSE.

Please volunteer for a butt-raping (it doesn't need to be FORCIBLE and I have it on good authority that your body will prevent you getting pregnant).

When the fellow has finished holding you down and pounding you hard, and has wiped off and left, please make your way down to the police station.

Tell the nice man in the policeman costume all about what happened, being careful to answer his questions in detail.

You may be asked to drop your pants so people can take a look, I recommend you just stare up at the light socket while they poke around down there.

When you are finished, go home and tell your mom, dad, brother, sister, friends and - if you have one - your girlfriend, all about your experience.

Because sharing these things is FUN, and I wouldn't want you to miss out on the kind of FUN you are demanding these women experience.


You're not thinking like a man.

A man doesn't fail to report crimes because feelings. Men are all about results. The only reason they wouldn't tell the cops is because they have something worse in mind. Their negative emotions are fuel for action, not a barrier to it.

i345.photobucket.com

i345.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-25 06:56:43 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: So, they'll help you raise your rape baby, but your broken condom baby gets nothing?


You'd still have a case in Sweden.
 
2012-10-25 07:00:51 AM  

0Icky0: I'm waiting for the bills that make your prove your miscarriages were natural.
You know they are coming. In fact, they will HAVE to come if Roe v Wade is ever overturned.


One of our southern states tried that. A few months of women reporting miscarriages to their local police departments got THAT repealed In a hurry...
 
2012-10-25 07:02:17 AM  

doglover: cegorach: To all the white male conservatives posting how they support the fact women should report their rape OR ELSE.

Please volunteer for a butt-raping (it doesn't need to be FORCIBLE and I have it on good authority that your body will prevent you getting pregnant).

When the fellow has finished holding you down and pounding you hard, and has wiped off and left, please make your way down to the police station.

Tell the nice man in the policeman costume all about what happened, being careful to answer his questions in detail.

You may be asked to drop your pants so people can take a look, I recommend you just stare up at the light socket while they poke around down there.

When you are finished, go home and tell your mom, dad, brother, sister, friends and - if you have one - your girlfriend, all about your experience.

Because sharing these things is FUN, and I wouldn't want you to miss out on the kind of FUN you are demanding these women experience.

You're not thinking like a man.

A man doesn't fail to report crimes because feelings. Men are all about results. The only reason they wouldn't tell the cops is because they have something worse in mind. Their negative emotions are fuel for action, not a barrier to it.

[i345.photobucket.com image 680x1023]

[i345.photobucket.com image 656x1024]


Wow...I hope to all my heathen gods that was a troll.
 
2012-10-25 07:08:29 AM  
What the fark is wrong with these people?
 
2012-10-25 07:13:31 AM  

andino: It kind of makes you wonder how many of these Republican politicians are rapists themselves. Not necessarily recently, but more likely when they were in high school or college. They may have committed their crimes years ago, but they still are, and always will be, rapists.

How else can you explain their sympathy--and even affinity--for rapists?


It makes you wonder how many times these republicans have seen someone falsely accuse another of rape, maybe not now, maybe when they were younger...

I don't see sympathy to rapists here, I see a stupid measure meant to do something about stupid people on govt assistance cranking out kids they can't afford. Don't get your panties in a wad Mable.
 
2012-10-25 07:17:01 AM  

Weaver95: And people wondered why I switched to Democrat....

keep this up and i'm going to have to actually run for office.


Same here

/except I haven't gone full Democrat yet just left the Republican party.

//I would feel wrong somehow just jumping from one party to the other without a mourning period :)
 
2012-10-25 07:17:38 AM  

keylock71: What the fark is wrong with these people?


The Christian Right is getting downright scary. The disparage Shari Law, but seem to agree with its oppression of women and in the meddling in affairs of state by "The Church".
 
2012-10-25 07:19:41 AM  

jaybeezey: I don't see sympathy to rapists here, I see a stupid measure meant to do something about stupid people on govt assistance cranking out kids they can't afford. Don't get your panties in a wad Mable


As I said earlier, this is about malice towards the poor, and towards women.
 
2012-10-25 07:22:52 AM  
So they are allowing an exception to the rule in the case of rape, but want an actual police report to be filed to prevent people from just checking a "were you raped?" box to get the exception?

Umm, imokwiththis.jpg
 
2012-10-25 07:25:36 AM  

Alphax: jaybeezey: I don't see sympathy to rapists here, I see a stupid measure meant to do something about stupid people on govt assistance cranking out kids they can't afford. Don't get your panties in a wad Mable

As I said earlier, this is about malice towards the poor, and towards women.


Hrm. Here's the thing. People who are poorer and have worse education tend to be religious. Religious people tend to vote how they are told. Religious people tend to take what they are told by religious leaders as fact. Given the current incarnation of the Republican party is wedded to the religious right, both see the financial benefit in keeping people poor and reducing education. Having children you can't afford? Quick way of becoming poorer. Putting creationism AKA intelligent design in schools? Employers are going to look for someone else with better education. It's a vicious, farked up cycle where one of the two major political parties is actively trying to make the future of your descendants WORSE purely for the sake of power and money.

I'm seriously considering tearing up my membership card. This is bullshiat. I keep hanging on to it, telling myself, "This is just a phase. They'll snap out of it soon." I don't think it's going to happen.
 
2012-10-25 07:26:26 AM  

keylock71: What the fark is wrong with these people?


They're PA republicans. Everything is what's wrong with them. I wouldn't listen to them if they told me not to eat plutonium

blueviking: Wow...I hope to all my heathen gods that was a troll.


Obviously. I don't support rape, republicans, or any other words that start with R.
.
 
2012-10-25 07:31:07 AM  
Want to guess which party inserted the provision?

I'm a bit late, but is it the same party that gave us "The Year of The Bible 2012!"?
 
2012-10-25 07:32:07 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: So they are allowing an exception to the rule in the case of rape, but want an actual police report to be filed to prevent people from just checking a "were you raped?" box to get the exception?

Umm, imokwiththis.jpg


You would make a lousy seer.

Thick as a rhinoceros omelet, too, eh?

Doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see the problems with this.
 
2012-10-25 07:36:53 AM  

Bullroarer_Took: Debeo Summa Credo: So they are allowing an exception to the rule in the case of rape, but want an actual police report to be filed to prevent people from just checking a "were you raped?" box to get the exception?

Umm, imokwiththis.jpg

You would make a lousy seer.

Thick as a rhinoceros omelet, too, eh?

Doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see the problems with this.


Nope. If you believe we should limit benefits so those already on assistance can't get more assistance if they have another kid (which is debatable), and you think there should be a rape exception, why shouldn't it be required that the rape was reported to prevent fraudulent claims of rape when applying for higher benefits?
 
2012-10-25 07:43:32 AM  

Genevieve Marie: Yea, at this point, this stuff just makes me feel tired.

The anti-abortion movement is and always has been deeply rooted in the desire to control women and our bodies. This is one more glaring example. This one can't even make the dubious claim that it's about "protecting life". This one is about punishing slutty sluts for having sex.

This is the party of making sure that poor women can't afford contraception and preventative health services... and the same party that then says "Oh and if you get pregnant, we're not helping you take care of your punishment baby."

Also, lots of victims choose not to report rape for good reasons. This is pretty well established as fact.


If the rape baby is god's intention and your blessing ; wouldn't not feeding the baby bring god's wrath down upon somebody?
 
2012-10-25 07:47:48 AM  

stainedglassdoll: I'll just leave this here...

Also, to debunk the myth of "welfare queens":
• Less than 2% of the budget of the Dept. of Health and Human Services (DHHS) goes to
TANF (the program that gives money to poor families). Link
•Only 24% of the entire federal budget went to DHHS last year. Link
• Doing the math, that means 0.5% of the federal budget went to TANF last year. Less
than one percent of our federal budget went to "welfare queens" last year. I hardly
think they are the ones bankrupting our economy.
• TANF assistance is also capped (lifetime) at 5 years (since 1996). You cannot be on
welfare indefinitely (unless you have a physical disability). The average amount of time
families spend on TANF is about 3 years. Also, the average number of kids in a family
receiving TANF benefits is 2.3 children, with only 10% of recipients having more than 3
children (very long report): Link 



/fark these guys in TFA


In Mt. and Texas (don't know about the rest) the non-custodial parent has to pay the tanf back.
 
2012-10-25 07:48:09 AM  
I am genuinely surprised that a Republican politician hasn't just come out and simply said "Look, ladies, you owe us guys sex. So get over it. Call it rape, call it assault, call it whatever you like, but you owe it to men. And if you get pregnant as a result, that is either your fault for being a whore because the sex was out of wedlock or it is God's will, and you won't be allowed to have any say in the matter either way."

Because when you combine everything Republican politicians have said about rape, women's health, pregnancy, abortion, and women's place in society over the last 18 months that is the sum total of what they're saying. We don't even have to go back to the 1950s to find this repugnant sh*t, we can just look at the last year and a half.
 
2012-10-25 07:50:34 AM  
I see a lot of folks here saying women have a duty to report rapes. I used to feel that way as well. However, for reasons I won't go into, I now have a very good insight into how the justice system treats women who report rapes. Police are often hostile towards them and treat them as if they assume they are lying, from the moment they report the crime. With what other crime does that happen? They also often discourage women from pressing charges in an a attempt to "juke the stats." You make the rape go away, and you have less crime. If you do, magically, get to the point that you actually have a suspect in the rape, it's extremely likely that the prosecutor will either cut a plea deal to a lesser crime or just drop the charges because it's "hard" to prove a rape case. Finally, if by some miracle you do actually end up with the scumbag on trial, you will be called to the stand and the defense attorney will rake you over the coals and treat you like the suspect. Your entire sexual history will be explored in depth and he will try to prove you are a slut or worse. Essentially, the system victimizes you again and again if you actually go to the trouble of reporting the rape.

Honestly, if I were a women and I was raped, I would think long and hard before actually reporting it.
 
2012-10-25 07:50:49 AM  

nmemkha: keylock71: What the fark is wrong with these people?

The Christian Right is getting downright scary. The disparage Shari Law, but seem to agree with its oppression of women and in the meddling in affairs of state by "The Church".


No shiat... I was listening to that asshole, Murdock, on the radio yesterday. Listen to this guy go on and on about "God's will" and "gifts from God", I was thinking to myself, it's the type of rhetoric we hear from religious fundamentalists in the Middle East all the time... Hell, I was half expecting to hear Murdock say "Allah Akbar!" when he finished babbling.

It's farking pathetic, to put it bluntly... Yeah, we're an an "Exceptional" country, all right.
 
2012-10-25 07:56:02 AM  

eiger:
Honestly, if I were a women and I was raped, I would think long and hard before actually reporting it.


Did you encourage him to rape you?

You know, sweetheart. Dress a bit provocatively? Maybe give him a wink? Have a heartbeat? I think we both know you probably said "hello," and of course that just screams "rape me like the whore I am." Now, why do you go back to your kitchen, and let us work on some real crimes, like how that mosque got built just 27 blocks away from city hall.
 
2012-10-25 08:00:11 AM  

eiger: I see a lot of folks here saying women have a duty to report rapes. I used to feel that way as well. However, for reasons I won't go into, I now have a very good insight into how the justice system treats women who report rapes. Police are often hostile towards them and treat them as if they assume they are lying, from the moment they report the crime. With what other crime does that happen? They also often discourage women from pressing charges in an a attempt to "juke the stats." You make the rape go away, and you have less crime. If you do, magically, get to the point that you actually have a suspect in the rape, it's extremely likely that the prosecutor will either cut a plea deal to a lesser crime or just drop the charges because it's "hard" to prove a rape case. Finally, if by some miracle you do actually end up with the scumbag on trial, you will be called to the stand and the defense attorney will rake you over the coals and treat you like the suspect. Your entire sexual history will be explored in depth and he will try to prove you are a slut or worse. Essentially, the system victimizes you again and again if you actually go to the trouble of reporting the rape.

Honestly, if I were a women and I was raped, I would think long and hard before actually reporting it.


I'm sure your rapist would appreciate it of you didn't report it.

However, any of his future victims would likely not.
 
2012-10-25 08:01:41 AM  

Genevieve Marie: IamAwake: ok honestly - I'm confused. So it's ok for a woman to claim - in welfare benefits - that she was raped...without having actually filed a charge with anyone? The woman isn't required to prove anything other than that she filed a report - the burden of proof of the actual crime isn't on her. Normally I'd be all "ah, another stupid anti-human (both genders, lets be real here) repub law..." but...really? Misleading rewording of headline much, subby? What exactly is /wrong/ about what they're doing here?

You're missing the big picture- why on earth does a woman NEED to discuss the circumstances surrounding her child's conception to obtain welfare benefits for that child?



If life begins at conception and must be protected by the laws of this country. Technicaly wouldn't that make an unborn child a citizen and should be provided the same benefits?
 
2012-10-25 08:02:03 AM  

Talondel: LadyHawke: Well, to be fair, it says they have to prove they reported they were raped, not prove they were raped.

It doesn't even say that. It says they have to submit a signed, notarized statement indicating that she reported it to the authorities. A law that encourages the reporting of rape to the proper authorities? The horror. Truly PA republicans are monsters.

Oh, and I like how Huff Po goes from "prove they were raped" in the headline to "prove that she reported her assault" in the article, and then three paragraphs in reveal that both the headline and the opening sentence were lies. Your blog sucks.dramboxf: Anti-abortion legislation is always, and without fail, anti-f**king legislation.

This isn't anti-abortion legislation. It's anti 'get pregnant while poor and on welfare' legislation, which contains an exception for women who were victims of rape or incest and reported it (or are willing to submit a signed notarized statement that they reported it).

MorrisBird: They're throwing away their power by waging a war on rape victims.

They may well be doing that in other places, but this isn't one of them. This is waging a war on 'welfare moms' that contains an exception for rape victims.

There's plenty not to like about this bill, but so far Huff Po and the vast majority of the people posting in this thread are too farking stupid to figure out what it actually is.


Shhhhh let the derp flow
 
2012-10-25 08:02:29 AM  
Why is the Republican party so obsessed with rape, and how the hell did they end up on the wrong side of THAT issue?
 
2012-10-25 08:02:53 AM  
Um, people on welfare getting more money because they cant keep it in their pants is a HUGE problem. Giving someone who just wants to have ore kids and get more aid from he state a free "more money" card o play is stupid. Its horrible is someone is raped and these welfare mothers that are should get the state aid for it. Just claiming they are raped, which happens because it is a "get out of paying for my stupidity" card should not be allowed.

Are we still under the impression that every rape claim is true and no woman would ever lie about it?
 
2012-10-25 08:02:57 AM  
I'll just report that one of the sponsors did it. ;-)
 
2012-10-25 08:03:40 AM  
I think we should go back to the forcible rape standard.

Otherwise, there are simply too many false accusations, and they're devastating.

People experience morning after regret and then revoke consent, which makes the rape retroactive.

This not only creates a false accusation, but cheapens all accusations of rape.
 
2012-10-25 08:05:40 AM  

Brostorm: Um, people on welfare getting more money because they cant keep it in their pants is a HUGE problem.


Define huge.
 
2012-10-25 08:06:31 AM  

dericwater: dramboxf: Just to be specific, and you can quote me:

Anti-abortion legislation is always, and without fail, anti-f**king legislation.

Without fail.

Anti-f**king is gender neutral. Or rather, would or should affect either gender. The anti-abortion platform has been, and will always be, the anti-women-enjoying-sex-without-protection-for-the-sake-of-sex platform.


FTFY


mobile_home_refush: In Mt. and Texas (don't know about the rest) the non-custodial parent has to pay the tanf back.


Same in the UK. If your baby-mama is on benefit and you work then you have to pay their benefit directly from your wages which means that there are waster guys who go around getting lots of women pregnant then farking off who avoid work because they would get no money from it and be on the same money as benefits. A lot of them claim to either be disabled (depression, stress or some other non-physical mental issue) or self employed on a low wage that need to be topped up with tax credits (benefits whilst working) so that they do the minimum amount of work to avoid hassle from the DSS.
 
2012-10-25 08:07:02 AM  

Alphax: Seriously, the ONLY reason to write a bill like this is malice towards poor women.


I have a hunch that they are trying to discourage minority women from having more democrats err babies. Right now they can't come out and say this so they are creating a bullshiat mountain "rape" saga. Scary minorities will be the majority in a few years.
 
2012-10-25 08:07:32 AM  

Brostorm: Um, people on welfare getting more money because they cant keep it in their pants is a HUGE problem.


Well, then, you should be able to provide us with ample evidence of the rate of welfare fraud and what percentage of it is accounted for by these "Welfare Queens" pumping out babies just to get those sweet, sweet welfare checks.

I await your detailed statistics.
 
2012-10-25 08:07:54 AM  

Brostorm: Um, people on welfare getting more money because they cant keep it in their pants is a HUGE problem. Giving someone who just wants to have ore kids and get more aid from he state a free "more money" card o play is stupid. Its horrible is someone is raped and these welfare mothers that are should get the state aid for it. Just claiming they are raped, which happens because it is a "get out of paying for my stupidity" card should not be allowed.

Are we still under the impression that every rape claim is true and no woman would ever lie about it?


Do strangers ever punch you in the face for seemingly no reason? I mean I'm just curious.
 
2012-10-25 08:08:02 AM  
Calm down, subby. I'm with the GOP here. The article doesn't say she has to prove she was raped; it says she has to prove she reported it.

If you consider yourself an environmentalist, you have to confront the fact that we are overpopulated. Too many humans is the answer to virtually every economic, environmental, and social issue facing the 21st century. Now, it would be nice to fix the problem with unicorn farts and pixie dust, but in practice, the only way to slow population growth is to pass measures with financial teeth, such as refusing to give people more money for having more kids, whether that be through TANF or through tax deductions for the middle class. If we make parents confront the true cost of raising children and seriously police immigration, the population in this country will begin to decrease, as it desperately needs to.
 
2012-10-25 08:08:11 AM  

Brostorm: Um, people on welfare getting more money because they cant keep it in their pants is a HUGE problem. Giving someone who just wants to have ore kids and get more aid from he state a free "more money" card o play is stupid. Its horrible is someone is raped and these welfare mothers that are should get the state aid for it. Just claiming they are raped, which happens because it is a "get out of paying for my stupidity" card should not be allowed.

Are we still under the impression that every rape claim is true and no woman would ever lie about it?


