General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTexas (R): Rape victims shouldn’t receive abortion coverage because their claims aren’t “measurable"
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/07/texas_republican_rape_victims_shouldnt_receive_abortion_coverage_because_their_claims_arent_measurable/Im concerned that we may be unintentionally providing cover for perpetrators of crimes, Campbell said. She was then challenged by Democrat Kirk Watson, who pressed her to consider the real-life implications of the law and her amendment.
Would you agree with me that there are instances where a woman could be raped, and because she fears for her life otherwise, would not want to report that to law enforcement officials? Watson asked. Can you conceive of that situation?
Campbell agreed, but continued by identifying the measure as as strictly an insurance bill. Instead of encouraging that hypothetical situation from moving into protection for her by law enforcement, were saying, lets cover that violation with an insurance payment, she said. When she gets the abortion are we empowering the perpetrator, because now out of a coercion she gets an abortion, and its paid for by an insurance company and then it may happen to her again?
Ilsa
(61,698 posts)who needs medical care, the driver's insurance shouldn't pay because it enables bad drivers?
malthaussen
(17,217 posts)The pedestrian in your hypothetical would not be in fear of his life. Whereas the woman in Watson's hypothetical is unwilling to report the rape because she fears for her life.
-- Mal
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Texas Republican State Sen. Donna Campbell fought an amendment on Wednesday that would allow exceptions for rape and incest victims from a measure that otherwise prohibits all insurance coverage for abortion.
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)uppityperson
(115,681 posts)If she gets raped and gets and abortion, then he won't ever have to suffer the consequences and can just rape her again? I mean, wtf?
He will suffer if she bears his child? Huh. nope, that can't be it.
Women who are pregnant or had a child never get raped? Huh. Nope.
He rapes her, then coerces her into and abortion, which he doesn't have to pay for, and so then can rape her again.
Nope. Still stumped for wtf she is talking about.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)are an exercise in mental gymnastics that defy gravity and logic on a scale heretofore not seen. Even Princess Sparklemoose would be proud of the sheer illogic and incomprehensibility of that derailed train of "thought."
Paladin
(28,276 posts)Besides being a right-wing nut case state senator, she's also an emergency room physician.
Her campaign ads didn't show her going about helping people in an ER; they showed her at a gun range, firing a pistol multiple times.
Just wanted to give you an idea of the sort of person you're dealing with.