You know that phrase, “except in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother”? Well, if the House Republicans get their way, you are going to have to change that to “except in cases of forcible rape, incest with a minor, and the life of the mother.” They are introducing a bill that makes these new distinctions for anyone who might use any federal funds to procure an abortion.

…the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases…

…for example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion…

…Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old’s parents wouldn’t be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn’t be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense.

Let’s set aside the issue of expense and focus on the principle of the thing. What the Republicans are clearly saying here is that it is okay to force a mother to carry her rapist’s child to term in all cases except where clear physical force is used. Implied force wouldn’t be enough. The use of drugs of alcohol to stupify a women into submission would not qualify. Statutory rape that didn’t involve physical force would not qualify. Blackmail wouldn’t qualify. Mental retardation or diminished capacity wouldn’t qualify.

And the question I have about this is rather simple. If you are going to have any kind of exceptions, why draw the line here? The legislation is sloppy, in any case. There is no extant definition of ‘forcible rape’ in the criminal code, and this bill doesn’t provide one. It seems to me that the Republicans are trying to establish the principle that it’s wrong to have an abortion if anyone can possibly construe the woman to have the slightest responsibility for her pregnancy. And I do mean slight.

To me, this transcends the issue of federal funding or even abortion itself. This is a view of womankind as basically duty-bound to carry anyone’s sperm to term no matter how fucked up the circumstances of her pregnancy. The only exceptions are in cases where you removed all possible agency, like by holding a gun or knife to her neck, or by beating her into submission.

Even if you are pretty solidly in favor of embryo-rights trumping women’s rights, this is a horrible way to view women. Somehow making these kind of distinctions seems worse than banning all abortions with no exceptions. I mean, not as policy, but for what it says about the people advocating the policy.

What do you think?