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  
•       •       •

8715 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Oct 2012 at 1:53 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 474 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report