When do you imagine someone on benefits saying "We can`t afford another child"?
 
2012-10-25 08:08:34 AM  

Mr. Carpenter:
Welcome to the really real world asshole, where fathers rape their stepdaughters and husbands rape their wives. Where 14 year old girls have sex with strangers for food and drugs and some men would just as soon as kill you and your unborn child then face ever having to pay child support. The world is a scary farked up place and apparently you've been lucky enough to avoid the vast vast vast majority of it's terrors. So how about you go rest your head on your $5k bed set and let adults deal with he aftermath of what your ignorance breeds.

part of that includes giving women an anonymous support network so the men in their life don't gut them like fish and dump them in a lake.


Yep, the world can be pretty farked up. But arguing that welfare rort/fraud is permissible because the world is farked up is pretty farked up too. Willfully permitting people to rort a system and commit fraud is not going to fix it, or the situations you mentioned. Two wrongs don't make a right. However, enacting laws to prevent or at least reduce fraud might enable at least some small improvement. Perhaps (optimistically?) money saved by denying welfare rort/fraud could be directed to actually addressing the cause of problems. If not, then perhaps those funds could be used to at least support victims get out of bad situations.
 
2012-10-25 08:09:17 AM  
I'm not surprised this was (largely) co-sponsored by Republicans. I am surprised that Metcalfe is not one of the co-sponsors.
 
2012-10-25 08:09:23 AM  

Brostorm: Um, people on welfare getting more money because they cant keep it in their pants is a HUGE problem. Giving someone who just wants to have ore kids and get more aid from he state a free "more money" card o play is stupid. Its horrible is someone is raped and these welfare mothers that are should get the state aid for it. Just claiming they are raped, which happens because it is a "get out of paying for my stupidity" card should not be allowed.

Are we still under the impression that every rape claim is true and no woman would ever lie about it?


Thus proving that "some women rape easy"
 
2012-10-25 08:09:37 AM  
Why are we still doing this? I mean, as a society, why is this still even a discussion? Didn't we decide this in the 60's and 70's? That it was OK for women to have sex, like sex, and to take responsibility for their reproduction - even when that responsibility meant having an abortion?

You can't decide to cut reproductive education, cut sources of and funding for reproductive services, and then make welfare benefits harder to get for women with children and label your reasoning as "pro-life" and "Christian" and "moral". You say that abortion punishes children, but what about the children that are born? Why are you punishing them to get at their mothers? Why their mothers? Motherhood is hard enough without having to justify how your children came to be conceived.

You're despicable. Genuinely despicable. Going backwards on women's rights is not the solution. Do some women need more out of welfare benefits than others? Yes. Give it to them. Also give them education, job training, therapy, birth control, child care, and whatever else they need to make being off welfare more profitable and comfortable than being on welfare.
 
2012-10-25 08:11:06 AM  

dramboxf: Just to be specific, and you can quote me:

Anti-abortion legislation is always, and without fail, anti-f**king legislation.

Without fail.


You are technically correct, but this legislation has nothing to do with abortion. It has to do with preventing "baby farming." The Republicans are right on this, but for the wrong reasons. They have accidentally stumbled into a plan that will save the environment and the economy while trying to crack down on poor people simply because they imagine TANF is a significant drag on the state/federal budget that is preventing tax cuts.
 
2012-10-25 08:12:11 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Bullroarer_Took: Debeo Summa Credo: So they are allowing an exception to the rule in the case of rape, but want an actual police report to be filed to prevent people from just checking a "were you raped?" box to get the exception?

Umm, imokwiththis.jpg

You would make a lousy seer.

Thick as a rhinoceros omelet, too, eh?

Doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see the problems with this.

Nope. If you believe we should limit benefits so those already on assistance can't get more assistance if they have another kid (which is debatable), and you think there should be a rape exception, why shouldn't it be required that the rape was reported to prevent fraudulent claims of rape when applying for higher benefits?


Because it's no big leap in reasoning to assume that someone who would fraudulently claim to have been raped might also fraudulently file a report about being raped.

Think of the problems this would cause, say, the police. The percentage of rapes reported would increase (good), the percentage of false reports would go up (bad), likely the percentage of false reports would increase more than the percentage of rapes (worse, as this takes investigative manpower away from the rape cases and sends them chasing ghosts).

Now, I'm sure if you're going to make a false claim, you're going to make up details about who did it. So people are going to be arrested because of bogus charges. Then, sometimes, a woman may be pressured into identifying someone as a rapist for fear of being caught in a lie. For fear of losing the extra money to feed her kid, or worse, being convicted of fraud and losing custody of her her child--she might just keep up the charade. Innocent people will end up in jail because a crying baby hurts a mother's ears more than the moans of Lady Justice.

If you can't see where this will lead then you're just willfully ignoring facts; ignorantly ignoring human nature; decidedly sticking your head in the sand.
 
2012-10-25 08:18:04 AM  

Genevieve Marie: sticky2shoes: Genevieve Marie: Alphax: 'Demanding that taxpayers give her free money'. That's loaded language.


Yes it is. This virulent hatred for the people in this country who are the most marginalized is reallly depressing. I'm really tired of people acting like poverty is indcative of some great moral failing and the corollary, that wealth is proof of moral superiority and responsibility.

Not having a baby from consensual sex when you can't afford to raise a child IS proof of responsibility.

Yes, I understand. This is why many of us have worked for a long time to try and make sure that all women can access affordable, accessible birth control so that women can decide when to have children. Unfortunately, those efforts have been systematically dismantled by the same people who deride poor women with children as "welfare queens".


Irrelevant. The fact that Republicans sponsored this law is an ad hominem attack. The bill should be judged on its merits.

This is Pennsylvania, not Mississippi or Texas. There's affordable, accessible birth control. A Pennsylvanian woman who's already on assistance has the tools, means and responsibility to prevent another pregnancy.

The law and policy, as it stands, provides more money to Pennsylvanian women who are already on welfare when they conceive additional children via consensual sex. All they have to do is lie about being raped.

I'm perfectly comfortable to say I'm not okay with this.

/pro-choice
//voting democrat
///hates fox news
////beginning to dislike Huffington Post
 
2012-10-25 08:19:27 AM  

MorrisBird: What if you don't know who raped you? My daughter doesn't. She was drugged. I love the Republicans. They're throwing away their power by waging a war on rape victims. Brilliant.


Oh man, that's terrible. My best friend was also drugged before being assaulted by...ugh...multiple men. It took me over a year to get her out of her shell, and even longer to have her use the restroom with a drink sitting at the bar, even though I was sitting right there. For a while even a thunderstorm would rattle her.

She's doing well now, and even has a boyfriend who treats her like a queen. One of the men responsible is in prison. The other two have not been found, but these things have a way of working themselves out.

If you know what I mean.
 
2012-10-25 08:19:54 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Define huge.


Anything more than 2 1/2 inches?
 
2012-10-25 08:21:24 AM  
All of them?
 
2012-10-25 08:21:25 AM  

bonobo73: Genevieve Marie: sticky2shoes: Genevieve Marie: Alphax: 'Demanding that taxpayers give her free money'. That's loaded language.


Yes it is. This virulent hatred for the people in this country who are the most marginalized is reallly depressing. I'm really tired of people acting like poverty is indcative of some great moral failing and the corollary, that wealth is proof of moral superiority and responsibility.

Not having a baby from consensual sex when you can't afford to raise a child IS proof of responsibility.

Yes, I understand. This is why many of us have worked for a long time to try and make sure that all women can access affordable, accessible birth control so that women can decide when to have children. Unfortunately, those efforts have been systematically dismantled by the same people who deride poor women with children as "welfare queens".

Irrelevant. The fact that Republicans sponsored this law is an ad hominem attack. The bill should be judged on its merits.

This is Pennsylvania, not Mississippi or Texas. There's affordable, accessible birth control. A Pennsylvanian woman who's already on assistance has the tools, means and responsibility to prevent another pregnancy.

The law and policy, as it stands, provides more money to Pennsylvanian women who are already on welfare when they conceive additional children via consensual sex. All they have to do is lie about being raped.

I'm perfectly comfortable to say I'm not okay with this.

/pro-choice
//voting democrat
///hates fox news
////beginning to dislike Huffington Post


What about the farking kid?
 
2012-10-25 08:21:31 AM  

Anderson's Pooper: Dusk-You-n-Me: Define huge.

Anything more than 2 1/2 inches?


Are we talking girth or length here? : )
 
2012-10-25 08:25:48 AM  
I volunteer as a victim's advocate. What that means is that when a rape victim shows up at an area hospital I will be called to go and be with that person, since they generally don't show up with moral support, and generally only have a vague idea of the process that goes on that comes from watching Law and Order SVU. They don't know that they are going to be spending the whole day at the hospital, first getting blood tests, then going through an invasive exam and evidence gathering session that can take upwards of six hours. And if they have decided to press charges at that point, they will be subject to several hours of police interrogation immediately after the exam. Sometimes going through the exam is too psychologically traumatic for someone. Sometimes there's virtually no chance of conviction because it is someone you were in a consensual sexual relationship with prior to the rape, and unless it was violent in a way that left bruises etc. that gets really difficult to prove. Sometimes you know these women would be putting themselves through hell for absolutely nothing.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm big in favor of reporting and prosecuting, and getting these people off the street so that they don't hurt anyone else. But it is far from a black and white issue. There have been times that I have sat in a room with a victim and a specially trained forensic nurse, and a police officer, in a situation where a victim is hesitant to press charges and none of us wants to really encourage her because we have all agreed that the chances of any kind of conviction was virtually nil because of various circumstances, even if none of us doubts that this person is telling us the truth. (I know that is vague, but I have confidentiality restrictions) And I wonder what is going to happen if these women go through the hell of reporting it, and the rapist is not convicted. Now she has a baby and a court has found that person not guilty due to lack of evidence. Now are we going to call her a liar and deny benefits? How is that supposed to work out?
 
2012-10-25 08:26:55 AM  

bonobo73: ////beginning to dislike Huffington Post


HuffPo is really only worthwhile as a springboard that reports on items our toothless mainstream media can't or won't be bothered with. I'll catch a link there and then google it for a source I find less sensational. It's not that HuffPo outright lies to further an agenda; I just dislike how it's written much of the time.

And I'm a raging libtard commie pinko socialist tax&spend n**ger-lovin' demoRAT.

/whatever you do, steer clear of DailyKOS
 
2012-10-25 08:28:46 AM  

Tommy Moo: Calm down, subby. I'm with the GOP here. The article doesn't say she has to prove she was raped; it says she has to prove she reported it.

If you consider yourself an environmentalist, you have to confront the fact that we are overpopulated. Too many humans is the answer to virtually every economic, environmental, and social issue facing the 21st century. Now, it would be nice to fix the problem with unicorn farts and pixie dust, but in practice, the only way to slow population growth is to pass measures with financial teeth, such as refusing to give people more money for having more kids, whether that be through TANF or through tax deductions for the middle class. If we make parents confront the true cost of raising children and seriously police immigration, the population in this country will begin to decrease, as it desperately needs to.


There should be parent benefit, not child benefit. Each parent living with a child gets benefit. If two parents live with their child then they get twice as much. If you have lots of kids you will have to share it out. This would lead to lots of people on benefits being better off financially if both parents live with just one child. Two children should be affordable and three should be a struggle but just manageable.

It`s like those really really fat people, you don`t get like that without an enabler...
 
2012-10-25 08:29:09 AM  

Mr. Carpenter: bonobo73: "I'm pregnant again."
"Why? You know this eliminates your benefits"
"I was raped."
"Ok. Did you report the assault?"
"No, it was my pimp that raped me and if I tell the police it was my pimp I'll go to prison for prostitution and then when I get out he'll slit my throat and put my body in a dumpster and no one will so much as bat an eyelash.."
"But you want me to believe that you were raped."
"Yes."
"Even though you're providing no proof whatsoever."
"Yes."
"And even if the sex was consensual, it's in your best interests to lie about being raped to keep your benefits."
"Yep."
...

Welcome to the really real world asshole, where fathers rape their stepdaughters and husbands rape their wives. Where 14 year old girls have sex with strangers for food and drugs and some men would just as soon as kill you and your unborn child then face ever having to pay child support. The world is a scary farked up place and apparently you've been lucky enough to avoid the vast vast vast majority of it's terrors. So how about you go rest your head on your $5k bed set and let adults deal with he aftermath of what your ignorance breeds.

part of that includes giving women an anonymous support network so the men in their life don't gut them like fish and dump them in a lake.


I see, a class based argument, which of course, makes no sense. If the environment is as bad as you say for current mother and child the why do you think it's okay for that mother to bring yet another child into that environment? How does that help?

Put it another way: why are you such a monster that you desire another kid to be placed in the living hell you describe above?
 
2012-10-25 08:29:54 AM  

SandMann: Big deal.

If someone is claiming a government handout they should have to prove they qualify. It doesn't matter what it is. If not, the system will be abused.


What part of 'keeping desperately poor mothers and their children from starving' is something to be abused? Afraid they might double dip and get to eat until they're not hungry?
 
2012-10-25 08:30:46 AM  

gadian: Why are we still doing this? I mean, as a society, why is this still even a discussion? Didn't we decide this in the 60's and 70's? That it was OK for women to have sex, like sex, and to take responsibility for their reproduction - even when that responsibility meant having an abortion?

You can't decide to cut reproductive education, cut sources of and funding for reproductive services, and then make welfare benefits harder to get for women with children and label your reasoning as "pro-life" and "Christian" and "moral". You say that abortion punishes children, but what about the children that are born? Why are you punishing them to get at their mothers? Why their mothers? Motherhood is hard enough without having to justify how your children came to be conceived.

You're despicable. Genuinely despicable. Going backwards on women's rights is not the solution. Do some women need more out of welfare benefits than others? Yes. Give it to them. Also give them education, job training, therapy, birth control, child care, and whatever else they need to make being off welfare more profitable and comfortable than being on welfare.


What's despicable is a system which for generations has ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED people to have kids when they cannot afford them, and then discouraged them from marrying the fathers of these kids. What's despicable is creating a permanent cycle of dependency with women in their early 30's trying to care for their grandchildren. What's despicable is creating this system of dependency JUST SO YOU HAVE A PERMANENT CONSTITUENCY OF PEOPLE WHO WILL VOTE FOR YOU. It's not compassion.
 
2012-10-25 08:32:09 AM  

FlashHarry: ah, yes - the rape-publican party strikes again.


Done in one. Came here to make a statement using the term "Rapepublican Party" also.
 
2012-10-25 08:32:12 AM  

Tommy Moo: Calm down, subby. I'm with the GOP here. The article doesn't say she has to prove she was raped; it says she has to prove she reported it.

If you consider yourself an environmentalist, you have to confront the fact that we are overpopulated. Too many humans is the answer to virtually every economic, environmental, and social issue facing the 21st century. Now, it would be nice to fix the problem with unicorn farts and pixie dust, but in practice, the only way to slow population growth is to pass measures with financial teeth, such as refusing to give people more money for having more kids, whether that be through TANF or through tax deductions for the middle class. If we make parents confront the true cost of raising children and seriously police immigration, the population in this country will begin to decrease, as it desperately needs to.


Overpopulation is a global problem. Reducing the U.S. population, especially through anti-immigration measures, won't have much of an impact on that.

Let me say it again, for anyone who may have missed it. While fraud is a problem to be addressed, punishing the child for the poor choices of its parent is hardly a satisfactory solution. Anyone who can't look a child in the eye and say, "Sorry kid, I can't help feed you because your mother should never have had you," needs to stop advocating for things like "financial teeth" as a means to confront the issue of people on assistance making poor choices about family planning.
 
2012-10-25 08:32:19 AM  
No, subby, I don't care to guess the party. Care to guess why not?
 
2012-10-25 08:32:25 AM  

Cataholic: gadian: Why are we still doing this? I mean, as a society, why is this still even a discussion? Didn't we decide this in the 60's and 70's? That it was OK for women to have sex, like sex, and to take responsibility for their reproduction - even when that responsibility meant having an abortion?

You can't decide to cut reproductive education, cut sources of and funding for reproductive services, and then make welfare benefits harder to get for women with children and label your reasoning as "pro-life" and "Christian" and "moral". You say that abortion punishes children, but what about the children that are born? Why are you punishing them to get at their mothers? Why their mothers? Motherhood is hard enough without having to justify how your children came to be conceived.

You're despicable. Genuinely despicable. Going backwards on women's rights is not the solution. Do some women need more out of welfare benefits than others? Yes. Give it to them. Also give them education, job training, therapy, birth control, child care, and whatever else they need to make being off welfare more profitable and comfortable than being on welfare.

What's despicable is a system which for generations has ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED people to have kids when they cannot afford them, and then discouraged them from marrying the fathers of these kids. What's despicable is creating a permanent cycle of dependency with women in their early 30's trying to care for their grandchildren. What's despicable is creating this system of dependency JUST SO YOU HAVE A PERMANENT CONSTITUENCY OF PEOPLE WHO WILL VOTE FOR YOU. It's not compassion.


What's really dispicable is letting a baby go hungry because you're mad his mother had sex.
 
2012-10-25 08:32:34 AM  
Instead of all this assanine legislation maybe they should just limit the number of children per family that can receive benefits. Nevermind this might increase the use of contraception and morning after pills.
 
2012-10-25 08:36:28 AM  

bonobo73: "I'm pregnant again."
"Why? You know this eliminates your benefits"
"I was raped."
"Ok. Did you report the assault?"
"No."
"But you want me to believe that you were raped."
"Yes."
"Even though you're providing no proof whatsoever."
"Yes."
"And even if the sex was consensual, it's in your best interests to lie about being raped to keep your benefits."
"Yep."
...


Must. Stop. The Min-Maxxers. At. All. Costs!!!!
 
2012-10-25 08:38:18 AM  

SandMann: Alphax: SandMann: Big deal.

If someone is claiming a government handout they should have to prove they qualify. It doesn't matter what it is. If not, the system will be abused.

What part of 'keeping desperately poor mothers and their children from starving' is something to be abused? Afraid they might double dip and get to eat until they're not hungry?

I know people who game the system. None of them face starvation.


You'll have to do better than that.
 
2012-10-25 08:39:48 AM  
What's wrong, Fark? Are you saying women are incapable of lying? First I've heard of this.
 
