Wednesday, February 02, 2011

Incendiary Tactics Find a Home on Facebook

I used to get moveon.org updates, but now I can gauge what's got the Left in a tizzy by my scanning my facebook homepage (I must examine why I have so many Libbie friends..)

Today's outcry reads:

Republicans want to change the law so only certain types of rape "count."

And you can only imagine the slew of incendiary comments that follow. So I went and looked up the origin of this latest of histrionics --something the other side of the aisle seems incapable of doing...

This is referring to NJ Representative Chris Smith's "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 3)."

"[The bill] proposes making permanent some federal bans for abortion funding - including the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits health-care programs like Medicaid from covering abortions except in cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother's life. The Hyde Amendment is a provision that requires annual renewal by Congress that has been in place since 1976.

The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," which currently has the support of 173 House members (including 10 Democrats), also prohibits employers and self-insured Americans from using tax breaks to buy private health insurance that covers abortion.

But the provision of H.R. 3 that has drawn the most widespread criticism from advocates of abortion rights is one regarding the exemption of pregnancies resulting from rape. The bill exempts a woman from the Hyde Amendment limitations only if she has become pregnant as the result of "forcible rape."

Critics argue that specifying the terms of rape as "forcible" in the legislation qualifies as a redefinition that excludes other forms of sexual assault - including statutory rape, which is often non-forcible.

Rep. Daniel Lipinski, one of the Democrats sponsoring H.R. 3, said in a statement it "was not intended to change existing law regarding taxpayer funding for abortion in cases of rape, nor is it expected that it would do so." (Rep. Smith did not respond to multiple requests for comment regarding the language of the bill.)" (SOURCE)

It's things like this that rob my civility...quickly. This is meant to inflame and mislead. It is done knowing that most people will forward 'shocking' messages to their entire contact list without ever checking the news, snopes, or urbanlegends.com to even see if what they're inundating their friends with is true.

Once again, they are inflating a non-issue to obscure the real issue. No one wants to take away legal definitions of rape and they know that. But they also know that a majority of the country doesn't believe that tax payer money should be used for abortions and the HUGE money-making machine that is the abortion lobby abhors that...because abortion IS legal after all...so why can't they have their fair share of the pie. And if they need to used RAPE headlines as an end to their means? So be it. I'm just bummed that so many of my acquaintances play right into their bloody hands...

No comments: