Tópico: GOP quer o fim do aborto com dinheiro público em casos de estupro "não forçado"

[Buckaroo Banzai]

O GOP (o partido republicano dos EUA) quer redefinir os tipos de estupro onde é permissível o aborto financiado com dinheiro público, para incluir apenas estupro com uso de força e incesto, de forma que mulheres que não tenham reagido suficientemente, que tenham sido drogadas, que sejam retardadas, ou meninas menores de idade que tenham sido estupradas por alguém além do próprio pai não usem dinheiro dos impostos para abortar.

Redefining rape
from The RBC by Mark Kleiman

Should a twelve-year-old girl impregnated by her mother’s boyfriend be forced to carry the child to term? Yes she should, according to 173 House Republicans, including the Speaker. Because she wasn’t the victim of forcible rape, you see. And since “mother’s boyfriend” isn’t a legally recognized status, she’s not technically the victim of “incest,” either.

James Joyner is right to point out that the “rape exception” to anti-abortion laws makes either no sense or the wrong kind of sense. If bans on abortion reflect the inalienable human rights of the fertilized egg, then surely those rights can’t be diminished by the conditions of conception. The “except for rape” rule would be justified only if the point of the law is to punish women for having sex. (That is the point, of course, which is why the “pro-life” lobby is strongly anti-contraception and anti-sex education. But it wouldn’t do to say so.)

Still, the gross (in both senses of the term) injustice of forcing a woman to bear her rapist’s child means that absolute bans on abortion have very little support among the voters. And the right-to-lifers have generally been satisfied with something that, according to the logic of their own position, shouldn’t satisfy them at all.

But the vicious lunacy of the new Republican majority in the house seemingly knows no bounds. H.R. 3, “The No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act,” – identified as a high priority by Speaker John Boehner – reiterates current law banning the use of federal funds for abortion, but changes the rape exemption to provide that funding shall be available “if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest.”

The key word is “forcible.” Date-rape, rape by drugs, and statutory rape are all excluded. So my hypothetical twelve-year-old – and some uncounted number of not-so-hypothetical victims of other “non-forcible” rapes each year – are S.O.L.

If the Republicans were trying to eliminate the rape exception entirely, they could at least lay claim to a sort of foolish consistency. But given that they’re willing to deprive some fetuses of their inalienable right to life in justice to their innocent mothers, the decision to proclaim that a large class of rape victims is not innocent can only be called stupid and heartless.

It’s time for Democrats – and sensible people of other political persuasions – to start calling the Republicans on their mindless extremism. The downside of Barack Obama’s bipartisan rhetoric is that he hasn’t clearly explained to the country that the days when there were two responsible political parties contending for power are over, at least for now. But that just puts the burden on the rest of us to make that case.

Footnote And Michelle Bachmann has decided that tax cuts for the rich are not only more important than education for they young, they’re more important than decent treatment for wounded warriors. Where do they find these people? If Democrats can’t make Republicans pay a political price for this sort of nonsense …

http://www.samefacts.com/2011/01/uncategorized/redefining-rape/

[Liddell Heart]

Acho até interessante os republicanos serem a favor de qualquer aborto com dinheiro público. Alguém sabe a postura dos membros Tea Party, da ala conservadora e da libertária?   

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Os tea partiers me parecem ser os conservadores menos politicamente instruídos, basicamente massa de manipulação dos políticos e público alvo dos Glenn Becks da vida. Não me parece haver exatamente libertários entre eles. Os libertários mais historicamente aliados aos republicanos parecem recentemente ter preferido se associar aos "liberais", democratas, no que foi apelidado de "liberaltarians".

[Liddell Heart]

Os tea partiers me parecem ser os conservadores menos politicamente instruídos, basicamente massa de manipulação dos políticos e público alvo dos Glenn Becks da vida. Não me parece haver exatamente libertários entre eles. Os libertários mais historicamente aliados aos republicanos parecem recentemente ter preferido se associar aos "liberais", democratas, no que foi apelidado de "liberaltarians".

Existem duas alas do Tea Party, a conservadora e a libertária, pelo menos foi isso o que eu li aqui

[Gaúcho]

Santa idiotice.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Eu realmente não sei muito sobre isso, e a impressão que tenho é que é um exagero colocar esses contrários a política externa/militar como alinhados com libertários ou o Ron Paul.

Se bobear, parte deles é daqueles que apoiava as mesmas coisas quando era o Bush na cadeira presidencial, mas agora, sendo o Obama, de repente ele fez tudo errado, fazendo a mesma coisa. E como envolve dinheiro dos impostos, bem, não pode ser feito. Isso é basicamente o que ocorre com todas as outras posições deles.