2012-10-25 08:41:49 AM  

dready zim: Brostorm: Um, people on welfare getting more money because they cant keep it in their pants is a HUGE problem. Giving someone who just wants to have ore kids and get more aid from he state a free "more money" card o play is stupid. Its horrible is someone is raped and these welfare mothers that are should get the state aid for it. Just claiming they are raped, which happens because it is a "get out of paying for my stupidity" card should not be allowed.

Are we still under the impression that every rape claim is true and no woman would ever lie about it?

When do you imagine someone on benefits saying "We can`t afford another child"?


as it currently stands they never would because more children=more money. This is the problem. You cant go on and on and cry about low test scores and people that cant function in society because of a lack of education when you promote and incentivise the most disadvantaged among us to constantly pass on their failed traits to ore and more children who have every high likelihood of also being failures. Genetics plays a large role in who we are, growing up in a terrible home to ignorant parents who made poor decisions has an even bigger impact. Combine this with a strong propensity to be single parents raiding multiple children who dont get the attention they need and you have a recipe for fail. Sorry, "think of the children" emotional arguments fail when you realize these parents who cat keep in in their pants are just condemning these children

/is African American
/raised by a single mother
/seen family members and many people from the neighborhood realize having more kids is the answer
/realizes this cycle needs to e broken
 
2012-10-25 08:42:36 AM  
Anyone who supports that bill is a racist, period. That's all there is to it.
 
2012-10-25 08:44:25 AM  

Brostorm: Um, people on welfare getting more money because they cant keep it in their pants is a HUGE problem.


So huge you had to use a non-specific adjective instead of just getting a real number? "Welfare" accounts for about 13% of federal spending (unless you work for Fox News and cram a bunch of things into the definition to conveniently inflate it over a trillion, which is just lying). What part of that 13% is the "HUGE" problem, exactly?

Cataholic: It's not compassion.


No, it's not, but since it's all bullshiat you made up in your head, I fail to see in what practical way your silly fantasy-land nonsense matters. It is cute, though, how you can hop from foot to foot so gracefully on the matter of "welfare queens". One day it's a cycle of vicious dependency created by an ebil gubmint entity scrounging for votes the next I'm being told by one of your losers that it's because people on cash assistance are just lazy and don't feel like getting a job.

Amazing how that switches back and forth depending on what particular talking point you need to push on any given day, isn't it?
 
2012-10-25 08:44:57 AM  

Alphax: SandMann: Alphax: SandMann: Big deal.

If someone is claiming a government handout they should have to prove they qualify. It doesn't matter what it is. If not, the system will be abused.

What part of 'keeping desperately poor mothers and their children from starving' is something to be abused? Afraid they might double dip and get to eat until they're not hungry?

I know people who game the system. None of them face starvation.

You'll have to do better than that.


FFS. Help the small proportion of child starvation cases by providing targeted food/money, not by willfully allowing welfare fraud/rorting by a majority who are not starving.
 
2012-10-25 08:45:31 AM  

SandMann: Alphax: SandMann: Big deal.

If someone is claiming a government handout they should have to prove they qualify. It doesn't matter what it is. If not, the system will be abused.

What part of 'keeping desperately poor mothers and their children from starving' is something to be abused? Afraid they might double dip and get to eat until they're not hungry?

I know people who game the system. None of them face starvation.


Yeah, I mean they have a soup kitchen they can go to after all. At least until we can figure out how to shut them down too
 
2012-10-25 08:46:45 AM  

LiberalConservative: Alphax: SandMann: Alphax: SandMann: Big deal.

If someone is claiming a government handout they should have to prove they qualify. It doesn't matter what it is. If not, the system will be abused.

What part of 'keeping desperately poor mothers and their children from starving' is something to be abused? Afraid they might double dip and get to eat until they're not hungry?

I know people who game the system. None of them face starvation.

You'll have to do better than that.

FFS. Help the small proportion of child starvation cases by providing targeted food/money, not by willfully allowing welfare fraud/rorting by a majority who are not starving.


Know how I know you've never been poor?
 
2012-10-25 08:47:39 AM  
In 31 states, a rapist can sue for custody. Seriously. Google it. This country affords more ways for a rapist to harm someone than every other crime.
 
2012-10-25 08:49:19 AM  
remember when the republican party was going to focus on the economy and not cultural issues? ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
 
2012-10-25 08:51:15 AM  

Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: Alphax: SandMann: Alphax: SandMann: Big deal.

If someone is claiming a government handout they should have to prove they qualify. It doesn't matter what it is. If not, the system will be abused.

What part of 'keeping desperately poor mothers and their children from starving' is something to be abused? Afraid they might double dip and get to eat until they're not hungry?

I know people who game the system. None of them face starvation.

You'll have to do better than that.

FFS. Help the small proportion of child starvation cases by providing targeted food/money, not by willfully allowing welfare fraud/rorting by a majority who are not starving.

Know how I know you've never been poor?


So poor people (starving or non-starving) should be entitled to a free pass on welfare fraud just because they are poor?
 
2012-10-25 08:53:36 AM  

Tommy Moo: Calm down, subby. I'm with the GOP here. The article doesn't say she has to prove she was raped; it says she has to prove she reported it.

If you consider yourself an environmentalist, you have to confront the fact that we are overpopulated. Too many humans is the answer to virtually every economic, environmental, and social issue facing the 21st century. Now, it would be nice to fix the problem with unicorn farts and pixie dust, but in practice, the only way to slow population growth is to pass measures with financial teeth, such as refusing to give people more money for having more kids, whether that be through TANF or through tax deductions for the middle class. If we make parents confront the true cost of raising children and seriously police immigration, the population in this country will begin to decrease, as it desperately needs to.


This.

Republicans are retarded, but if you are already on welfare (before you get pregnant), you shouldn't get more money when you have more kids.

Cataholic: What's despicable is a system which for generations has ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED people to have kids when they cannot afford them, and then discouraged them from marrying the fathers of these kids. What's despicable is creating a permanent cycle of dependency with women in their early 30's trying to care for their grandchildren. What's despicable is creating this system of dependency JUST SO YOU HAVE A PERMANENT CONSTITUENCY OF PEOPLE WHO WILL VOTE FOR YOU. It's not compassion.


And this.

Why the fark should someone who is already on welfare be having kids, when birth control (condoms are cheap and you can get them for free if you aren't a total dumbass) and abortion are available? Oh, right, because they are the ones who vote Democrat.
 
2012-10-25 08:53:40 AM  

LiberalConservative: FFS. Help the small proportion of child starvation cases by providing targeted food/money, not by willfully allowing welfare fraud/rorting by a majority who are not starving.


According to whom?
 
2012-10-25 08:54:34 AM  

REMINDER: People on welfare didn't cost us 15 million jobs and trillions in savings. People on Wall Street did.

- LOLGOP (@LOLGOP) September 21, 2012
 
2012-10-25 08:55:55 AM  

LiberalConservative: So poor people (starving or non-starving) should be entitled to a free pass on welfare fraud just because they are poor?


I'm not going to cry too much if someone who is dirt poor gets a little extra money than they deserve and can live their life just a little bit further from the brink of destruction
 
2012-10-25 08:56:42 AM  
I'm not understanding all this outrage. If you want to claim that you are entitled to ANY government benefit, don't you usually have to submit some form of evidence to support your claim? Since when does the government just take your word for it? If I was a single mother on welfare with 5 kids, I would be telling you I was raped 5 times if that's all it takes to get benefits.

/not a republican.
 
2012-10-25 08:56:49 AM  
FFS its not about the mother its about the kid. The kid is born, it exists. Want to incentivise people to have less kids? Do it in a way that doesn't punish the kid that is already born.
 
2012-10-25 08:58:08 AM  

machoprogrammer: Republicans are retarded, but if you are already on welfare (before you get pregnant), you shouldn't get more money when you have more kids.


So children can't collect welfare? Because that's what you are claiming, that children shouldn't be allowed to collect from the basic subsistence safety nets we put in place to keep society from crumbling.

Kids are born not because their parents are trying to collect cash, but because they enjoy f*cking, just like every other human being on this planet
 
2012-10-25 08:58:27 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: REMINDER: People on welfare didn't cost us 15 million jobs and trillions in savings. People on Wall Street did.- LOLGOP (@LOLGOP) September 21, 2012


[citation needed]
 
2012-10-25 08:58:32 AM  

Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: So poor people (starving or non-starving) should be entitled to a free pass on welfare fraud just because they are poor?

I'm not going to cry too much if someone who is dirt poor gets a little extra money than they deserve and can live their life just a little bit further from the brink of destruction



so fraud is ok if i makes you feel better? Continuing the cycle of people that cant afford kids having more kids generation after generation in larger numbers is ok because it makes you feel better? You are the problem
 
2012-10-25 09:00:08 AM  

littleray42: I'm not understanding all this outrage. If you want to claim that you are entitled to ANY government benefit, don't you usually have to submit some form of evidence to support your claim? Since when does the government just take your word for it? If I was a single mother on welfare with 5 kids, I would be telling you I was raped 5 times if that's all it takes to get benefits.

/not a republican.


The only proof you have to show is that of your own poverty, which is generally pretty simple. Why should the child have to show any more evidence than that? Why must the child prove it was conceived by rape?
 
2012-10-25 09:00:26 AM  

Alphax: LiberalConservative: FFS. Help the small proportion of child starvation cases by providing targeted food/money, not by willfully allowing welfare fraud/rorting by a majority who are not starving.

According to whom?


Not quite sure what your question is referring too. Do you mean the "small proportion" bit? If so, last time I looked the hospitals (or morgues) are not filled with masses of starving children - that's a pretty good indicator.
Regardless, you would rather willfully permit welfare fraud/rort above targeting the problems of those in need directly?
 
2012-10-25 09:00:33 AM  

Brostorm: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: So poor people (starving or non-starving) should be entitled to a free pass on welfare fraud just because they are poor?

I'm not going to cry too much if someone who is dirt poor gets a little extra money than they deserve and can live their life just a little bit further from the brink of destruction


so fraud is ok if i makes you feel better? Continuing the cycle of people that cant afford kids having more kids generation after generation in larger numbers is ok because it makes you feel better? You are the problem


It shouldn't be fraud in the first place because the kid should be covered no matter how into it his mother was.
 
2012-10-25 09:00:37 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo:

I'm sure your rapist would appreciate it of you didn't report it.

However, any of his future victims would likely not.


It's easy to say that when you're anonymously typing on the internet.
 
2012-10-25 09:03:29 AM  

CPennypacker: Brostorm: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: So poor people (starving or non-starving) should be entitled to a free pass on welfare fraud just because they are poor?

I'm not going to cry too much if someone who is dirt poor gets a little extra money than they deserve and can live their life just a little bit further from the brink of destruction


so fraud is ok if i makes you feel better? Continuing the cycle of people that cant afford kids having more kids generation after generation in larger numbers is ok because it makes you feel better? You are the problem

It shouldn't be fraud in the first place because the kid should be covered no matter how into it his mother was.


If you stop the fraud the money saved could be used to prevent/reduce the problems that cause the poverty.
 
2012-10-25 09:03:33 AM  

CPennypacker: FFS its not about the mother its about the kid. The kid is born, it exists. Want to incentivise people to have less kids? Do it in a way that doesn't punish the kid that is already born.


Sorry, any thing that effects people getting more money for more kids will be seen by you as hurting the children. Welfare should be in hard amounts no tied to having more children, it puts the responsibility on the parents

I am all for more state sponsored soup kitchens for children that supply at least three meals a day. The outrageous fraud program known as food stamps could easily be converted into a actual food program where the people intended to be fed are fed healthy meals and their "parents" are just seen at the super market selling their food stamps at the beginning of the month. I believe in actually helping children, to subsidizing failures to have more children
 
2012-10-25 09:03:44 AM  

MorrisBird: What if you don't know who raped you? My daughter doesn't. She was drugged. I love the Republicans. They're throwing away their power by waging a war on rape victims. Brilliant.


You don't have to know who did. Just report it. A 5 minute call to file a report does the trick. How onerous. Oh no. With all the videos of acorn telling people how to game the system is filing a report when a rape really does occur so awful?

Some perspective perhaps.
 
2012-10-25 09:04:11 AM  

Parmenius: What ever happened to the Fark(tm) proposal to start referring to the GOP as the "White Male Christian Nationalist Party"?


White Male Straight Fundamentalist Nationalist Party fighting hard for those poor oppressed millionaires.
 
2012-10-25 09:04:24 AM  

Brostorm: The outrageous fraud program known as food stamps


Still waiting on some numbers. Any numbers.
 
2012-10-25 09:04:38 AM  

Lost Thought 00: machoprogrammer: Republicans are retarded, but if you are already on welfare (before you get pregnant), you shouldn't get more money when you have more kids.

So children can't collect welfare? Because that's what you are claiming, that children shouldn't be allowed to collect from the basic subsistence safety nets we put in place to keep society from crumbling.

Kids are born not because their parents are trying to collect cash, but because they enjoy f*cking, just like every other human being on this planet


You are correct, but the problem is a bit more two-edged. All people on welfare are on it because they are irresponsible. I'm not saying that to be mean at all, it's just a fact. People who make better decisions don't need a handout. Those same people who irresponsible enough to need welfare are going to be irresponsible with birth control as well.

That said, regardless of the circumstances of conception, the children deserve to be taken care of.

Possible solutions:
Compulsory sterilization as a requisite for welfare (men and women)
Removal of child by CPS from mothers who have a baby while on welfare
Getting rid of welfare altogether
Just saying 'fark it' and pay everyone with however many kids and on whatever drugs as much as they need until we are all bankrupt.
 
2012-10-25 09:05:18 AM  

LiberalConservative: If you stop the fraud the money saved could be used to prevent/reduce the problems that cause the poverty.


You couldn't even name 1 cause of poverty
 
2012-10-25 09:05:40 AM  

LiberalConservative: If you stop the fraud the money saved could be used to prevent/reduce the problems that cause the poverty.


If you incentivise people to act responsbily instead of punishing them for acting irrisponsibly there will be less poverty in the first place.

Brostorm:

I am all for more state sponsored soup kitchens for children that supply at least three meals a day. The outrageous fraud program known as food stamps could easily be converted into a actual food program where the people intended to be fed are fed healthy meals and their "parents" are just seen at the super market selling their food stamps at the beginning of the month. I believe in actually helping children, to subsidizing failures to have more children


Children need clothes and a place to live too. You can't wear soup in a soup house made of soup.
 
2012-10-25 09:05:58 AM  
The GOP just wants to return to a time when ladies were cherished and protected. Real ladies are always chaperoned and protected. Real ladies have to go into public unchaperoned because their husbands or fathers earn enough to keep them cherished and protected. Unmarried real ladies have chaperones and companions to ensure they are never alone at any time. If they must leave home for school at any point, the school must be of the best character and its student's must be under twenty-four hour watch. Married ladies have husbands and companions and strong male guards (who can also double as in-home waiters at parties).

If you do not have these things, you are not a lady. That means you are fair game for rape, but it would not be a legitimate rape. Men, if you were real men, you would be able to provide all the things a woman needs to be considered a real lady. If you cannot do this, it is your fault if your daughters or wives get raped (which, of course, would not be a legitimate rape). Why is your wife out in public earning a living? Why do you let your daughters be educated? If they are out in public unguarded, they are just asking for it.

You should consider your lucky, though. Those rape babies you're rearing could very well be the children of real men, not someone like you. This is your gift from God.
 
2012-10-25 09:07:00 AM  

littleray42: All people on welfare are on it because they are irresponsible. I'm not saying that to be mean at all, it's just a fact.


I would argue that only two things really drive conservative morality: is us versus them, and punishment and reward. Worship of free markets, psychological dependence on dualistic religious schemes of heaven and hell, and even their apparent mass lack of empathy is really all about punishment and reward. If you didn't get rich enough with the right job, you deserve to be poor and die of untreated medical conditions. If you didn't keep your legs crossed, you deserve to be forced into childbirth. If you did anything to bring yourself under government suspicion, you deserve to be subject to police brutality and torture. The rest of the racial and religious aggression and resentment is just a function of tribal us versus them mentality. Sanctity, loyalty and authority aren't core values of the conservative mind, but simply functions of the principles of punishment and reward, and us versus them. Link 

Pegged.
 
2012-10-25 09:07:17 AM  

Lost Thought 00: littleray42: I'm not understanding all this outrage. If you want to claim that you are entitled to ANY government benefit, don't you usually have to submit some form of evidence to support your claim? Since when does the government just take your word for it? If I was a single mother on welfare with 5 kids, I would be telling you I was raped 5 times if that's all it takes to get benefits.

/not a republican.

The only proof you have to show is that of your own poverty, which is generally pretty simple. Why should the child have to show any more evidence than that? Why must the child prove it was conceived by rape?


The benefit is for raped mothers. To get the raped mother benefit, you need to be raped first. You can't run the Special Olympics unless you're retarded either.

/expecting letter like the one Coulter got.
//she's biatch
 
2012-10-25 09:07:44 AM  

LiberalConservative: Alphax: SandMann: Alphax: SandMann: Big deal.

If someone is claiming a government handout they should have to prove they qualify. It doesn't matter what it is. If not, the system will be abused.

What part of 'keeping desperately poor mothers and their children from starving' is something to be abused? Afraid they might double dip and get to eat until they're not hungry?

I know people who game the system. None of them face starvation.

You'll have to do better than that.

FFS. Help the small proportion of child starvation cases by providing targeted food/money, not by willfully allowing welfare fraud/rorting by a majority who are not starving.


If they are not starving it is because the system works. We do not have children starving in the streets because we have a safety net. That $1.31 per meal per kid that we give children isn't hurting anyone. If you know people who are gaming the system and you didn't report them then you are just as bad.
 
2012-10-25 09:08:20 AM  

littleray42: You are correct, but the problem is a bit more two-edged. All people on welfare are on it because they are irresponsible. I'm not saying that to be mean at all, it's just a fact. People who make better decisions don't need a handout. Those same people who irresponsible enough to need welfare are going to be irresponsible with birth control as well.


You have an interesting, fictional look on life.
 
2012-10-25 09:08:23 AM  

littleray42: All people on welfare are on it because they are irresponsible.


Enough of this bullshiat. *Ploink*
 
2012-10-25 09:09:07 AM  
I dunno'. Do Republican women voters rinse with Procaine after every meal, or what?
 
