Collin Peterson Joins GOP in Seeking to Redefine Rape

Is rape still rape even when it's not committed by force? If the proposed "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" (HR 3) clears the US House, the answer will be "no." 

There are already federal laws in place that restrict taxpayer funding for abortions in cases other than rape or incest. Polls have consistently show that the majority of Americans (from both camps of the abortion issue) support such exemptions. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that 81% believe that abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest. This new law would seek to further such restrictions by redefining exactly what types of rape or incest are valid.

In this bill, "rape" would be changed to "forcible rape"- a term that is not clearly defined, but would likely exclude such instances as being drugged and raped, statutory rape, incapacitated to the extent that one is unable to consent, rape through coercion or threats (to the victim or their family), or being unable to consent due to developmental disabilities. I also fear that it will put greater burden on victims. In many cases, it is hard enough to prove that you were raped, now you must prove that it was done with enough force to justify the term. I guess "no" means "no" unless you don't put up enough of a fight to actually prove that you meant what you said in the first place.

Incest exemptions would only qualify for victims who are minors. If you are 18 or older, it will be treated as a consensual act between adults. Hypothetically speaking this could exclude girls who were victimized throughout their childhood as long as they didn't get pregnant until after their 18th birthday.

Mother Jones points out that this bill restricts tax benefits from being used to cover abortion services. This means your HSA money cannot be used and any expenses you incur will not be deductible. Tax credits offered to purchase healthcare plans would not be able to be used for any policy that has abortion coverage.

As expected, the DCCC has already posted a petition encouraging people to "denounce Republicans' extremist legislation." But it should be noted that although this bill was authored by a Republican and primarily supported by Republicans, it also currently has ten Democratic co-sponsors, including the 7th District's own Collin Peterson.

I shouldn't be surprised. I really shouldn't. These days even Tony Sutton seems to think that Collin Peterson is a Republican. But it's still frustrating. If you want to take a stand on abortion, that's fine. But don't go after victims of rape and incest in the process.

If you feel as strongly about this as I do, especially those of you in the 7th CD,  I encourage you to contact Rep. Peterson.

Constrasting the 6th District Campaigns

Last night challengers Tarryl Clark (DFL) and Bob Anderson (I) participated in a debate in Stillwater.

Where was Michele Bachmann??



I assume this will become a major talking point in the Clark and Anderson campaigns in these last few weeks leading up to election day.

Taking a Hard Turn to the Right

Today I came across an election report card of sorts from the Republican National Coalition For Life PAC. Yeah, I had never heard of them before either. Their primary goal is to support Republican candidates who are "pro-life without discrimination." What does that mean? In their own words, it means that they support candidates who "do not justify abortion for babies who are conceived through rape or incest, have a handicap, or a genetic defect." And although it doesn't specifically say so, the other language they use as well as their survey questions seem to indicate that they also do not support abortion in instances where the mother's life is in danger.

I grew up with a father who works with the developmentally disabled. So I can agree with them on the issue of aborting a baby who is likely to be developmentally disabled. I get that. But the part where they veer away from most people in the mainstream, even Conservatives, is their firm opposition to abortion in cases of rape or incest. This is a controversial stance even among many Republicans. Although I personally believe we should continually work to reduce the number of abortions, I can't imagine looking a teenage girl in the eye and saying "Sorry. You're just going to have to carry your father's baby to term." The thought horrifies me.

I point out this report card, because there are three candidates for congress in the state of Minnesota that received the highest mark from RNC/Life PAC by stating that they too are "pro-life without discrimination."
Those candidates are Teresa Collett who is running against DFL incumbent Betty McCollum in CD-04, CD-06 incumbent Michele Bachmann who is facing challenger Tarryl Clark this fall, and Lee Byberg who is challenging Colin Peterson for the CD-07 seat in western Minnesota. All three have been endorsed by and will receive funds from this group. (A group that also opposes the Women's Equality Amendment.)

I just thought this ranking and the subsequent endorsements would be of interest those who live in their districts.

Taxing Your Corndogs (Posted by Request)

Recently someone requested that I write a post to  address the latest claims by Michele Bachmann (via "Jim the Election Guy") that Tarryl Clark voted to "tax your corndog." This has already been addressed by a number of sources, but I'll give a quick run down here.

If you haven't seen the ad in question, this is it:



Lucky for us, we don't even need to speculate exactly what tax vote the Bachmann campaign is referring to when they mention bacon and corndogs. They provide us the source on their website. The main source listed says that Tarryl "Voted FOR a constitutional amendment which raised the state sales tax by 3/8 of one percent. (Minnesota Senate, S.F. 2734, SJ4525, April 3, 2006)" I know what you must be thinking..."Huh, I don't remember a constitutional amendment about corndogs ever being on my ballot." The constitutional amendment cited here is actually the legacy amendment. It was a constitutional amendment that was on the ballot to let Minnesotans vote to decide whether or not to approve a 3/8 of one percent tax increase to go towards dedicated funding for the Minnesota environment, arts, and culture. Tarryl Clark did not vote implement this tax. She voted to allow Minnesotans to decide whether or not they wanted to approve such an amendment. They did. The amendment passed and taxes went up because the majority of Minnesotans decided to raise them. It was the voters' final decision and not a decision of congress.

The bottom line is that Bachmann's ad could have just as well said "While you're the fair, ask yourself: 'What's up with taxing my own corndog?'"