Saturday, 29 January 2011

Rapist Protection Act, 2011

In their obsessive compulsive campaign to control and punish women, fetus fetishists in the US have hit on a genius new ploy. Rethuglicans redefine rape.
With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape."

Simply horrific.
In an effort to prove that irony is alive and well, Smith has given his Rapist Protection Act of 2011 the nickname: “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”. 173 Republicans have rushed to support this effort to punish victims of rape and give predators ongoing power over their victims and the peace of mind that comes with the Bill’s assurance that anybody they get pregnant will be forced by the State to carry the child to term.

Well, we know fetush fetishists want to turn back the clock.
"This bill takes us back to a time when just saying 'no' wasn't enough to qualify as rape," says Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser to the National Women's Law Center. Laurie Levenson, a former assistant US attorney and expert on criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, notes that the new bill's authors are "using language that's not particularly clear, and some people are going to lose protection." Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes. "There are a lot of aspects of rape that are not included," Levenson says.

Here's Melissa McEwan:
There are so many things wrong with this proposed legislation, I hardly know where to begin: The implicit redefinition of what constitutes rape, the ramifications of that redefinition for all survivors of sexual violence (not just the pregnant ones), the revictimization of survivors, the policing of women's bodies and choices, the auditing and ranking of survivors of rape, the auditing and ranking of various acts of rape itself, the condescending and infantilizing paternalism that Other People know what's best for a pregnant woman and survivor of rape, the virtual impossibility of being able to "prove," presumably in a court of law, that one was raped (forcibly or otherwise) in time to secure an abortion... There are so many rape culture tropes being served here, I could frankly spend the entire day documenting the innumerable manifestations of misogynistic fuckery at work here.

But instead I'm going to focus on but one truly shocking aspect of this proposed legislation which probably won't get a whole lot of attention: The proposed law effectively, if not by design, gives veto control over terminating pregnancies resulting from rape to the rapist.

A Twitter campaign has begun.

Use the hashtag #DearJohn to send the Orange Cry-Baby, @johnboehner, a message.

I'm thinking -- no, I'd better not. I'll tweet when I cool down a little.

Dear goddess, what kind of society is the US turning into?


Pseudz said...

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.” M. Mead.

The thing that I find amazing about this is that the folks who seek to enact this astoundingly backward step are career politicians. It must be the case that they don't need the work - insulated, patrician-class hobbyists pushing their "I'll touch your junk if I want to." agenda.

Scary, scary shit - us with an election coming, and all.

Beijing York said...

Holy crappola, are these people insane?

What next, it's not rape unless the woman is dead and/or mutilated?

Sixth Estate said...

Unless I'm missing something, what they're changing isn't the rape crime law, but the coverage-for-abortions law. Which sadly is just as typical: hold the woman responsible for the consequences.

I'm bewildered how they think this will work. Will they create "Rape Panels" to hear applications for abortions?

fern hill said...

Sixth Estate: Yes, I think you've got it. And the incredible irony of 'rape panels'.

Beijing York said...

Well they had "justification panels" in Ontario that would decide your fate with respect to allowing abortions. We seem to be constantly treading water to keep what rights we have attained.

fern hill said...

Beijing York: That was a bit different. Those panels were made up of doctors to whom one had to justify medical/psychological need. Cruel but. . .

Who would sit on rape panels? Cops? Prosecutors? Who could possibly qualify to judge whether a rape was 'forcible' enough?

Post a Comment