2012-10-25 09:09:13 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: littleray42: All people on welfare are on it because they are irresponsible. I'm not saying that to be mean at all, it's just a fact.

I would argue that only two things really drive conservative morality: is us versus them, and punishment and reward. Worship of free markets, psychological dependence on dualistic religious schemes of heaven and hell, and even their apparent mass lack of empathy is really all about punishment and reward. If you didn't get rich enough with the right job, you deserve to be poor and die of untreated medical conditions. If you didn't keep your legs crossed, you deserve to be forced into childbirth. If you did anything to bring yourself under government suspicion, you deserve to be subject to police brutality and torture. The rest of the racial and religious aggression and resentment is just a function of tribal us versus them mentality. Sanctity, loyalty and authority aren't core values of the conservative mind, but simply functions of the principles of punishment and reward, and us versus them. Link 

Pegged.


You really didn't say that my point was wrong. You just spouted a bunch of someone else's thoughts.

Pegged
 
2012-10-25 09:10:02 AM  

andino: It kind of makes you wonder how many of these Republican politicians are rapists themselves. Not necessarily recently, but more likely when they were in high school or college. They may have committed their crimes years ago, but they still are, and always will be, rapists.

How else can you explain their sympathy--and even affinity--for rapists?


A lot of men who commit rape still hate rapists, they just don't see their own actions as being rape.

It's more likely that these assholes hate women rather than have sympathy for rapists.
 
2012-10-25 09:10:07 AM  

littleray42: Lost Thought 00: machoprogrammer: Republicans are retarded, but if you are already on welfare (before you get pregnant), you shouldn't get more money when you have more kids.

So children can't collect welfare? Because that's what you are claiming, that children shouldn't be allowed to collect from the basic subsistence safety nets we put in place to keep society from crumbling.

Kids are born not because their parents are trying to collect cash, but because they enjoy f*cking, just like every other human being on this planet

You are correct, but the problem is a bit more two-edged. All people on welfare are on it because they are irresponsible. I'm not saying that to be mean at all, it's just a fact. People who make better decisions don't need a handout. Those same people who irresponsible enough to need welfare are going to be irresponsible with birth control as well.

That said, regardless of the circumstances of conception, the children deserve to be taken care of.

Possible solutions:
Compulsory sterilization as a requisite for welfare (men and women)
Removal of child by CPS from mothers who have a baby while on welfare
Getting rid of welfare altogether
Just saying 'fark it' and pay everyone with however many kids and on whatever drugs as much as they need until we are all bankrupt.


Millions of people who lost everything when the economy tanked might disagree with you. A responsible person who got laid off in '09 and hasn't been able to find a job, has used up their savings (which they responsibly saved) and is on welfare is unfortunate, not necessarily irresponsible. There are plenty of people who made good decisions but still find themselves needing a handout since they can't find a job.
 
2012-10-25 09:10:16 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: However, any of his future victims would likely not.


I love how altruistic you expect a woman to be for the 'sake of all' but cannot spare that same altruism towards a child, no matter how it was conceived.

Has anyone asked what happens if it is the woman's first child that is born of rape but the second was not? Then what?
 
2012-10-25 09:10:21 AM  

Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: If you stop the fraud the money saved could be used to prevent/reduce the problems that cause the poverty.

You couldn't even name 1 cause of poverty


Are you stupid? How about having children while already being on welfare.
 
2012-10-25 09:10:23 AM  

littleray42: You just spouted a bunch of someone else's thoughts.


That describe your entire philosophy on the subject perfectly. Just a coincidence I guess.
 
2012-10-25 09:10:45 AM  

Alphax: littleray42: You are correct, but the problem is a bit more two-edged. All people on welfare are on it because they are irresponsible. I'm not saying that to be mean at all, it's just a fact. People who make better decisions don't need a handout. Those same people who irresponsible enough to need welfare are going to be irresponsible with birth control as well.

You have an interesting, fictional look on life.


Awesome. The 'huh uh' rebuttal. Next up: 'I know you are but what am I'
 
2012-10-25 09:11:20 AM  

gulogulo: Debeo Summa Credo: However, any of his future victims would likely not.

I love how altruistic you expect a woman to be for the 'sake of all' but cannot spare that same altruism towards a child, no matter how it was conceived.

Has anyone asked what happens if it is the woman's first child that is born of rape but the second was not? Then what?


Name one.
 
2012-10-25 09:11:57 AM  

LiberalConservative: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: If you stop the fraud the money saved could be used to prevent/reduce the problems that cause the poverty.

You couldn't even name 1 cause of poverty

Are you stupid? How about having children while already being on welfare.


That's not a cause, you farkwit
 
2012-10-25 09:11:58 AM  

littleray42: gulogulo: Debeo Summa Credo: However, any of his future victims would likely not.

I love how altruistic you expect a woman to be for the 'sake of all' but cannot spare that same altruism towards a child, no matter how it was conceived.

Has anyone asked what happens if it is the woman's first child that is born of rape but the second was not? Then what?

Name one.


Sorry, commented on wrong post.
 
2012-10-25 09:14:17 AM  
Hah! If you can't get pregnant when you're raped, what's the problem here, amirite? Clearly, if there's a child produced, then there wasn't a rape because the woman's body "knows".

Seriously though, I know this sounds horrible, but what about reducing/suspending their funding if they don't get their tubes cut. It achieves the apparent goals of this legislation without spiking a rash of false "He raped me" accusations from women that would do it just so they can continue to live, and reduces the abortions or worse, illegal abortions, of women who won't play the rape card, or refuse to take the risk of pointing out a known rapist to police while continuing to live in the rapist's neighborhood.. It'll reduce child/baby dumping, and reduce the amount of kids raised in poverty-stricken homes in neighborhoods where being a criminal seems to be the only way to survive it.

Worst part is.. if the abortion thing becomes illegal, don't think it'll stop.. it'll just stop being regulated, the horror stories we get now will be nothing compared to the horrors of abortion without restrictions in a world where having a non-rape child reduces the "income" of a family already living at poverty levels.

It might also reduce the instances of women getting killed for threatening to "claim" rape, or due to the potential of such a claim. Or perceived "entrapments" where women want the benefits of both, the assistance programs, AND various other tax benefits afforded them, and they decide to actively try to get pregnant through deception, fully planning on calling it rape.

Or, there could be a less intrusive/expensive version, perhaps something where if you have a child while on funding, you are required to put it up for adoption if you wish to continue that funding at the level you're currently receiving? Unless you are childless, at which point you are permitted to get one child without penalty.
 
2012-10-25 09:14:20 AM  

Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: If you stop the fraud the money saved could be used to prevent/reduce the problems that cause the poverty.

You couldn't even name 1 cause of poverty

Are you stupid? How about having children while already being on welfare.

That's not a cause, you farkwit


Not that guy but yo actually are stupid. It is the number one cause of poverty. Poverty has become generational whether you want to believe it or not.
 
2012-10-25 09:14:23 AM  

littleray42: Alphax: littleray42: You are correct, but the problem is a bit more two-edged. All people on welfare are on it because they are irresponsible. I'm not saying that to be mean at all, it's just a fact. People who make better decisions don't need a handout. Those same people who irresponsible enough to need welfare are going to be irresponsible with birth control as well.

You have an interesting, fictional look on life.

Awesome. The 'huh uh' rebuttal. Next up: 'I know you are but what am I'


I don't like to mince words with fools.
 
2012-10-25 09:15:54 AM  

mobile_home_refush: LiberalConservative: Alphax: SandMann: Alphax: SandMann: Big deal.

If someone is claiming a government handout they should have to prove they qualify. It doesn't matter what it is. If not, the system will be abused.

What part of 'keeping desperately poor mothers and their children from starving' is something to be abused? Afraid they might double dip and get to eat until they're not hungry?

I know people who game the system. None of them face starvation.

You'll have to do better than that.

FFS. Help the small proportion of child starvation cases by providing targeted food/money, not by willfully allowing welfare fraud/rorting by a majority who are not starving.

If they are not starving it is because the system works. We do not have children starving in the streets because we have a safety net. That $1.31 per meal per kid that we give children isn't hurting anyone. If you know people who are gaming the system and you didn't report them then you are just as bad.


And I agree with everything you just posted.
Yes the system works, and it will continue to work if committing welfare fraud by falsely declaring rape is squashed. System would probably run that little bit better for it.
 
2012-10-25 09:16:43 AM  

Brostorm: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: If you stop the fraud the money saved could be used to prevent/reduce the problems that cause the poverty.

You couldn't even name 1 cause of poverty

Are you stupid? How about having children while already being on welfare.

That's not a cause, you farkwit

Not that guy but yo actually are stupid. It is the number one cause of poverty. Poverty has become generational whether you want to believe it or not.


The point that I think you're missing is that people are already in poverty if they are on welfare. Having a child on welfare does not, therefore, "cause" poverty. It's a nitpick, but that's what the words on the table are.
 
2012-10-25 09:16:45 AM  
img.photobucket.com

American Taliban, how hard is it to go two weeks without mentioning or legislating rape? Just farking stop it. We get that you're terrible people and you hate women, but why the pile on right before election day? Is your God telling you to lose on purpose?
 
2012-10-25 09:17:16 AM  

Genevieve Marie: david_gaithersburg: And we all know that PA is one of those states without access to abortions. Derp.


82% of counties in Pennsylvania have no abortion provider. 46% of women in Pennsylvania live in those counties. Pennsylvania also has mandated counseling designed to discourage abortion and a mandatory 24 hour waiting period.

That may sound like no big deal until you consider the fact that someone who requires welfare benefits and qualifies is already pretty desperately poor... so affording not one, but two days off of work, plus transporatation to another county and lodgings there is actually a pretty big burden on abortion access.

 Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/pennsylvania.html 


Gah, wish I read this before. Invalidates my "Pensylvania is not Mississippi or Texas" remark.

Ok, well then I'm okay with the bill -- as long as they amend it to (a) provide funding to provide access to contraception and abortion services within every county (b) revoke the mandated anti-abortion counseling and 24 hour wait period. And (c) add funding for rape awareness and prevention programs, counseling programs, self-defense courses and additional officer training.

How does that sound? Are we getting closer to sufficiently bi-partisan legislation?

/not a legislator
//plays one on Fark
 
2012-10-25 09:17:21 AM  

MurphyMurphy: I'd foward this to the local blog everyone in my town reads, but...

I live in rube farking retards rural PA.

And they will just say something about obummer's communist conspirator huffington made it up to keep the welfare funding going to ALL the obama voters (because they know, KNOW, those are the only people that vote for him).

You can meet the nicest people going out for a beer and a pool game. You really can.
But don't mention politics unless you want to end the night killing after losing all faith in humanity.



I can second that. Nothing will make you want to GTFO of rural PA (which is most of PA) like living in rural PA. Admittedly, there is also a great deal of it in urban PA as well.
 
2012-10-25 09:18:25 AM  

littleray42: littleray42: gulogulo: Debeo Summa Credo: However, any of his future victims would likely not.

I love how altruistic you expect a woman to be for the 'sake of all' but cannot spare that same altruism towards a child, no matter how it was conceived.

Has anyone asked what happens if it is the woman's first child that is born of rape but the second was not? Then what?

Name one.

Sorry, commented on wrong post.


Well, shiat, I was going to name it Sue.
 
2012-10-25 09:20:38 AM  

Lost Thought 00: machoprogrammer: Republicans are retarded, but if you are already on welfare (before you get pregnant), you shouldn't get more money when you have more kids.

So children can't collect welfare? Because that's what you are claiming, that children shouldn't be allowed to collect from the basic subsistence safety nets we put in place to keep society from crumbling.

Kids are born not because their parents are trying to collect cash, but because they enjoy f*cking, just like every other human being on this planet


We need to get rid of incentives to have kids. Especially if you cannot afford them. Safety nets are great; and I am totally pro-social welfare programs, free birth control, universal healthcare (including abortions) and such. However, if you are already receiving welfare, you shouldn't get more money if you have a kid. If you have the kids (or get pregnant) before you start receiving welfare, that is another issue (bad luck happens), but once you are on it, don't have a kid.
 
2012-10-25 09:22:16 AM  

LasersHurt: Brostorm: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: If you stop the fraud the money saved could be used to prevent/reduce the problems that cause the poverty.

You couldn't even name 1 cause of poverty

Are you stupid? How about having children while already being on welfare.

That's not a cause, you farkwit

Not that guy but yo actually are stupid. It is the number one cause of poverty. Poverty has become generational whether you want to believe it or not.

The point that I think you're missing is that people are already in poverty if they are on welfare. Having a child on welfare does not, therefore, "cause" poverty. It's a nitpick, but that's what the words on the table are.


Kind of a fair comment. If I had re-read more than twice before posting I may of adjusted that to "How about having children when you can't afford to support them". All square now?
 
2012-10-25 09:23:14 AM  
You know, I don't think false claims of rape happen as much as people on here claim they do. I won't say how, but I know that even if you don't report it to the police, a regular old claim of "I think I was drugged and I may have been raped but I'm not sure" among friends WITHOUT naming the suspected rapist can cause your entire life to implode. Friends stop speaking to you, boyfriends dump you, and everyone you know close to you is scarred by it, because that knowledge will always be there.

I can't imagine that a majority of rape claims fall under these pretenses. So, we will punish the relatively few ..and what's worse, the children of all of them.
 
2012-10-25 09:24:12 AM  

machoprogrammer: We need to get rid of incentives to have kids. Especially if you cannot afford them. Safety nets are great; and I am totally pro-social welfare programs, free birth control, universal healthcare (including abortions) and such. However, if you are already receiving welfare, you shouldn't get more money if you have a kid. If you have the kids (or get pregnant) before you start receiving welfare, that is another issue (bad luck happens), but once you are on it, don't have a kid.


At the same time, why should a child of a person on welfare be treated worse by the state than a child of someone not on welfare? What's more important, helping the child or punishing the parent?
 
2012-10-25 09:24:17 AM  

LiberalConservative: LasersHurt: Brostorm: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: If you stop the fraud the money saved could be used to prevent/reduce the problems that cause the poverty.

You couldn't even name 1 cause of poverty

Are you stupid? How about having children while already being on welfare.

That's not a cause, you farkwit

Not that guy but yo actually are stupid. It is the number one cause of poverty. Poverty has become generational whether you want to believe it or not.

The point that I think you're missing is that people are already in poverty if they are on welfare. Having a child on welfare does not, therefore, "cause" poverty. It's a nitpick, but that's what the words on the table are.

Kind of a fair comment. If I had re-read more than twice before posting I may of adjusted that to "How about having children when you can't afford to support them". All square now?


Fine by me, that's a fair cop. I was being "technically correct," which is the best kind of correct, but pretty useless if you want to actually accomplish anything in discussion.
 
2012-10-25 09:25:14 AM  

dready zim: Tommy Moo: Calm down, subby. I'm with the GOP here. The article doesn't say she has to prove she was raped; it says she has to prove she reported it.

If you consider yourself an environmentalist, you have to confront the fact that we are overpopulated. Too many humans is the answer to virtually every economic, environmental, and social issue facing the 21st century. Now, it would be nice to fix the problem with unicorn farts and pixie dust, but in practice, the only way to slow population growth is to pass measures with financial teeth, such as refusing to give people more money for having more kids, whether that be through TANF or through tax deductions for the middle class. If we make parents confront the true cost of raising children and seriously police immigration, the population in this country will begin to decrease, as it desperately needs to.

There should be parent benefit, not child benefit. Each parent living with a child gets benefit. If two parents live with their child then they get twice as much. If you have lots of kids you will have to share it out. This would lead to lots of people on benefits being better off financially if both parents live with just one child. Two children should be affordable and three should be a struggle but just manageable.

It`s like those really really fat people, you don`t get like that without an enabler...


I would be perfectly comfortable with that solution. Also acceptable would be something that increases TANF across the board and lowers middle class taxes across the board while simultaneously eliminating added benefits for having children, so that the two cancel each other out and no one with two or fewer children is doing worse overall.
 
2012-10-25 09:27:13 AM  

Lost Thought 00: machoprogrammer: We need to get rid of incentives to have kids. Especially if you cannot afford them. Safety nets are great; and I am totally pro-social welfare programs, free birth control, universal healthcare (including abortions) and such. However, if you are already receiving welfare, you shouldn't get more money if you have a kid. If you have the kids (or get pregnant) before you start receiving welfare, that is another issue (bad luck happens), but once you are on it, don't have a kid.

At the same time, why should a child of a person on welfare be treated worse by the state than a child of someone not on welfare? What's more important, helping the child or punishing the parent?


I will agree with this as soon as you can name an of any change that you would not see as hurting the child.
 
2012-10-25 09:28:35 AM  

geek_mars: Tommy Moo: Calm down, subby. I'm with the GOP here. The article doesn't say she has to prove she was raped; it says she has to prove she reported it.

If you consider yourself an environmentalist, you have to confront the fact that we are overpopulated. Too many humans is the answer to virtually every economic, environmental, and social issue facing the 21st century. Now, it would be nice to fix the problem with unicorn farts and pixie dust, but in practice, the only way to slow population growth is to pass measures with financial teeth, such as refusing to give people more money for having more kids, whether that be through TANF or through tax deductions for the middle class. If we make parents confront the true cost of raising children and seriously police immigration, the population in this country will begin to decrease, as it desperately needs to.

Overpopulation is a global problem. Reducing the U.S. population, especially through anti-immigration measures, won't have much of an impact on that.

Let me say it again, for anyone who may have missed it. While fraud is a problem to be addressed, punishing the child for the poor choices of its parent is hardly a satisfactory solution. Anyone who can't look a child in the eye and say, "Sorry kid, I can't help feed you because your mother should never have had you," needs to stop advocating for things like "financial teeth" as a means to confront the issue of people on assistance making poor choices about family planning.


1) Because people in America consume much more resources than people in other countries, overpopulation here counts four times as much as overpopulation globally
2) Anti-immigration measures would have an impact on global overpopulation. When other countries take for granted that they can scrape their excess people off into the United States, they have little incentive to promote family planning policies. If, to use the best example, Mexico were forced to find a way to provide food, housing, and jobs for every person who were born there, the Mexican government would quickly be forced to make birth control and abortion more accessible.
 
2012-10-25 09:28:49 AM  

Lost Thought 00: At the same time, why should a child of a person on welfare be treated worse by the state than a child of someone not on welfare?


