i grant all your bullet points, and recognize that they're terrible things, but i'm still not really convinced that any of them constitute ‘redefining rape’. in the absolute worst case, this law has the impact of ending all rape-related federal abortion funding. that would seriously suck, but i don't see any evidence that it would do that by denying that any of the rapes involved were in fact rapes.
the law doesn't say ‘rape = forcible rape’ it says ‘only forcible rape gets funding. we won't tell you what forcible rape is.’ there are a lot of reasons why the latter is bad law and bad policy, but it's still not the same as the former.
really, my only point is that saying that the bill is ‘redefining rape’ is inaccurate. that doesn't mean that i think anything about the bill is even remotely okay.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
30/1/11 03:16 (UTC)the law doesn't say ‘rape = forcible rape’ it says ‘only forcible rape gets funding. we won't tell you what forcible rape is.’ there are a lot of reasons why the latter is bad law and bad policy, but it's still not the same as the former.
really, my only point is that saying that the bill is ‘redefining rape’ is inaccurate. that doesn't mean that i think anything about the bill is even remotely okay.