Eu noto um monte de similaridades em republicanos e petistas, só que inversas em certos aspectos. Assim como Lula deu continuidade a FHC, mas os petistas o idolatram e colocam como o salvador da pátria, Obama praticamente segue na mesma linha de Bush, e os republicanos o vêem como o mais inepto presidente de todos os tempos/queniano/etc. A inversão aí é só a ordem dos presidentes eleitos. Sem inversão a o ranço pelas elites e cair facilmente em lábias populistas e propostas que ferem aos interesses deles mesmos -- como é o caso com o plano de impostos republicano (e petista), regressivos, comparado ao democrata, progressivos.

[Liddell Heart]

Eu realmente não sei muito sobre isso, e a impressão que tenho é que é um exagero colocar esses contrários a política externa/militar como alinhados com libertários ou o Ron Paul.

O Filho do Ron, Rand Paul, é, até onde eu sei, membro do partido/movimento. Mas ele me aparenta ser mais conservador e menos libertário que o pai.
Enfim, resta saber quem vai "assumir" em 2012, mas espero que não seja Sarah Palin e os "neo-conservadores". 

[_Juca_]

Estupro não forçado é ler essas sandices do conservacionismo americano.

[Barata Tenno]

Estupro não forçado é ler essas sandices do conservacionismo americano.

Não fica meio como ler " água não-molhada"?

[_Juca_]

Estupro não forçado é ler essas sandices do conservacionismo americano.

Não fica meio como ler " água não-molhada"?

É, não faz o menor sentido.

[Hold the Door]

Estupro não forçado é ler essas sandices do conservacionismo americano.

Não fica meio como ler " água não-molhada"?

É, não faz o menor sentido.

Curioso como a idéia conservadora americana sobre estupro é muito parecida com a idéia que impera em muitos países islamicos conservadores...

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Eu realmente não sei muito sobre isso, e a impressão que tenho é que é um exagero colocar esses contrários a política externa/militar como alinhados com libertários ou o Ron Paul.

O Filho do Ron, Rand Paul, é, até onde eu sei, membro do partido/movimento. Mas ele me aparenta ser mais conservador e menos libertário que o pai.
Enfim, resta saber quem vai "assumir" em 2012, mas espero que não seja Sarah Palin e os "neo-conservadores". 

Tea Party Conservatives Are Not Like Other Conservatives

Such is the conclusion of a new survey by political scientist Chris Parker of the University of Washington. Here is one finding:

To capture the difference between the two camps, we asked whether or not people thought the following proposition true: "Barack Obama is destroying the country." If Tea Party conservatives were as extreme as some suggest, we thought asking a question of this type, i.e., fairly extreme, would tease out differences between the two camps. The data suggest the two conservative factions are divided on this question. Under these circumstances, 6% of non-Tea Party conservatives believe the president is destroying the country versus the 71% of Tea Party conservatives who believe this to be true.

This was derived from a list experiment -- a research design that helps to uncover sentiments that a person might normally want to hide. (An example is here.) Another tidbit:

More than twice as many Tea Party conservatives desire to see the president's policies fail (76%) than non-Tea Party conservatives (32%). Why might this be the case?...Perhaps it's because three quarters (75 ) of Tea Party conservatives believe that President Obama's policies are socialist compared to 40 of non-Tea Party conservatives...

Find more here.

http://www.themonkeycage.org/2011/03/tea_party_conservatives_are_no.html

[Liddell Heart]

Eu realmente não sei muito sobre isso, e a impressão que tenho é que é um exagero colocar esses contrários a política externa/militar como alinhados com libertários ou o Ron Paul.

O Filho do Ron, Rand Paul, é, até onde eu sei, membro do partido/movimento. Mas ele me aparenta ser mais conservador e menos libertário que o pai.
Enfim, resta saber quem vai "assumir" em 2012, mas espero que não seja Sarah Palin e os "neo-conservadores". 

Tea Party Conservatives Are Not Like Other Conservatives

Such is the conclusion of a new survey by political scientist Chris Parker of the University of Washington. Here is one finding:

To capture the difference between the two camps, we asked whether or not people thought the following proposition true: "Barack Obama is destroying the country." If Tea Party conservatives were as extreme as some suggest, we thought asking a question of this type, i.e., fairly extreme, would tease out differences between the two camps. The data suggest the two conservative factions are divided on this question. Under these circumstances, 6% of non-Tea Party conservatives believe the president is destroying the country versus the 71% of Tea Party conservatives who believe this to be true.

This was derived from a list experiment -- a research design that helps to uncover sentiments that a person might normally want to hide. (An example is here.) Another tidbit:

More than twice as many Tea Party conservatives desire to see the president's policies fail (76%) than non-Tea Party conservatives (32%). Why might this be the case?...Perhaps it's because three quarters (75 ) of Tea Party conservatives believe that President Obama's policies are socialist compared to 40 of non-Tea Party conservatives...