That doesn't make sense... The child of a person not on welfare isn't getting anything from the state, so they aren't getting treated better by the state.

Lost Thought 00: What's more important, helping the child or punishing the parent?


Yeah, that is the only thing I don't like... But people are stupid and see "ohh if I have another kid, I get more money to spend at Walmart!". At least, my cousin was that way, and I assume there are quite a few others like her out there (trailer park trash aren't too rare in this country). And unfortunately, it is a cycle.
 
2012-10-25 09:29:25 AM  

Kome: In 31 states, a rapist can sue for custody. Seriously. Google it. This country affords more ways for a rapist to harm someone than every other crime.


This is pants on fire. Just because they did not explicitly say in the law "Rapists can't sue victims for custody, is not grounds for saying it allowed. If the law is followed, no one found guilty of rape can possibly get the child.

There is no state that will not consider being convicted by rape (or any felony) to be a HUGE black mark against someone trying wanting custody of a child. Indeed getting convicted of a sex crime puts draconian restrictions on the convicted pretty much everywhere. Equity also has a principle of Clean Hands (google it or stick it into Wikipedia) which clearly goes against any rapist. And laws for determining custody always mention things favoring the more fit parent and can you really see any court thinking that a rapist is a fit parent. Also in many places the law favors the mother and judges as a rule tend to favor the mother as well.

And since when are people in prison allowed to sue for custody of a child? If they admit to being a rapist then convicting them will be trivial and they won't get the kid. Or are you trying to say that 19 states will not allow someone who was accused, but not convicted, to sue? Well duh. Indeed if the Constitution is followed it will be 50 states. People really are supposed to be convicted to receive any sanction from the government.

No court that thinks the father is a rapist is going grant custody.


/ This being said, the Pennsylvania bill is asinine.
 
2012-10-25 09:30:13 AM  

LasersHurt: LiberalConservative: LasersHurt: Brostorm: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: If you stop the fraud the money saved could be used to prevent/reduce the problems that cause the poverty.

You couldn't even name 1 cause of poverty

Are you stupid? How about having children while already being on welfare.

That's not a cause, you farkwit

Not that guy but yo actually are stupid. It is the number one cause of poverty. Poverty has become generational whether you want to believe it or not.

The point that I think you're missing is that people are already in poverty if they are on welfare. Having a child on welfare does not, therefore, "cause" poverty. It's a nitpick, but that's what the words on the table are.

Kind of a fair comment. If I had re-read more than twice before posting I may of adjusted that to "How about having children when you can't afford to support them". All square now?

Fine by me, that's a fair cop. I was being "technically correct," which is the best kind of correct, but pretty useless if you want to actually accomplish anything in discussion.


No harm done. If anything is a good reminder to myself to double-tripple check/think, and you helped clarify what I meant. So you did accomplish something.
 
2012-10-25 09:31:15 AM  

machoprogrammer:
Yeah, that is the only thing I don't like... But people are stupid and see "ohh if I have another kid, I get more money to spend at Walmart!". At least, my cousin was that way, and I assume there are quite a few others like her out there (trailer park trash aren't too rare in this country). And unfortunately, it is a cycle.


So find a way to punsh people like your cousin instead and not punish children?
 
2012-10-25 09:31:49 AM  

machoprogrammer: That doesn't make sense... The child of a person not on welfare isn't getting anything from the state, so they aren't getting treated better by the state.


The child of a person not currently recieving welfare would be protected by the social safety net if something goes wrong in their life. The child of a person currently on welfare is not protected. That's a difference
 
2012-10-25 09:31:59 AM  

bonobo73: I see, a class based argument, which of course, makes no sense. If the environment is as bad as you say for current mother and child the why do you think it's okay for that mother to bring yet another child into that environment? How does that help?

Put it another way: why are you such a monster that you desire another kid to be placed in the living hell you describe above?


Hate to burst your bubble, but many people crying outrage here probably are completely OK with the woman getting an abortion, if she chooses, to avoid said situation.

But, if it was a god-fearing woman who didn't want to get an abortion, why shouldn't she be allowed to have the baby?
 
2012-10-25 09:36:18 AM  

CPennypacker: machoprogrammer:
Yeah, that is the only thing I don't like... But people are stupid and see "ohh if I have another kid, I get more money to spend at Walmart!". At least, my cousin was that way, and I assume there are quite a few others like her out there (trailer park trash aren't too rare in this country). And unfortunately, it is a cycle.

So find a way to punsh people like your cousin instead and not punish children?


Name a way. Any possible solution yo will claim as hurting the children, we all know it.
 
2012-10-25 09:36:50 AM  

TheMysteriousStranger: Kome: In 31 states, a rapist can sue for custody. Seriously. Google it. This country affords more ways for a rapist to harm someone than every other crime.

This is pants on fire. Just because they did not explicitly say in the law "Rapists can't sue victims for custody, is not grounds for saying it allowed. If the law is followed, no one found guilty of rape can possibly get the child.

There is no state that will not consider being convicted by rape (or any felony) to be a HUGE black mark against someone trying wanting custody of a child. Indeed getting convicted of a sex crime puts draconian restrictions on the convicted pretty much everywhere. Equity also has a principle of Clean Hands (google it or stick it into Wikipedia) which clearly goes against any rapist. And laws for determining custody always mention things favoring the more fit parent and can you really see any court thinking that a rapist is a fit parent. Also in many places the law favors the mother and judges as a rule tend to favor the mother as well.

And since when are people in prison allowed to sue for custody of a child? If they admit to being a rapist then convicting them will be trivial and they won't get the kid. Or are you trying to say that 19 states will not allow someone who was accused, but not convicted, to sue? Well duh. Indeed if the Constitution is followed it will be 50 states. People really are supposed to be convicted to receive any sanction from the government.

No court that thinks the father is a rapist is going grant custody.


/ This being said, the Pennsylvania bill is asinine.



A couple of things. 1) A rapist will eventually get out of prison. 2) Rape is mostly about power. 3) Even if the rapist doesn't win, dragging their victim through months (and hundreds of dollars) of legal BS is just another way to victimize them. 4) the rapist may not get custody, but might get visitation (maybe supervised) meaning he will be in the life of the woman he raped at least until the kid is 18. Another way to exert power over their victim.

Or they could offer to drop the custody suit if the victim recants her story.
 
2012-10-25 09:37:00 AM  

kidgenius: bonobo73: I see, a class based argument, which of course, makes no sense. If the environment is as bad as you say for current mother and child the why do you think it's okay for that mother to bring yet another child into that environment? How does that help?

Put it another way: why are you such a monster that you desire another kid to be placed in the living hell you describe above?

Hate to burst your bubble, but many people crying outrage here probably are completely OK with the woman getting an abortion, if she chooses, to avoid said situation.

But, if it was a god-fearing woman who didn't want to get an abortion, why shouldn't she be allowed to have the baby?


she should be allowed to have it, she should also be allowed to pay for it
 
2012-10-25 09:39:09 AM  

fracto: TheMysteriousStranger: Kome: In 31 states, a rapist can sue for custody. Seriously. Google it. This country affords more ways for a rapist to harm someone than every other crime.

This is pants on fire. Just because they did not explicitly say in the law "Rapists can't sue victims for custody, is not grounds for saying it allowed. If the law is followed, no one found guilty of rape can possibly get the child.

There is no state that will not consider being convicted by rape (or any felony) to be a HUGE black mark against someone trying wanting custody of a child. Indeed getting convicted of a sex crime puts draconian restrictions on the convicted pretty much everywhere. Equity also has a principle of Clean Hands (google it or stick it into Wikipedia) which clearly goes against any rapist. And laws for determining custody always mention things favoring the more fit parent and can you really see any court thinking that a rapist is a fit parent. Also in many places the law favors the mother and judges as a rule tend to favor the mother as well.

And since when are people in prison allowed to sue for custody of a child? If they admit to being a rapist then convicting them will be trivial and they won't get the kid. Or are you trying to say that 19 states will not allow someone who was accused, but not convicted, to sue? Well duh. Indeed if the Constitution is followed it will be 50 states. People really are supposed to be convicted to receive any sanction from the government.

No court that thinks the father is a rapist is going grant custody.


/ This being said, the Pennsylvania bill is asinine.


A couple of things. 1) A rapist will eventually get out of prison. 2) Rape is mostly about power. 3) Even if the rapist doesn't win, dragging their victim through months (and hundreds of dollars) of legal BS is just another way to victimize them. 4) the rapist may not get custody, but might get visitation (maybe supervised) meaning he will be in the life of ...


You know family court doesnt work that way right? Please show me a valid cause of action where the court accepted the rapists argument ad it went to trial PRETTY PLEASE. These scare tactics are hilarious.
 
2012-10-25 09:39:12 AM  
A Republican poll showed that 6 out of 7 people involved enjoy gang rape.

What's the problem here???!!!! Move along, nothing to see.
 
2012-10-25 09:40:38 AM  

Brostorm: CPennypacker: machoprogrammer:
Yeah, that is the only thing I don't like... But people are stupid and see "ohh if I have another kid, I get more money to spend at Walmart!". At least, my cousin was that way, and I assume there are quite a few others like her out there (trailer park trash aren't too rare in this country). And unfortunately, it is a cycle.

So find a way to punsh people like your cousin instead and not punish children?

Name a way. Any possible solution yo will claim as hurting the children, we all know it.


Gee I don't know, report the cousin so they can be charged with fraud? You see, we have this concept called fraud.
 
2012-10-25 09:41:23 AM  
I think this is a way to throw more baby daddies in jail for not paying child support. So evil. Hand out benefits like candy then lock up the people trying to get them.
 
2012-10-25 09:41:31 AM  

Weaver95: And people wondered why I switched to Democrat....


Actually, I think most of us wondered why an obviously cogent being could have been Republican in the first place.
 
2012-10-25 09:42:14 AM  
www.panelsonpages.com
Hi. I'm a recovering crackhead, and this is my retarded sister I take care of. I'd like some welfare please.
 
2012-10-25 09:45:30 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Brostorm: The outrageous fraud program known as food stamps

Still waiting on some numbers. Any numbers.


Yep... Noticed how the request for some, you know, actual facts about welfare fraud and what percentage of that is all these folks having multiple kids to get more money got completely ignored in favor of "gut feelings" and anecdotes.

So, I wouldn't hold your breathe waiting for any facts.
 
2012-10-25 09:48:17 AM  
Sticky2shoes Account created: 2012-09-30 18:14:27


All you need to know. Also, what's with all these accounts from 2005 that haven't posted in 7 years suddenly becoming active again? Is Fark selling them to the poli trolls??
 
2012-10-25 09:49:17 AM  

Brostorm:

You know family court doesnt work that way right? Please show me a valid cause of action where the court accepted the rapists argument ad it went to trial PRETTY PLEASE. These scare tactics are hilarious.



Here is a pretty good article, with citations from specific cases.
 
2012-10-25 09:54:10 AM  
What republican legislators may look like:

i706.photobucket.com

i706.photobucket.com

i706.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-25 09:54:19 AM  

fracto: Brostorm:

You know family court doesnt work that way right? Please show me a valid cause of action where the court accepted the rapists argument ad it went to trial PRETTY PLEASE. These scare tactics are hilarious.


Here is a pretty good article, with citations from specific cases.


did you actually read any of that?
"Although there have been no studies analyzing the number of rapists who
seek custody of their rape-conceived children, anecdotal evidence demonstrates
its occurrence" from page 832.

Also, almost all of the cases that actually make it to trial involve situations where rape cannot be proved. Unless you believe that women are incapable of dishonestly nd that men should automatically be considered rapists that article means squat.
 
2012-10-25 09:54:54 AM  

bonobo73: Genevieve Marie: david_gaithersburg: And we all know that PA is one of those states without access to abortions. Derp.


82% of counties in Pennsylvania have no abortion provider. 46% of women in Pennsylvania live in those counties. Pennsylvania also has mandated counseling designed to discourage abortion and a mandatory 24 hour waiting period.

That may sound like no big deal until you consider the fact that someone who requires welfare benefits and qualifies is already pretty desperately poor... so affording not one, but two days off of work, plus transporatation to another county and lodgings there is actually a pretty big burden on abortion access.

 Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/pennsylvania.html 

Gah, wish I read this before. Invalidates my "Pensylvania is not Mississippi or Texas" remark.

Ok, well then I'm okay with the bill -- as long as they amend it to (a) provide funding to provide access to contraception and abortion services within every county (b) revoke the mandated anti-abortion counseling and 24 hour wait period. And (c) add funding for rape awareness and prevention programs, counseling programs, self-defense courses and additional officer training.

How does that sound? Are we getting closer to sufficiently bi-partisan legislation?

/not a legislator
//plays one on Fark


Still catching up on this thread (and rapidly coming to the conclusion that I want to gay marry Genevieve Marie) but I had made a mental note to go back and attempt to disabuse you of your misconception regarding how bass ackward my home state is. Glad to see you've done the research yourself.

I can tell you that increasing access to affordable contraception and abortion services will likely never come to fruition in PA. We've subjected the rest of the country to Santorum, after all.
 
2012-10-25 09:56:17 AM  
Remember there is no war on women so lay back and enjoy your rape.
 
2012-10-25 10:00:55 AM  

CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: machoprogrammer:
Yeah, that is the only thing I don't like... But people are stupid and see "ohh if I have another kid, I get more money to spend at Walmart!". At least, my cousin was that way, and I assume there are quite a few others like her out there (trailer park trash aren't too rare in this country). And unfortunately, it is a cycle.

So find a way to punsh people like your cousin instead and not punish children?

Name a way. Any possible solution yo will claim as hurting the children, we all know it.

Gee I don't know, report the cousin so they can be charged with fraud? You see, we have this concept called fraud.


Yeah, good luck with that. Like they would do anything, considering what she did is perfectly legal (having more kids to get more state money). And even if she gets arrested, that punishes the child, since his mom is in jail, no?

Lost Thought 00: The child of a person not currently recieving welfare would be protected by the social safety net if something goes wrong in their life. The child of a person currently on welfare is not protected. That's a difference


Well, I know the religious wouldn't like it, but why even have the child if you can't afford it? In my ideal world, abortions would be free due to universal healthcare.
 
2012-10-25 10:01:34 AM  

MsStatement: bonobo73: Genevieve Marie: david_gaithersburg: And we all know that PA is one of those states without access to abortions. Derp.


82% of counties in Pennsylvania have no abortion provider. 46% of women in Pennsylvania live in those counties. Pennsylvania also has mandated counseling designed to discourage abortion and a mandatory 24 hour waiting period.

That may sound like no big deal until you consider the fact that someone who requires welfare benefits and qualifies is already pretty desperately poor... so affording not one, but two days off of work, plus transporatation to another county and lodgings there is actually a pretty big burden on abortion access.

 Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/pennsylvania.html 

Gah, wish I read this before. Invalidates my "Pensylvania is not Mississippi or Texas" remark.

Ok, well then I'm okay with the bill -- as long as they amend it to (a) provide funding to provide access to contraception and abortion services within every county (b) revoke the mandated anti-abortion counseling and 24 hour wait period. And (c) add funding for rape awareness and prevention programs, counseling programs, self-defense courses and additional officer training.

How does that sound? Are we getting closer to sufficiently bi-partisan legislation?

/not a legislator
//plays one on Fark

Still catching up on this thread (and rapidly coming to the conclusion that I want to gay marry Genevieve Marie) but I had made a mental note to go back and attempt to disabuse you of your misconception regarding how bass ackward my home state is. Glad to see you've done the research yourself.

I can tell you that increasing access to affordable contraception and abortion services will likely never come to fruition in PA. We've subjected the rest of the country to Santorum, after all.


gross.
 
2012-10-25 10:03:31 AM  

Fart_Machine: Remember there is no war on women so lay back and enjoy your rape planned by God.

 

Forgot best part.
 
2012-10-25 10:03:39 AM  

machoprogrammer:
Yeah, good luck with that. Like they would do anything, considering what she did is perfectly legal (having more kids to get more state money). And even if she gets arrested, that punishes the child, since his mom is in jail, no?


So then its not actually fraud. Again, incentivise her not to have kids, not to be on welfare, but now the kid exists. Don't punish it.
 
2012-10-25 10:04:17 AM  
I understand what they're getting at here. Currently in PA, as it is in NJ, if you're on welfare & have another kid, you lose your welfare (the kids still keep theirs). If you end up pregnant by rape, there was no provision for you. You were still kicked off the rolls.

This is giving those women an exception. If they kept the baby and reported the rape or incest to police, they keep their welfare. They only have to show they identified their attacker if they knew who it was (like in cases of incest, I guess).

HOWEVER, just how many farking women who get raped are keeping their babies? And, judging from the typically low numbers of rapes that are reported anyway, this is a bullshiat law. Next step is to further reduce access to abortion and then the legislation can point at this law and say, "Look, we care. We even made a provision for them!" And, of course, there's the implication that only women on welfare get raped or are victims of incest.
 
2012-10-25 10:04:30 AM  
I never thought I'd see the day where it looks like rape will be legal long before marijuana. Life is a strange thing.
 
2012-10-25 10:05:22 AM  

MyRandomName: With all the videos of acorn telling people how to game the system is filing a report when a rape really does occur so awful?


Not that I think you give half a shiat because you're about as vile as they come, but for anybody reading this it could be beneficial to point out the fact that rape victims often feel ashamed of their victimization, depressed, feel as though they're to blame and avoid reporting a rape as either a coping mechanism, because they're afraid of reprisal or because the abuser is a friend or family member and they feel conflicted about getting that person in trouble.

But, yea, I'm sure adding a pile of bureaucratic bullshiat on top of all that emotional baggage won't have any negative impact on rape victims at all. What's a little extra mental stress on a crime victim's head when you could also be punishing women who had sex consensually, right?

God, you and your kind are terrible, vicious and cruel human beings...
 
2012-10-25 10:06:28 AM  
Tack forced wearing of this
2.bp.blogspot.com
on to the bill and be done with it.
 
2012-10-25 10:06:30 AM  

CPennypacker: machoprogrammer:
Yeah, good luck with that. Like they would do anything, considering what she did is perfectly legal (having more kids to get more state money). And even if she gets arrested, that punishes the child, since his mom is in jail, no?


So then its not actually fraud. Again, incentivise her not to have kids, not to be on welfare, but now the kid exists. Don't punish it.


exactly, you are the problem. If she cant care for her kids it should be seen as the abuse it is.
 
