|
Edited on Sat Aug-25-12 12:52 AM by No Elephants
Besides the stupid wording, I wonder what the non-forcible rape act that Akins and Ryan and many others sponsored tried to do that was any different from what the Hyde Amendment did years ago.
As I understand it, they were out to prohbit federal money from being used for abortions that had resulted from "non forcible rape." The Hyde amendment prohibits use of federal money simply for any abortion. No silly wording, just a blanket prohibition, simply worded, but devasting to poor women.
And, AFAIK, no one in government has tried to get rid of the Hyde Amendment or any of the other federal and state laws laws that have rendered this alleged Constitutional right of women almost meaningless.
Is it at all possible they were actually trying to carve out a small exception to the all-inclusive Hyde amendment, to allow victims of rape federal money for abortions, and we are giving them shit for it because of a poor word choice?
I confess that I am not about to read both bills to find out. Does anyone know?
Still, overall, I wish that some of the energy and focus that has been devoted to "non-forcible" and "legitimate" by the media and others would have been aimed at repealing the Hyde amendment and some of the other insane laws. That effort would be meaningful for poor women. But, i think more air has been devoted to this for more days than was given the trans vaginal wand requirement, for just one thing.
|