Find more here.

http://www.themonkeycage.org/2011/03/tea_party_conservatives_are_no.html

 

 Isso me lembra Murray Rothbard, tecendo críticas aos libertários que se aliam aos conservadores; estes não percebem que muitos conservadores são mais repulsivos que uma boa parte dos socialistas e ignoram a histórica contenda entre os liberais e os defensores do status quo, ou ancien régime, como o próprio Murray relata.


O Libertarian Party é realmente independente do GOP? 

[Buckaroo Banzai]

King: Babies In Garbage Cans Prove Health Reform Is Unconstitutional (VIDEO)
Rachel Slajda | January 6, 2011, 3:34PM


Rep. Steve King (R-IA), master of the pithy C-SPAN clip, made an original argument today for why health care reform is unconstitutional during an emergency House rules meeting about the GOP's upcoming vote to repeal it.

After Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) said that health insurance counts as interstate commerce and therefore falls under the Congress's constitutional powers, King argued that there are people who never even use health care -- and therefore a law requiring them to buy insurance is unconstitutional.

"There have always been and likely will always be, babies that were born, lived and died within the jurisdictions of the individual states," he said, "who never cross a state line, access no health care and therefore do not impact interstate commerce. Therefore, to compel someone who fits that category to buy an insurance policy" does not fit under the interstate commerce clause.

"You find the baby that was not born in a hospital or with a midwife, who did not receive inoculations," Polis said. "You find that baby and identify them and I'll be happy to have that discussion."

"I hate to tell you but they show up in garbage cans around this country, sir," he said.

Polis was more or less speechless.


http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/king_babies_in_garbage_cans_prove_health_reform_is.php

The G.O.P.’s Abandoned Babies
By CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: February 25, 2011


Republicans need to figure out where they stand on children’s welfare. They can’t be “pro-life” when the “child” is in the womb but indifferent when it’s in the world. Allow me to illustrate just how schizophrenic their position has become through the prism of premature babies.



Of the 33 countries that the International Monetary Fund describes as “advanced economies,” the United States now has the highest infant mortality rate according to data from the World Bank. It took us decades to arrive at this dubious distinction. In 1960, we were 15th. In 1980, we were 13th. And, in 2000, we were 2nd.

Part of the reason for our poor ranking is that declines in our rates stalled after premature births — a leading cause of infant mortality as well as long-term developmental disabilities — began to rise in the 1990s.

The good news is that last year the National Center for Health Statistics reported that the rate of premature births fell in 2008, representing the first two-year decline in the last 30 years.

Dr. Jennifer L. Howse, the president of the March of Dimes, which in 2003 started a multimillion-dollar premature birth campaign focusing on awareness and education, has said of the decline: “The policy changes and programs to prevent preterm birth that our volunteers and staff have worked so hard to bring about are starting to pay off.”

The bad news is that, according to the March of Dimes, the Republican budget passed in the House this month could do great damage to this progress. The budget proposes:

• $50 million in cuts to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant that “supports state-based prenatal care programs and services for children with special needs.”

• $1 billion in cuts to programs at the National Institutes of Health that support “lifesaving biomedical research aimed at finding the causes and developing strategies for preventing preterm birth.”

• Nearly $1 billion in cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for its preventive health programs, including to its preterm birth studies.

This is the same budget in which House Republicans voted to strip all federal financing for Planned Parenthood.

It is savagely immoral and profoundly inconsistent to insist that women endure unwanted — and in some cases dangerous — pregnancies for the sake of “unborn children,” then eliminate financing designed to prevent those children from being delivered prematurely, rendering them the most fragile and vulnerable of newborns. How is this humane?

And it doesn’t even make economic sense. A 2006 study by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies estimated that premature births cost the country at least $26 billion a year. At that rate, reducing the number of premature births by just 10 percent would save thousands of babies and $2.6 billion — more than the proposed cuts to the programs listed, programs that also provide a wide variety of other services.

This type of budgetary policy is penny-wise and pound-foolish — and ultimately deadly. Think about that the next time you hear Republican representatives tout their “pro-life” bona fides. Think about that the next time someone uses the heinous term “baby killer.” 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/opinion/26blow.html?_r=3

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Deputado americano anti-aborto defende que estupro 'legítimo' não engravida

Atualizado em  20 de agosto, 2012 - 13:26 (Brasília) 16:26 GMT


Um deputado americano causou polêmica nos Estados Unidos ao declarar que os corpos das mulheres são naturalmente capazes de evitar gravidez caso elas sejam vítimas de um "legítimo estupro".

[...]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/portuguese/noticias/2012/08/120820_estupro_deputado_ru.shtml