2012-10-25 10:08:33 AM  

Aldon: Fart_Machine: Remember there is no war on women so lay back and enjoy your rape planned by God. 

Forgot best part.


Forever.
 
2012-10-25 10:09:28 AM  

Brostorm: CPennypacker: machoprogrammer:
Yeah, good luck with that. Like they would do anything, considering what she did is perfectly legal (having more kids to get more state money). And even if she gets arrested, that punishes the child, since his mom is in jail, no?


So then its not actually fraud. Again, incentivise her not to have kids, not to be on welfare, but now the kid exists. Don't punish it.

exactly, you are the problem. If she cant care for her kids it should be seen as the abuse it is.


If she is an unfit parent then that's entirely different and I support her children being taken away if that results in what is best for the child.
 
2012-10-25 10:10:50 AM  

machoprogrammer: CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: machoprogrammer:
Yeah, that is the only thing I don't like... But people are stupid and see "ohh if I have another kid, I get more money to spend at Walmart!". At least, my cousin was that way, and I assume there are quite a few others like her out there (trailer park trash aren't too rare in this country). And unfortunately, it is a cycle.

So find a way to punsh people like your cousin instead and not punish children?

Name a way. Any possible solution yo will claim as hurting the children, we all know it.

Gee I don't know, report the cousin so they can be charged with fraud? You see, we have this concept called fraud.

Yeah, good luck with that. Like they would do anything, considering what she did is perfectly legal (having more kids to get more state money). And even if she gets arrested, that punishes the child, since his mom is in jail, no?

Lost Thought 00: The child of a person not currently recieving welfare would be protected by the social safety net if something goes wrong in their life. The child of a person currently on welfare is not protected. That's a difference

Well, I know the religious wouldn't like it, but why even have the child if you can't afford it? In my ideal world, abortions would be free due to universal healthcare.


Just kill children you can't afford. That's one solution. The final solution. The handicapped and elderly are expensive too.
 
2012-10-25 10:11:00 AM  

CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: machoprogrammer:
Yeah, good luck with that. Like they would do anything, considering what she did is perfectly legal (having more kids to get more state money). And even if she gets arrested, that punishes the child, since his mom is in jail, no?


So then its not actually fraud. Again, incentivise her not to have kids, not to be on welfare, but now the kid exists. Don't punish it.

exactly, you are the problem. If she cant care for her kids it should be seen as the abuse it is.

If she is an unfit parent then that's entirely different and I support her children being taken away if that results in what is best for the child.


having children y cannot afford by definition makes you an unfit parent. The fact that your ability even feed your children relies on the state is a problem. When you decide to have more children while already being in this situation, you have just make the argument that you are unfit stronger.
 
2012-10-25 10:12:43 AM  

Brostorm: CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: machoprogrammer:
Yeah, good luck with that. Like they would do anything, considering what she did is perfectly legal (having more kids to get more state money). And even if she gets arrested, that punishes the child, since his mom is in jail, no?


So then its not actually fraud. Again, incentivise her not to have kids, not to be on welfare, but now the kid exists. Don't punish it.

exactly, you are the problem. If she cant care for her kids it should be seen as the abuse it is.

If she is an unfit parent then that's entirely different and I support her children being taken away if that results in what is best for the child.

having children y cannot afford by definition makes you an unfit parent. The fact that your ability even feed your children relies on the state is a problem. When you decide to have more children while already being in this situation, you have just make the argument that you are unfit stronger.


Cuz all pregnancies are planned
 
2012-10-25 10:14:40 AM  

CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: machoprogrammer:
Yeah, good luck with that. Like they would do anything, considering what she did is perfectly legal (having more kids to get more state money). And even if she gets arrested, that punishes the child, since his mom is in jail, no?


So then its not actually fraud. Again, incentivise her not to have kids, not to be on welfare, but now the kid exists. Don't punish it.

exactly, you are the problem. If she cant care for her kids it should be seen as the abuse it is.

If she is an unfit parent then that's entirely different and I support her children being taken away if that results in what is best for the child.

having children y cannot afford by definition makes you an unfit parent. The fact that your ability even feed your children relies on the state is a problem. When you decide to have more children while already being in this situation, you have just make the argument that you are unfit stronger.

Cuz all pregnancies are planned


cuz birf control is hard. Cuz taking responsibility for your actions is hard. Cuz realizing the link between more money=more kids is hard. Cuz crying "what about the children" is so damn easy
 
2012-10-25 10:14:53 AM  

CPennypacker: So then its not actually fraud. Again, incentivise her not to have kids, not to be on welfare, but now the kid exists. Don't punish it.


This is what I am proposing:

If you are on welfare, and you get pregnant while on welfare, the amount you receive does not go up...

This means that if you have 3 kids, then go on welfare, you get the 3 kids amount. If you have 2 kids and are on welfare and you get pregnant, you don't get the 3 kids benefit, you still get 2.

The incentive to not having kids then is you don't get more money for having more kids. Kids are expensive.

badhatharry: Just kill children you can't afford. That's one solution. The final solution. The handicapped and elderly are expensive too.


Well, people have abortions because they can't afford the kids every day. Or is abortion the same as killing kids now? I thought life began at birth, not conception?
 
2012-10-25 10:14:54 AM  
Republicans love rape. There's no avoiding the blatantly obvious at this point. They worship rape. They idolize it. Rape is the manifestation of everything Republicans hold dear in life.
 
2012-10-25 10:15:43 AM  

Brostorm: CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: machoprogrammer:
Yeah, good luck with that. Like they would do anything, considering what she did is perfectly legal (having more kids to get more state money). And even if she gets arrested, that punishes the child, since his mom is in jail, no?


So then its not actually fraud. Again, incentivise her not to have kids, not to be on welfare, but now the kid exists. Don't punish it.

exactly, you are the problem. If she cant care for her kids it should be seen as the abuse it is.

If she is an unfit parent then that's entirely different and I support her children being taken away if that results in what is best for the child.

having children y cannot afford by definition makes you an unfit parent. The fact that your ability even feed your children relies on the state is a problem. When you decide to have more children while already being in this situation, you have just make the argument that you are unfit stronger.

Cuz all pregnancies are planned

cuz birf control is hard. Cuz taking responsibility for your actions is hard. Cuz realizing the link between more money=more kids is hard. Cuz crying "what about the children" is so damn easy


No, but it can be expensive and/or hard to get. Why are you so intellectually dishonest? It actually hurts me physically how intellectually dishonest you are.
 
2012-10-25 10:17:29 AM  

machoprogrammer:
This is what I am proposing:

If you are on welfare, and you get pregnant while on welfare, the amount you receive does not go up...

This means that if you have 3 kids, then go on welfare, you get the 3 kids amount. If you have 2 kids and are on welfare and you get pregnant, you don't get the 3 kids benefit, you still get 2.

The incentive to not having kids then is you don't get more money for having more kids. Kids are expensive.


How about instead we make it stupid easy both in terms of effort and financially to not have kids in the first place.
 
2012-10-25 10:18:59 AM  

CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: machoprogrammer:
Yeah, good luck with that. Like they would do anything, considering what she did is perfectly legal (having more kids to get more state money). And even if she gets arrested, that punishes the child, since his mom is in jail, no?


So then its not actually fraud. Again, incentivise her not to have kids, not to be on welfare, but now the kid exists. Don't punish it.

exactly, you are the problem. If she cant care for her kids it should be seen as the abuse it is.

If she is an unfit parent then that's entirely different and I support her children being taken away if that results in what is best for the child.

having children y cannot afford by definition makes you an unfit parent. The fact that your ability even feed your children relies on the state is a problem. When you decide to have more children while already being in this situation, you have just make the argument that you are unfit stronger.

Cuz all pregnancies are planned

cuz birf control is hard. Cuz taking responsibility for your actions is hard. Cuz realizing the link between more money=more kids is hard. Cuz crying "what about the children" is so damn easy

No, but it can be expensive and/or hard to get. Why are you so intellectually dishonest? It actually hurts me physically how intellectually dishonest you are.


You can get free condoms ALL OVER THE PLACE. If you are poor you can get free birth control through medicaid or planned parenthood or any of the other thousands of sources. It is a complete and ridiculous lie that birth control is rare or expensive . Hell college GIVE them away too.
 
2012-10-25 10:19:01 AM  

Brostorm: cuz birf control is hard.


DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD!
 
2012-10-25 10:19:05 AM  

Brostorm: cuz birf control is hard. Cuz taking responsibility for your actions is hard. Cuz realizing the link between more money=more kids is hard. Cuz crying "what about the children" is so damn easy


Supporting your claim that "people on welfare getting more money because they cant keep it in their pants is a HUGE problem." with numbers is hard, apparently.
 
2012-10-25 10:20:21 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Brostorm: cuz birf control is hard.

DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD!


citation needed. Im not even a republican nor do I think planned parenthood should be defunded.
 
2012-10-25 10:20:30 AM  

Brostorm: cuz birf control is hard. Cuz taking responsibility for your actions is hard.


I've recently been told by a Republican representative that when God wants a child born, he'll rape the fark out of a woman to get it done.
 
2012-10-25 10:22:33 AM  

Brostorm: You can get free condoms ALL OVER THE PLACE. If you are poor you can get free birth control through medicaid or planned parenthood or any of the other thousands of sources. It is a complete and ridiculous lie that birth control is rare or expensive . Hell college GIVE them away too.


I don't understand, there is an EASY way to not have to pay less for poor kids and still pay the same for each kid and that is for there to be LESS kids. Don't you think something like a free IUD would result in less pregnancies than free rubbers? Then they could hump all they want all day long and all you paid for was a little copper T.
 
2012-10-25 10:24:43 AM  

CPennypacker: Brostorm: You can get free condoms ALL OVER THE PLACE. If you are poor you can get free birth control through medicaid or planned parenthood or any of the other thousands of sources. It is a complete and ridiculous lie that birth control is rare or expensive . Hell college GIVE them away too.

I don't understand, there is an EASY way to not have to pay less for poor kids and still pay the same for each kid and that is for there to be LESS kids. Don't you think something like a free IUD would result in less pregnancies than free rubbers? Then they could hump all they want all day long and all you paid for was a little copper T.


Im for free tubal ligation and free IUD. It will cost much less in the long run. The claim that birth control is rare or expensive is still full of crap.
 
2012-10-25 10:25:20 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Republicans love rape. There's no avoiding the blatantly obvious at this point. They worship rape. They idolize it. Rape is the manifestation of everything Republicans hold dear in life.


As always, they have a backwards, archaic way of looking at it. They probably don't see it as a real issue, because they think most cases are false accusations anyway. Their mindset is easily understood if you erase all the progress women have made over the last several decades and think of women more like children than equals.
 
2012-10-25 10:26:07 AM  

Brostorm: citation needed.


The guy who won't back up any of his own claims with citations demands citations from everybody else. We should definitely take this guy Very Seriously.
 
2012-10-25 10:27:47 AM  

CPennypacker: machoprogrammer:
This is what I am proposing:

If you are on welfare, and you get pregnant while on welfare, the amount you receive does not go up...

This means that if you have 3 kids, then go on welfare, you get the 3 kids amount. If you have 2 kids and are on welfare and you get pregnant, you don't get the 3 kids benefit, you still get 2.

The incentive to not having kids then is you don't get more money for having more kids. Kids are expensive.

How about instead we make it stupid easy both in terms of effort and financially to not have kids in the first place.


I agree 100%.


Brostorm: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Brostorm: cuz birf control is hard.

DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD!

citation needed. Im not even a republican nor do I think planned parenthood should be defunded.


This is Fark politics tab, where if you ever say something positive about anything Republican or anything bad about anything Democrat, then you are automatically a redneck, bible-toting, war on women supporting Republican. There are only two schools of thoughts for most of the mouth breathers on here.
 
2012-10-25 10:28:24 AM  

Brostorm: CPennypacker: Brostorm: You can get free condoms ALL OVER THE PLACE. If you are poor you can get free birth control through medicaid or planned parenthood or any of the other thousands of sources. It is a complete and ridiculous lie that birth control is rare or expensive . Hell college GIVE them away too.

I don't understand, there is an EASY way to not have to pay less for poor kids and still pay the same for each kid and that is for there to be LESS kids. Don't you think something like a free IUD would result in less pregnancies than free rubbers? Then they could hump all they want all day long and all you paid for was a little copper T.

Im for free tubal ligation and free IUD. It will cost much less in the long run. The claim that birth control is rare or expensive is still full of crap.


Cost over child bearing years:

METHOD UNINSURED INSURED WHAT'S INCLUDED
IUDs $5,751 $2,875 Doctor's visit, device, insertion, and follow-up care, every 7.5 years
Implanon $16,931 $7,696 Doctor's visit, device, insertion, and removal, every three years
Injections $25,329 $8,372 Doctor's visit, follow-up care, and four injections, every year
Patch $51,946 $9,230 Doctor's visit and an annual supply of patches, every year
Vaginal ring $51,946 $9,230 Doctor's visit and an annual supply of rings, every year
Sterilization $6,000 $1,500 Doctor's visits, surgery, and follow-up care; one time cost

But WHARRRRRRRRRGARBLE BIRTH CONTROL CHEAP TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY STUPID POORS!
Am I right?
 
2012-10-25 10:28:33 AM  

Brostorm: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Brostorm: cuz birf control is hard.

DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD!

citation needed. Im not even a republican nor do I think planned parenthood should be defunded.


Here ya go, sport!

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/harrisburg_politics/PA-House-lawma k ers-introduce-bill-to-de-fund-Planned-Parenthood.html
 
2012-10-25 10:30:48 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Brostorm: citation needed.

The guy who won't back up any of his own claims with citations demands citations from everybody else. We should definitely take this guy Very Seriously.


a citation on if i claimed Planned Parenthood should be defunded is easy to find. Statistics on children born to welfare families is not because there is no incentive to study it outside of "hurting the children." Lets be honest here,any source I post that isnt directly from the government under a democrat written this year by a panel of 51% women will be ignored as biased.
 
2012-10-25 10:31:12 AM  

MsStatement: Brostorm: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Brostorm: cuz birf control is hard.

DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD!

citation needed. Im not even a republican nor do I think planned parenthood should be defunded.

Here ya go, sport!

Link



Now with clicky goodness.
 
2012-10-25 10:33:08 AM  

Brostorm: Statistics on children born to welfare families is not because there is no incentive to study it outside of "hurting the children."


So how do you know it's a "HUGE problem"?
 
2012-10-25 10:37:44 AM  

CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: Brostorm: You can get free condoms ALL OVER THE PLACE. If you are poor you can get free birth control through medicaid or planned parenthood or any of the other thousands of sources. It is a complete and ridiculous lie that birth control is rare or expensive . Hell college GIVE them away too.

I don't understand, there is an EASY way to not have to pay less for poor kids and still pay the same for each kid and that is for there to be LESS kids. Don't you think something like a free IUD would result in less pregnancies than free rubbers? Then they could hump all they want all day long and all you paid for was a little copper T.

Im for free tubal ligation and free IUD. It will cost much less in the long run. The claim that birth control is rare or expensive is still full of crap.

Cost over child bearing years:

METHOD UNINSURED INSURED WHAT'S INCLUDED
IUDs $5,751 $2,875 Doctor's visit, device, insertion, and follow-up care, every 7.5 years
Implanon $16,931 $7,696 Doctor's visit, device, insertion, and removal, every three years
Injections $25,329 $8,372 Doctor's visit, follow-up care, and four injections, every year
Patch $51,946 $9,230 Doctor's visit and an annual supply of patches, every year
Vaginal ring $51,946 $9,230 Doctor's visit and an annual supply of rings, every year
Sterilization $6,000 $1,500 Doctor's visits, surgery, and follow-up care; one time cost

But WHARRRRRRRRRGARBLE BIRTH CONTROL CHEAP TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY STUPID POORS!
Am I right?


condoms=free
cost of them and their childrens lifetime of dependency on the government? MILLIONS.
 
2012-10-25 10:38:14 AM  

Genevieve Marie: Alphax: 'Demanding that taxpayers give her free money'. That's loaded language.

Yes it is. This virulent hatred for the people in this country who are the most marginalized is reallly depressing. I'm really tired of people acting like poverty is indcative of some great moral failing and the corollary, that wealth is proof of moral superiority and responsibility.


Donald Trump must be their saint.
 
2012-10-25 10:38:48 AM  

MsStatement: MsStatement: Brostorm: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Brostorm: cuz birf control is hard.

DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD!

citation needed. Im not even a republican nor do I think planned parenthood should be defunded.

Here ya go, sport!

Link



Now with clicky goodness.


what part of I am not a republican did you not understand. The claim was that I wanted it defunded.
 
2012-10-25 10:39:18 AM  

Brostorm: condoms=free


Condoms = 12-17% failure rate.

Congrats you solved nothing.
 
2012-10-25 10:40:14 AM  

Brostorm: CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: Brostorm: You can get free condoms ALL OVER THE PLACE. If you are poor you can get free birth control through medicaid or planned parenthood or any of the other thousands of sources. It is a complete and ridiculous lie that birth control is rare or expensive . Hell college GIVE them away too.

I don't understand, there is an EASY way to not have to pay less for poor kids and still pay the same for each kid and that is for there to be LESS kids. Don't you think something like a free IUD would result in less pregnancies than free rubbers? Then they could hump all they want all day long and all you paid for was a little copper T.

Im for free tubal ligation and free IUD. It will cost much less in the long run. The claim that birth control is rare or expensive is still full of crap.

Cost over child bearing years:

METHOD UNINSURED INSURED WHAT'S INCLUDED
IUDs $5,751 $2,875 Doctor's visit, device, insertion, and follow-up care, every 7.5 years
Implanon $16,931 $7,696 Doctor's visit, device, insertion, and removal, every three years
Injections $25,329 $8,372 Doctor's visit, follow-up care, and four injections, every year
Patch $51,946 $9,230 Doctor's visit and an annual supply of patches, every year
Vaginal ring $51,946 $9,230 Doctor's visit and an annual supply of rings, every year
Sterilization $6,000 $1,500 Doctor's visits, surgery, and follow-up care; one time cost

But WHARRRRRRRRRGARBLE BIRTH CONTROL CHEAP TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY STUPID POORS!
Am I right?

condoms=free
cost of them and their childrens lifetime of dependency on the government? MILLIONS.


