If it were wrong to paint a wall on Thursdays...

Let's get hypothetical.

If it were wrong to paint a wall on Thursdays, then it would always be wrong to do so.

It would be wrong to do even if late on a Wednesday some stranger broke in and painted it a color you hate. It would be wrong even someone knocked it down and built a new unpainted wall and you had guests coming over the next day. If it is wrong to paint that wall on Thursday, it stays wrong.

This is a bad metaphor but it's a clear one I think. If something is wrong objectively, it stays wrong regardless of the circumstances.

If abortion is wrong, it's wrong no matter the reason. (It is wrong btw)

That said, we don't live in a black and white world and black and white legislation isn't always a good idea.

So today we're talking about the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act."

First let's say what H.R.3 is. The bill is designed to do what it says, prevent federal funding from being used for abortions.

The reason for this bill is to replace a patchwork of other laws that do the same thing. Legally it changes almost nothing about federal funding for abortion which pretty much already isn't allowed under the new health care law with the usual exceptions.

This bill does change those exceptions. At the moment, medicaid (federal money and mostly what we're talking about) allows abortions to be covered if the pregnancy is a result of rape, incest or there is risk to the mothers health.

Conservative lawmakers are essentially adding the word "forcible" in front of rape which brings about the hubabuloo.

The bulk of complaints focus on section 309 which reads

The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--

‘(1) 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; or

‘(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

At first glance this is a bit heartless. What about statutory rape? What about coerced rape? This wording COULD be interpreted as saying if the rape isn't physically violent it doesn't count, which is inconsistent with why these exceptions are around and even supported by some pro-lifers.

But that's not why they wrote it that way. That's just a sign they're not writing a good bill here. What the bill seeks to prevent is federal funding going for regret victims, not rape victims.

Before I go on I know some pro-lifers want no exceptions and most pro-choicers want abortion to be ultra available. I know. Neither one of us are getting our way today so let's move on for the moment.

At the moment there is no burden of proof to get medicaid funding for abortion if you were raped. If you and longtime buddy Steve get hammered on a Tuesday and make a baby and three weeks later you regret it, you can claim rape and if you qualify for medicaid, boom it's paid for.

Every system can be abused and that was the basis for this law, stopping that abuse. This bill does not effect the criminal charges of rape, it has no effect on crime or punishment, its an administrative idea for a change to stop a system from being abused.

If I had it my way all abortion would be illegal but if I had my way there would be no rape either.

H.R. 3 was a good idea, poorly written, to fix a problem that needs to be fixed.

My solution?

There isn't time usually in the gestation cycle to get a rape conviction so we can't wait for that. If a women meets one of the exceptions however, before getting funding perhaps they should have to at least file a charge of rape/incest etc. with the police. I know that's not asking an easy thing in many cases. It could also still be abused, but filing a false report is a crime so that should help cut it down.

As it stands our tax dollars are being used to give women who are abusing the system a way out. It's a waste of money, and it leads to more abortions, which is also bad.

This money should still be used, so long as abortion is legal, for those who legitimately meet the exceptions but for those using abortion as a form of birth control on the taxpayer dime, it's time for a change.

Too bad that change wouldn't be the right one if this bill passed, which is isn't likely to be...which mean's there was no real point to this blog.

Your thoughts?