One of the most disturbing experiences that any human being could encounter is rape. According to Dictionary.com, rape is defined as the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. Essentially this means the act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. What is interesting about this definition is that it implies that women are always the victims and cannot rape men. Most people in society agree with the general definition and that rape is unacceptable but problems arise when the woman becomes pregnant as a rape victim. Many would think that out of all cases, the only acceptable time to have an abortion would be when it comes to rape or if the mother’s health was in jeopardy. Without a question, the mother should be able to have a choice in these situations if she would like to have her baby. In most instances this has been the case, but recently Republicans are looking to make this change in order to save a few bucks. The government has been able to manipulate the definition of rape so that the only rape that Medicaid would cover would be “forcible rape” indicating that statutory rape or “date rape” would not count. Due to the new definition of rape one can argue that this new law will prevent many women from being able to have an abortion.
A newspaper article in “The BG News” titled New Definition of rape to limit women’s access to abortion by columnist Kate Noftsinger that was written this past February does a good job explaining the new definition of rape that the government is trying to implicate. Essentially, the government is basically re-defining the words of something that was originally self-explanatory. According to data collected in 2007, nearly 12.6 million women (approx 61.6 percent) of adult female Medicaid enrolees were of the childbearing age. Looking at this number, none of these women have legal rights to have an abortion unless they are able to pay for the procedure out of their own pocket. This means that Medicaid does not pay for any sort of abortion. The legislative branch believed that this was too harsh and that Medicaid can still be used for abortion when it comes to rape, incest or to save the mother’s life. To any civilized person, this would seem more than reasonable. The article argues though that if you are a woman that is dependent on the government, you do not have the right to choose unless you are a victim of a crime or if the baby is causing harm to your own health. The bigger issue here is the fact that statutory rape would not be covered and that for incest victims, coverage would only be provided to those who were under the age of 18 years old. What does this imply? That since the victim is over 18 it is not considered bad because they might get pleasure out of it? This sounds ridiculous because incest is incest. Why is age a factor here? But then you begin to realize their main motive. Money. People who are over the age of 18 years old have a greater chance of earning enough money to pay for an abortion on their own if needed. Thus, less need to spend taxpayers money on abortion. Due to these changes, many women that are on government help may not be able to have an abortion.
The wording of the new definition of rape is tricky to evaluate because there is no set in stone way of determining if a certain rape instance applies or meets the new criteria. How is “forcible rape” determined? If you asked a person on the street what rape was, probability suggests most would agree with the dictionary definition that rape is the act of having sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. Others would agree that statutory rape is definitely considered rape and should be a part of the abortion act. This is very disturbing and many people that are pro-abortion and pro-choice are not impressed with statutory rape being removed from Medicaid. Personally, removing this type of rape from the abortion act boggles my mind because the victim is not even fully conscious of the event. The victim has been drugged with some illegal substance and has been taken advantage of, and in the end if she becomes pregnant it’s her responsibility to either pay for the abortion, have and raise the baby, or put it up for adoption. The article argues that since the definition is so problematic and if this term is allowed to impact legislation, than only a fourth of these rape crimes would qualify to receive proper legal and medical attention. Noftsinger argues that this is unjust and that every victim deserves to be handled with care.
An interesting statistic found by the National Center for Victims of Crime, suggests that 77% of all rapes are acquaintance rapes indicating that women are mostly being raped by people that they know. Also, the article further indicates that these rapes are hardly ever reported to the police. This idea is very scary and makes women always alert. Susan Brownmiller in Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape states that women are trained to be rape victims and that unless we watch our steps it might become our destiny (EFR, 313). Ironically, Brownmiller argues that there is no such thing as forcible rape. She believes that due to the notion that men rape in the name of their masculinity, they believe that women also want rape done in the name of their femininity (EFR, 314). This idea suggests that no women can be raped against her will implying that there is no such thing as forcible rape. Thus, if there is no such thing as forcible rape then the new definition of rape would not be valid. In the end, in order for women to be able to make changes they have to stand up for their own rights. In 1971, a group of 343 French women announced publicly that they all have had an abortion and that they demand the right to free abortions for every woman (EFR, 357). In order for the new definition to be changed, women need to protest like those in 1971 so that those in power do not take away anymore of our rights.
The BG News Article:
http://bgnews.com/wire/new-definition-of-rape-to-limit-womens-access-to-abortion/
No comments:
Post a Comment