So you admit condoms aren't working then and we should cover more permanent and effective methods of birth control.

Glad we agree.
 
2012-10-25 10:41:51 AM  

sticky2shoes: What a dumb comment. The law is AGAINST rapists. It gives rape victims a financial incentive to report their rape to the police, which allows the rape to be investigated, so the rapist can get caught and be stopped from raping more women. Rape is already underreported, so they're putting a financial benefit behind speaking out, and at the same time, preserving limited tax resources to help rape victims instead of welfare queens who get pregnant irresponsibly and expect everyone else to pay for their decisions.


KrispyKritter: An observation: TFA said many rapes go unreported. Every unreported rape means that rapists DNA is not put in law enforcement computers. That scumbag is free to rape again without worry of arrest or conviction. Every rapist whose DNA does not go on file has a good chance of never being punished for what he has done.


The flip side of both of these arguments (which are very logical, btw) would be the cases wherein the victim was warned that if they reported the rape they would be killed, beaten, etc. Even if the rapist is caught AND successfully prosecuted, they are still going to get out of prison eventually. Fear is a very powerful thing, especially if you have already been brutally violated.
 
2012-10-25 10:42:12 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Brostorm: condoms=free

Condoms = 12-17% failure rate.

Congrats you solved nothing.


Citation needed, because I am pretty sure it is around 3%
 
2012-10-25 10:42:39 AM  
How any woman could vote Republican nowadays is beyond me? Are there any on Fark? Care to explain what could possibly being going through your head?
 
2012-10-25 10:42:46 AM  
I think I've figured out what's behind all this....remember when all the legislators were all like "jobs...jobs...jobs"?

They have new evidence that shows that the key to job creation is spurred from Ovaries! They are trying to get all up in my vagina and every other woman's to create jerbs! I'm so relieved! Here I thought they were starting a "war on women" but now that I've been shown this "expert testimony" I'm convinced that I have nothing to worry about for me or any other American female I know... thank goodness these well-educated legislators will be able to create MILLIONS of jobs thanks to this!

And, this same report also indicates that they have first hand research from the major religious doctrines that shows that this is what "insert deity of your preference" would want for women! Hooray! What a glorious day to be a woman in America. And rape / incest ? Yeah, it's a mite unpleasant, I can't disagree, but think of the wonderous miracle that will appear in just 10 short months. A lifetime of memories from those few unpleasant moments with a stranger / well-known family member / boyfriend / spouse.

I have no idea why anyone would be outraged or unhappy in light of of this new research.

/sarcasm in full force
//legislators should find somewhere else to focus their time outside my hoo-hah
///go make some jobs happen
////Pennsyvanian
 
2012-10-25 10:44:41 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Brostorm: condoms=free

Condoms = 12-17% failure rate.

Yes, cutting a worst case scenario 83%(this number is wrong by the way, condoms without human error are far more effective) f children born to people who are already on welfare would solve nothing. What part of people on public assistance are already able to get FREE healthcare do you not understand

 
2012-10-25 10:45:02 AM  

machoprogrammer: Dusk-You-n-Me: Brostorm: condoms=free

Condoms = 12-17% failure rate.

Congrats you solved nothing.

Citation needed, because I am pretty sure it is around 3%


Link

Condoms 15% typical use failure rate
 
2012-10-25 10:46:14 AM  
 
2012-10-25 10:47:58 AM  

keylock71: In fact, welfare fraud among Philadelphia's 95,456 recipients is "minute," according to Peter Berson, assistant chief of the government fraud unit in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office.

The 200 to 400 cases of welfare fraud in the city each year - down 50 percent since 2002 because of better enforcement and fewer recipients - are not nonworking women having babies to game the government, but working women receiving welfare and working at other jobs without reporting the income, Berson said.

Best info I could find with a quick look-see... Source seems a bit sketchy, but I'm open to seeing more reliable facts.


Having more children to get more money is not illegal nor is it fraud. That is the problem, why would something that isn't considered illegal be listed as illegal? Logic, how does it work?
 
2012-10-25 10:48:22 AM  

CPennypacker: machoprogrammer: Dusk-You-n-Me: Brostorm: condoms=free

Condoms = 12-17% failure rate.

Congrats you solved nothing.

Citation needed, because I am pretty sure it is around 3%

Link

Condoms 15% typical use failure rate


Proper use failure rate: 2%
 
2012-10-25 10:48:41 AM  

machoprogrammer: Citation needed, because I am pretty sure it is around 3%


17%: These have far lower failure rates - around 1 percent or less - than typical use of condoms, at 17 percent, or the pill, at 9 percent. (The one method the Catholic Church approves of, officially termed "fertility-awareness-based methods" has a failure rate of 25 percent.) Link

14-15%: The typical use of male condoms, which is the average way most people use them, has a failure rate of 14-15%. Link

10-18%: The typical use pregnancy rate among condom users varies depending on the population being studied, ranging from 10-18% per year. Link

The 2% stat is for "perfect use": The perfect use pregnancy rate of condoms is 2% per year, from previous link.

See also CPP's post.
 
2012-10-25 10:49:49 AM  

machoprogrammer: Proper use failure rate: 2%

Perfect

use. The world and the people in it are less than perfect. Hence the other real-world stats.
 
2012-10-25 10:50:15 AM  

machoprogrammer: CPennypacker: machoprogrammer: Dusk-You-n-Me: Brostorm: condoms=free

Condoms = 12-17% failure rate.

Congrats you solved nothing.

Citation needed, because I am pretty sure it is around 3%

Link

Condoms 15% typical use failure rate

Proper use failure rate: 2%


Guns have a proper use kill rate of 100%. What matters is how people actually use them friendo.
 
2012-10-25 10:50:53 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Brostorm: Statistics on children born to welfare families is not because there is no incentive to study it outside of "hurting the children."

So how do you know it's a "HUGE problem"?

 

Still wondering.
 
2012-10-25 10:51:08 AM  

Alassra: ?


Alassra: I think I've figured out what's behind all this....remember when all the legislators were all like "jobs...jobs...jobs"?

They have new evidence that shows that the key to job creation is spurred from Ovaries! They are trying to get all up in my vagina and every other woman's to create jerbs! I'm so relieved! Here I thought they were starting a "war on women" but now that I've been shown this "expert testimony" I'm convinced that I have nothing to worry about for me or any other American female I know... thank goodness these well-educated legislators will be able to create MILLIONS of jobs thanks to this!


I think, in a round about way, these are about jobs - for men, at least. You see, if women are always pregnant and raising children, they will be out of the workforce. Then they will all be filled by men and unemployment will go down (because women without jobs is just the way it should be).
 
2012-10-25 10:52:39 AM  

roadmarks: Alassra: ?

Alassra: I think I've figured out what's behind all this....remember when all the legislators were all like "jobs...jobs...jobs"?

They have new evidence that shows that the key to job creation is spurred from Ovaries! They are trying to get all up in my vagina and every other woman's to create jerbs! I'm so relieved! Here I thought they were starting a "war on women" but now that I've been shown this "expert testimony" I'm convinced that I have nothing to worry about for me or any other American female I know... thank goodness these well-educated legislators will be able to create MILLIONS of jobs thanks to this!

I think, in a round about way, these are about jobs - for men, at least. You see, if women are always pregnant and raising children, they will be out of the workforce. Then they will all be filled by men and unemployment will go down (because women without jobs is just the way it should be).



quite a leap there.
 
2012-10-25 10:55:37 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: machoprogrammer: Proper use failure rate: 2%

Perfect use. The world and the people in it are less than perfect. Hence the other real-world stats.


Either way, I think healthcare should be universal (so free birthcontrol). I don't see the problem with this if that was the case. If you are on welfare, don't have kids. That easy
 
2012-10-25 10:55:51 AM  

Brostorm: keylock71: In fact, welfare fraud among Philadelphia's 95,456 recipients is "minute," according to Peter Berson, assistant chief of the government fraud unit in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office.

The 200 to 400 cases of welfare fraud in the city each year - down 50 percent since 2002 because of better enforcement and fewer recipients - are not nonworking women having babies to game the government, but working women receiving welfare and working at other jobs without reporting the income, Berson said.

Best info I could find with a quick look-see... Source seems a bit sketchy, but I'm open to seeing more reliable facts.

Having more children to get more money is not illegal nor is it fraud. That is the problem, why would something that isn't considered illegal be listed as illegal? Logic, how does it work?



Just trying to help with proving your statement that it's a huge problem, my friend... Like I said, I'm happy to see the facts you're basing your statement on. No need to be an asshole.
 
2012-10-25 10:56:05 AM  

roadmarks: Alassra: ?

Alassra: I think I've figured out what's behind all this....remember when all the legislators were all like "jobs...jobs...jobs"?

They have new evidence that shows that the key to job creation is spurred from Ovaries! They are trying to get all up in my vagina and every other woman's to create jerbs! I'm so relieved! Here I thought they were starting a "war on women" but now that I've been shown this "expert testimony" I'm convinced that I have nothing to worry about for me or any other American female I know... thank goodness these well-educated legislators will be able to create MILLIONS of jobs thanks to this!

I think, in a round about way, these are about jobs - for men, at least. You see, if women are always pregnant and raising children, they will be out of the workforce. Then they will all be filled by men and unemployment will go down (because women without jobs is just the way it should be).


===========================

Sorry, but a 1 for 1 swap job isn't a NEW job - and not job creation.
 
2012-10-25 11:01:40 AM  

Mock26: I support this bill. For one, the woman does not have to prove she was raped. She just has to prove that she reported it (as in showing a copy of the Police Report, which she will automatically receive a copy of when she reports it). Also, the intent is to prevent a woman from defrauding the government. As it is now a mother can only receive funds for up to and including X number of kids. She is not eligible for additional benefits for kid number X + 1, unless the child was conceived because the woman was raped. Up to now there was no way to vet whether or not this was true. Now all a woman has to do is provide a copy of the police report.


Well, when my DAD raped me, I was a little scared to file a report, so fark you. Don't pretend that this doesn't happen. Want me to prove to you that it happened? Fark you.
 
2012-10-25 11:06:34 AM  

MorrisBird: What if you don't know who raped you? My daughter doesn't. She was drugged. I love the Republicans. They're throwing away their power by waging a war on rape victims. Brilliant.


It says right in the text of the bill "if known". Is reading really that difficult?

So the problem here is that the GOP want women to prove they reported the rape instead of just any pregnant woman trying to rip off the government by claiming she was raped?

*yawn*
 
2012-10-25 11:08:43 AM  

Siochain: Mock26: I support this bill. For one, the woman does not have to prove she was raped. She just has to prove that she reported it (as in showing a copy of the Police Report, which she will automatically receive a copy of when she reports it). Also, the intent is to prevent a woman from defrauding the government. As it is now a mother can only receive funds for up to and including X number of kids. She is not eligible for additional benefits for kid number X + 1, unless the child was conceived because the woman was raped. Up to now there was no way to vet whether or not this was true. Now all a woman has to do is provide a copy of the police report.

Well, when my DAD raped me, I was a little scared to file a report, so fark you. Don't pretend that this doesn't happen. Want me to prove to you that it happened? Fark you.


Damn it, I didn't mean to say "prove," but you get the gist. To make it clearer, you expect my 13 year old self to "show" that I filed a police report against the person who had been abusing me, gee, it's just that easy, isn't it?

*Disclosure: I never got pregnant, so I guess I was "lucky" that I didn't have to go through this process.
 
2012-10-25 11:15:21 AM  

Siochain: Siochain: Mock26: I support this bill. For one, the woman does not have to prove she was raped. She just has to prove that she reported it (as in showing a copy of the Police Report, which she will automatically receive a copy of when she reports it). Also, the intent is to prevent a woman from defrauding the government. As it is now a mother can only receive funds for up to and including X number of kids. She is not eligible for additional benefits for kid number X + 1, unless the child was conceived because the woman was raped. Up to now there was no way to vet whether or not this was true. Now all a woman has to do is provide a copy of the police report.

Well, when my DAD raped me, I was a little scared to file a report, so fark you. Don't pretend that this doesn't happen. Want me to prove to you that it happened? Fark you.

Damn it, I didn't mean to say "prove," but you get the gist. To make it clearer, you expect my 13 year old self to "show" that I filed a police report against the person who had been abusing me, gee, it's just that easy, isn't it?

*Disclosure: I never got pregnant, so I guess I was "lucky" that I didn't have to go through this process.


That's awful, I'm sorry you had to go through that.

And now this thread is dead. Good riddance.
 
2012-10-25 11:19:22 AM  
Republicans: Better a hundred innocent women feel guilty than one fraudulent woman get some free benefits.
 
2012-10-25 11:19:54 AM  

IamAwake: ok honestly - I'm confused. So it's ok for a woman to claim - in welfare benefits - that she was raped...without having actually filed a charge with anyone? The woman isn't required to prove anything other than that she filed a report - the burden of proof of the actual crime isn't on her. Normally I'd be all "ah, another stupid anti-human (both genders, lets be real here) repub law..." but...really? Misleading rewording of headline much, subby? What exactly is /wrong/ about what they're doing here?


Because for many cases there could be consequences to filing. For example, the woman would probably lose her reputation permanently if it got out; the rapist might be in a position to exact revenge even from jail...

/Also, because they're essentially saying 'we will punish you for having babby if we think we can get away with it'. Less about rape, but that's kind of disgusting too.
 
2012-10-25 11:32:16 AM  

keylock71: Brostorm: keylock71: In fact, welfare fraud among Philadelphia's 95,456 recipients is "minute," according to Peter Berson, assistant chief of the government fraud unit in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office.

The 200 to 400 cases of welfare fraud in the city each year - down 50 percent since 2002 because of better enforcement and fewer recipients - are not nonworking women having babies to game the government, but working women receiving welfare and working at other jobs without reporting the income, Berson said.

Best info I could find with a quick look-see... Source seems a bit sketchy, but I'm open to seeing more reliable facts.

Having more children to get more money is not illegal nor is it fraud. That is the problem, why would something that isn't considered illegal be listed as illegal? Logic, how does it work?


Just trying to help with proving your statement that it's a huge problem, my friend... Like I said, I'm happy to see the facts you're basing your statement on. No need to be an asshole.


Well, you are comparing apples and oranges. Having more kids to get more state money is not (right now, at least) considered welfare fraud, so saying this isn't a problem because welfare fraud is rare is not really a valid comparison, since that isn't welfare fraud (legally, at least).
 
2012-10-25 11:40:59 AM  

Nadie_AZ: A bill in the Pennsylvania House proposing the reduction of welfare benefits for low-income women contains a provision requiring a woman who became pregnant from rape to prove that she reported her assault.

As ThinkProgress reported, the measure, proposed by five Republican state lawmakers, seeks to eliminate an increase in benefits if a child is conceived while a woman is covered under the Temporary Assistance To Needy Family program. A woman can seek an exception to this if the child is conceived as a result of rape. However, she must prove that she reported the incident to the authorities and gave the police her assaulter's identity

Jesus Christ, you heartless bastards.

Ok, this is clearly a unified thing the GOP is pushing. But why? Simply because 'abortion bad, even in case of rape, oh rape is bad, well let's change that'?


This helps protect women you idiot.
 
2012-10-25 12:05:56 PM  

machoprogrammer: Well, you are comparing apples and oranges. Having more kids to get more state money is not (right now, at least) considered welfare fraud, so saying this isn't a problem because welfare fraud is rare is not really a valid comparison, since that isn't welfare fraud (legally, at least).


I don't believe I said it wasn't a problem... I'm just looking for some evidence that it's a "HUGE problem". I went looking for stats and that's what I found.

I'm happy to see some evidence that it's a "HUGE problem". So far, all I've seen in anecdotes and a whole lot of assumptions.
 
2012-10-25 12:06:45 PM  

IamAwake: ok honestly - I'm confused. So it's ok for a woman to claim - in welfare benefits - that she was raped...without having actually filed a charge with anyone? The woman isn't required to prove anything other than that she filed a report - the burden of proof of the actual crime isn't on her. Normally I'd be all "ah, another stupid anti-human (both genders, lets be real here) repub law..." but...really? Misleading rewording of headline much, subby? What exactly is /wrong/ about what they're doing here?


The shouldn't be yanking the rug out from under poor women who just had a kid anyway. Oh, there's another mouth to feed? Well fark you we're cutting your income!

Its goddamn crazy inexplicably punitive nonsense.
 
2012-10-25 12:25:09 PM  

CPennypacker: Siochain: Siochain: Mock26: I support this bill. For one, the woman does not have to prove she was raped. She just has to prove that she reported it (as in showing a copy of the Police Report, which she will automatically receive a copy of when she reports it). Also, the intent is to prevent a woman from defrauding the government. As it is now a mother can only receive funds for up to and including X number of kids. She is not eligible for additional benefits for kid number X + 1, unless the child was conceived because the woman was raped. Up to now there was no way to vet whether or not this was true. Now all a woman has to do is provide a copy of the police report.

Well, when my DAD raped me, I was a little scared to file a report, so fark you. Don't pretend that this doesn't happen. Want me to prove to you that it happened? Fark you.

Damn it, I didn't mean to say "prove," but you get the gist. To make it clearer, you expect my 13 year old self to "show" that I filed a police report against the person who had been abusing me, gee, it's just that easy, isn't it?

*Disclosure: I never got pregnant, so I guess I was "lucky" that I didn't have to go through this process.

That's awful, I'm sorry you had to go through that.

And now this thread is dead. Good riddance.


Thank you, though saying "thank you" has always struck me as a funny response, can't think of a better one :) I have a wonderful family and a happy life now!

I suppose I'm a bit sensitive about all the rape shiat lately, kinda lost it there for a moment. Good riddance to this thread is right, I'm gonna move on!
 
2012-10-25 12:26:23 PM  
I do think that people having more kids to get more government money is a serious issue. So is people having kids they know they can't afford. Generational poverty is a nasty thing.

Unfortunately, I can't think of any solution that's not worse than the problem. Any ideas?
 
2012-10-25 12:54:28 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: I do think that people having more kids to get more government money is a serious issue. So is people having kids they know they can't afford. Generational poverty is a nasty thing.

Unfortunately, I can't think of any solution that's not worse than the problem. Any ideas?


Make sure that reproductive health care and therefore birth control is available cheap or free to any woman who needs it and stop restricting abortion rights?

The idea of having more kids to get more money is laughable. I know it's always part of the conversation on welfare, but seriously- the extra benefits don't even begin to cover the cost of taking care of another child for 18 years.
 
2012-10-25 12:58:36 PM  

Genevieve Marie: The Jami Turman Fan Club: I do think that people having more kids to get more government money is a serious issue. So is people having kids they know they can't afford. Generational poverty is a nasty thing.

Unfortunately, I can't think of any solution that's not worse than the problem. Any ideas?

Make sure that reproductive health care and therefore birth control is available cheap or free to any woman who needs it and stop restricting abortion rights?

The idea of having more kids to get more money is laughable. I know it's always part of the conversation on welfare, but seriously- the extra benefits don't even begin to cover the cost of taking care of another child for 18 years.


You act like its the parents that pay for those 18 years
 
2012-10-25 01:02:02 PM  

Brostorm: You act like its the parents that pay for those 18 years


You think the state provides enough benefits to keep children adequately fed, housed, and clothed? Welfare benefits aren't even permanent- they're also hard as hell to obtain in the first place in a lot of states.

THIS is a more typical narrative about how welfare actually works and what it covers and what life is like for people who use it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/breakdown-tanf-needy-familie s -states_n_1606242.html 
 
2012-10-25 01:04:42 PM  

Genevieve Marie: Brostorm: You act like its the parents that pay for those 18 years

You think the state provides enough benefits to keep children adequately fed, housed, and clothed? Welfare benefits aren't even permanent- they're also hard as hell to obtain in the first place in a lot of states.

THIS is a more typical narrative about how welfare actually works and what it covers and what life is like for people who use it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/breakdown-tanf-needy-familie s -states_n_1606242.html


Not to mention, you know, the work involved over those 18 years. Cuz all you need is a $180 check a week and the kid raises itself.
 
2012-10-25 01:06:38 PM  

CPennypacker: Not to mention, you know, the work involved over those 18 years. Cuz all you need is a $180 check a week and the kid raises itself.


Yup. But being a full time mom is not considered real work unless rich women do it.

 
 
2012-10-25 01:11:20 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: This is pants on fire. Just because they did not explicitly say in the law "Rapists can't sue victims for custody, is not grounds for saying it allowed. If the law is followed, no one found guilty of rape can possibly get the child.


I did not say there are 31 states where rapists are granted custody, just that in 31 states, being a convicted rapist doesn't bar you from suing for custody. Sometimes they do go to trial, and sometimes those trials last months. For the other responder who requested a link, I provided one. You are free to read it as well.

Brostorm: You know family court doesnt work that way right? Please show me a valid cause of action where the court accepted the rapists argument ad it went to trial PRETTY PLEASE. These scare tactics are hilarious.


K. Link

Although I simply must know: What about anything I said is a scare tactic and to whom is it intended to scare?
 
2012-10-25 01:15:47 PM  

badhatharry: Just kill children you can't afford. That's one solution. The final solution. The handicapped and elderly are expensive too.


Now these are the sorts of Modest Proposals a fellow could get on board with!
 
2012-10-25 01:20:34 PM  
Another bill introduced by the small-cocked, sexually-repressed, woman are teh ebil and should be legitmately raped crowd.

/God gave a clitoris for a reason, farkers
 
2012-10-25 01:41:37 PM  

Genevieve Marie: The Jami Turman Fan Club: I do think that people having more kids to get more government money is a serious issue. So is people having kids they know they can't afford. Generational poverty is a nasty thing.

Unfortunately, I can't think of any solution that's not worse than the problem. Any ideas?

Make sure that reproductive health care and therefore birth control is available cheap or free to any woman who needs it and stop restricting abortion rights?

The idea of having more kids to get more money is laughable. I know it's always part of the conversation on welfare, but seriously- the extra benefits don't even begin to cover the cost of taking care of another child for 18 years.


You act like those people take that into consideration. They just see "Ohh, $180 more!"
 
2012-10-25 01:51:20 PM  

machoprogrammer: Genevieve Marie: The Jami Turman Fan Club: I do think that people having more kids to get more government money is a serious issue. So is people having kids they know they can't afford. Generational poverty is a nasty thing.

Unfortunately, I can't think of any solution that's not worse than the problem. Any ideas?

Make sure that reproductive health care and therefore birth control is available cheap or free to any woman who needs it and stop restricting abortion rights?

The idea of having more kids to get more money is laughable. I know it's always part of the conversation on welfare, but seriously- the extra benefits don't even begin to cover the cost of taking care of another child for 18 years.

You act like those people take that into consideration. They just see "Ohh, $180 more!"


I know I asked this of Brostorm before, but do strangers ever punch you in the face, for seemingly no reason? I'm just curious.
 
2012-10-25 02:27:46 PM  

Brostorm: You act like its the parents that pay for those 18 years


Probably because that's exactly what happens

TANF benefit levels for a family of three, as of July 2010, are less than half of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) in all states and below 30 percent of the FPL in over half of states


In 2010, HHS guidelines for FPL was $22,050 for a family of 4. For a family of 8 it was $37,010 which is only about 133% of the median wage. In fact, you had to have 6 kids before you crossed the threshold for median income in 2010.

Please, do explain what your argument here is. Because I'm having a hard time imagining that too many people think it's easier to raise 4 or 5 kids than just get a job.
 
2012-10-25 02:44:39 PM  
Is there a name for the mental illness that afflicts Texas politicians?
 
2012-10-25 02:45:08 PM  

CPennypacker: machoprogrammer: Genevieve Marie: The Jami Turman Fan Club: I do think that people having more kids to get more government money is a serious issue. So is people having kids they know they can't afford. Generational poverty is a nasty thing.

Unfortunately, I can't think of any solution that's not worse than the problem. Any ideas?

Make sure that reproductive health care and therefore birth control is available cheap or free to any woman who needs it and stop restricting abortion rights?

The idea of having more kids to get more money is laughable. I know it's always part of the conversation on welfare, but seriously- the extra benefits don't even begin to cover the cost of taking care of another child for 18 years.

You act like those people take that into consideration. They just see "Ohh, $180 more!"

I know I asked this of Brostorm before, but do strangers ever punch you in the face, for seemingly no reason? I'm just curious.


Wow, a new type of Internet Tough Guy. You are so clever. Do you write your own material?

But you really think I am kidding? Your average person cannot even have a credit card without going deep into debt.
 
2012-10-25 02:46:25 PM  

machoprogrammer: CPennypacker: machoprogrammer: Genevieve Marie: The Jami Turman Fan Club: I do think that people having more kids to get more government money is a serious issue. So is people having kids they know they can't afford. Generational poverty is a nasty thing.

Unfortunately, I can't think of any solution that's not worse than the problem. Any ideas?

Make sure that reproductive health care and therefore birth control is available cheap or free to any woman who needs it and stop restricting abortion rights?

The idea of having more kids to get more money is laughable. I know it's always part of the conversation on welfare, but seriously- the extra benefits don't even begin to cover the cost of taking care of another child for 18 years.

You act like those people take that into consideration. They just see "Ohh, $180 more!"

I know I asked this of Brostorm before, but do strangers ever punch you in the face, for seemingly no reason? I'm just curious.

Wow, a new type of Internet Tough Guy. You are so clever. Do you write your own material?

But you really think I am kidding? Your average person cannot even have a credit card without going deep into debt.


Which is why condoms will work. Obviously.
 
2012-10-25 03:00:57 PM  

CPennypacker: Which is why condoms will work. Obviously.


HA
 
2012-10-25 03:04:16 PM  

Siochain: Siochain: Mock26: I support this bill. For one, the woman does not have to prove she was raped. She just has to prove that she reported it (as in showing a copy of the Police Report, which she will automatically receive a copy of when she reports it). Also, the intent is to prevent a woman from defrauding the government. As it is now a mother can only receive funds for up to and including X number of kids. She is not eligible for additional benefits for kid number X + 1, unless the child was conceived because the woman was raped. Up to now there was no way to vet whether or not this was true. Now all a woman has to do is provide a copy of the police report.

Well, when my DAD raped me, I was a little scared to file a report, so fark you. Don't pretend that this doesn't happen. Want me to prove to you that it happened? Fark you.

Damn it, I didn't mean to say "prove," but you get the gist. To make it clearer, you expect my 13 year old self to "show" that I filed a police report against the person who had been abusing me, gee, it's just that easy, isn't it?

*Disclosure: I never got pregnant, so I guess I was "lucky" that I didn't have to go through this process.


You obviously did not read the article nor my post.

Once again, in the state if you are on public assistance you only get money for a certain number of children. I forget the real number, but I will say 3 for the sake of the argument. You can get additional money for more children if those children were the result of rape. As it is now anyone can say that they were raped to get assistance and no proof is required. All the state is asking for is proof that the woman reported being raped.

Try reading the full article the next time instead of subby's specious headline.
 
2012-10-25 03:06:19 PM  

Mock26: Siochain: Siochain: Mock26: I support this bill. For one, the woman does not have to prove she was raped. She just has to prove that she reported it (as in showing a copy of the Police Report, which she will automatically receive a copy of when she reports it). Also, the intent is to prevent a woman from defrauding the government. As it is now a mother can only receive funds for up to and including X number of kids. She is not eligible for additional benefits for kid number X + 1, unless the child was conceived because the woman was raped. Up to now there was no way to vet whether or not this was true. Now all a woman has to do is provide a copy of the police report.

Well, when my DAD raped me, I was a little scared to file a report, so fark you. Don't pretend that this doesn't happen. Want me to prove to you that it happened? Fark you.

Damn it, I didn't mean to say "prove," but you get the gist. To make it clearer, you expect my 13 year old self to "show" that I filed a police report against the person who had been abusing me, gee, it's just that easy, isn't it?

*Disclosure: I never got pregnant, so I guess I was "lucky" that I didn't have to go through this process.

You obviously did not read the article nor my post.

Once again, in the state if you are on public assistance you only get money for a certain number of children. I forget the real number, but I will say 3 for the sake of the argument. You can get additional money for more children if those children were the result of rape. As it is now anyone can say that they were raped to get assistance and no proof is required. All the state is asking for is proof that the woman reported being raped.

Try reading the full article the next time instead of subby's specious headline.


And all we're saying is the limit shouldn't be there in the first place.
 
2012-10-25 03:06:47 PM  

Siochain: Damn it, I didn't mean to say "prove," but you get the gist. To make it clearer, you expect my 13 year old self to "show" that I filed a police report against the person who had been abusing me, gee, it's just that easy, isn't it?


If you were trying to claim benefits for your "4th" child and could only get those benefits if the child was the result of rape, then Hell Farking Yeah, I expect you to "show" that you filed a police report against the person who raped you. Of course, one has to wonder why (and how) a 13 year old girl has 4 kids.
 
2012-10-25 03:19:26 PM  
ok at this point in time i really wish some bat shiat insane scientist made somethin we could shove up a male human ass to get em prego.


these friken things will be non existant that day happens.
 
2012-10-25 03:27:14 PM  

SilentStrider: Weaver95: And people wondered why I switched to Democrat....

keep this up and i'm going to have to actually run for office.

Dibs on being your chief of staff.


I'd move back to PA to help with his campaign. Or at least... I'd strongly consider it.
 
2012-10-25 03:29:37 PM  

dready zim: dericwater: dramboxf: Just to be specific, and you can quote me:

Anti-abortion legislation is always, and without fail, anti-f**king legislation.

Without fail.

Anti-f**king is gender neutral. Or rather, would or should affect either gender. The anti-abortion platform has been, and will always be, the anti-women-enjoying-sex-without-protection-for-the-sake-of-sex platform.

FTFY



Well, since they're all against contraception, I think the "without protection" is unnecessary.
 
2012-10-25 03:32:23 PM  

orbister: Genevieve Marie: It always amazes me that the best comparison many men can come up with for rape is property crime. It's... a very dehumanizing way to discuss the subject.

Just as dehumanising as those who think it's only the woman's body that matters.


Guess what? It is all that matters and it's none of your goddamned fetal-worshipping business.

What matters to you? Let me hear you say while you are pro-life, you want to provide accessible and affordable birth control in order to prevent abortions as possible. Let me see you find a humane way to deal with a humane condition: People have a biological drive to and enjoy farking.

But no, you and your ilk want to punish the dirty, dirty whores. So kindly fark off.
 
2012-10-25 03:33:51 PM  

SandMann: Big deal.

If someone is claiming a government handout they should have to prove they qualify. It doesn't matter what it is. If not, the system will be abused.


The amount that anyone can get from abusing the system for TANF type handouts is so minuscule as to be irrelevant. Compare this to the unrestricted financial bailouts and handouts we give to oil companies, banks and other multi-nationals. Shouldn't those have to prove they qualify, as in that they need the handout?
 
2012-10-25 03:38:29 PM  

Brostorm: CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: Brostorm: You can get free condoms ALL OVER THE PLACE. If you are poor you can get free birth control through medicaid or planned parenthood or any of the other thousands of sources. It is a complete and ridiculous lie that birth control is rare or expensive . Hell college GIVE them away too.

I don't understand, there is an EASY way to not have to pay less for poor kids and still pay the same for each kid and that is for there to be LESS kids. Don't you think something like a free IUD would result in less pregnancies than free rubbers? Then they could hump all they want all day long and all you paid for was a little copper T.

Im for free tubal ligation and free IUD. It will cost much less in the long run. The claim that birth control is rare or expensive is still full of crap.

Cost over child bearing years:

METHOD UNINSURED INSURED WHAT'S INCLUDED
IUDs $5,751 $2,875 Doctor's visit, device, insertion, and follow-up care, every 7.5 years
Implanon $16,931 $7,696 Doctor's visit, device, insertion, and removal, every three years
Injections $25,329 $8,372 Doctor's visit, follow-up care, and four injections, every year
Patch $51,946 $9,230 Doctor's visit and an annual supply of patches, every year
Vaginal ring $51,946 $9,230 Doctor's visit and an annual supply of rings, every year
Sterilization $6,000 $1,500 Doctor's visits, surgery, and follow-up care; one time cost

But WHARRRRRRRRRGARBLE BIRTH CONTROL CHEAP TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY STUPID POORS!
Am I right?

condoms=free
cost of them and their childrens lifetime of dependency on the government? MILLIONS.


Condoms are cheap, but not free (except if one goes to PP to grab a handful). But that requires the man to cooperate and put one on. If the guy wants to go bareback, and if the woman doesn't comply, that's legally rape.
 
2012-10-25 03:41:49 PM  

Mock26: Siochain: Damn it, I didn't mean to say "prove," but you get the gist. To make it clearer, you expect my 13 year old self to "show" that I filed a police report against the person who had been abusing me, gee, it's just that easy, isn't it?

If you were trying to claim benefits for your "4th" child and could only get those benefits if the child was the result of rape, then Hell Farking Yeah, I expect you to "show" that you filed a police report against the person who raped you. Of course, one has to wonder why (and how) a 13 year old girl has 4 kids.


So now we're punishing women AND children for the sins of Rapists.

Good to know.
 
2012-10-25 04:13:17 PM  
In a family or in a society, there are always people that need help. There are always people who need way more help than others for way longer. The answer is to keep helping them, not dropping them with no means to better themselves. Because, let's face it, paying a ridiculously small percentage of people who are chronic fark ups to stay home and fark up quietly is better for society.

Self-determination does play a factor, of course, which is why most people are off welfare in a very short time. Some people never are. I'm ok with both scenarios, it's not making them a dependent victim, it is acknowledging that some people can never do better.
 
2012-10-25 04:21:17 PM  
So there's a financial incentive for women to report their child as the product of rape, and lawmakers are seeking to require women who do so at the very least report a rape? Those bastards!
 
2012-10-25 04:22:06 PM  

gadian: Because, let's face it, paying a ridiculously small percentage of people who are chronic fark ups to stay home and fark up quietly is better for society.


Republicans feel otherwise. The republican "philosophy" on welfare is that it's okay to hurt any number of people with legitimate needs in the name of harming even just one cheater. It's a byproduct of the rigid and uncompassionate thinking that makes them conservative to begin with.

It's not even a matter of pragmatism where we might say "well, yes, unfortunately some small number may be harmed unduly, but the cost is acceptable because the reward is high" because that doesn't apply here. It's just a simple matter of a nearly complete lack of empathy for other human beings and a raging desire to hire people they believe to be inferior.

Or, to make it shorter: their philosophy is to be assholes to other people for no real reason.
 
2012-10-25 04:43:25 PM  

BeesNuts: Mock26: Siochain: Damn it, I didn't mean to say "prove," but you get the gist. To make it clearer, you expect my 13 year old self to "show" that I filed a police report against the person who had been abusing me, gee, it's just that easy, isn't it?

If you were trying to claim benefits for your "4th" child and could only get those benefits if the child was the result of rape, then Hell Farking Yeah, I expect you to "show" that you filed a police report against the person who raped you. Of course, one has to wonder why (and how) a 13 year old girl has 4 kids.

So now we're punishing women AND children for the sins of Rapists.

Good to know.


Nope. Now we are punishing those who would lie about being raped to get benefits that they are not qualified to get.
 
2012-10-25 04:44:43 PM  
Yeah, go ahead, keep insisting that there's no "War On Women", GOP. Please.
 
2012-10-25 05:42:49 PM  

Tarkus: Drafted by Pennsylvania lawmakers - State Reps. RoseMarie Swanger (R), Tom Caltagirone (D), Mark Gillen (R), Keith Gillespie (R), Adam Harris (R), and Mike Tobash (R).


Oh well then. Both sides truly are bad.
 
2012-10-25 07:59:48 PM  
I wish I could remember who said it, so I could attribute it properly, but a while back someone said something to the effect that Democrats live their lives in fear that something bad is happening to someone who doesn't deserve it whereas Republicans live their lives in fear that something good is happening to someone who doesn't deserve it.

I don't much like generalizations, but damn if a f*ck ton of politics threads in the past few months done their damnedest to try and confirm it as nearly absolute.
 
2012-10-26 12:59:47 AM  

Kome: I wish I could remember who said it, so I could attribute it properly, but a while back someone said something to the effect that Democrats live their lives in fear that something bad is happening to someone who doesn't deserve it whereas Republicans live their lives in fear that something good is happening to someone who doesn't deserve it.


Democrats hate it when people are innocently hurt while Republicans hate it when people are innocently rewarded.

I like that.

I think the only barometer of its veracity is the lottery.
 
Displayed 474 of 474 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report