House Republicans Plan to Redefine Rape

House Republicans Plan to Redefine Rape

There are 190 comments on the KVOR-AM Colorado Springs story from Jan 31, 2011, titled House Republicans Plan to Redefine Rape. In it, KVOR-AM Colorado Springs reports that:

Rape is only really rape if it involves force, according to the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KVOR-AM Colorado Springs.

First Prev
of 10
Next Last

“My Commander-in-Chi ef!”

Since: Jun 07

Obama got Osama!

#1 Jan 31, 2011
Another wonderful policy that the GOP plans to push through the House that is on the issue of JOB CREATION AND GROWTH.

This should go over well with female voters as they obviously will want to have the GOP tell them that if they are raped, it is only really rape if the guy beats them first. Oh, and if they get pregnant from that non-rape, then they have to have the non-rapist offspring.

I can see so many women coming out to support this republican policyÂ… or should I say support the Democrat that will run against them.
harvey

Columbus, OH

#3 Jan 31, 2011
Just when you think reTHUGlicans have reached bottom, they surprise you by coming up with something so sick, so twisted, so hateful that everything that went before seems tame.

Suffice to say that every rePIGlican who supports or votes for this measure at ANY point in the process should be removed from office ASAP, and disgraced for life.

Utterly disgusting...utterly shameless.

Damn them to hell.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#4 Jan 31, 2011
At least GOPasaurs are focused like a laser on JOBS JOBS JOBS!

Since: Dec 07

Clermont, Florida

#5 Jan 31, 2011
Nothing about being beaten first! Force is anything against her will...and I agree with this "change". It's about time the guys stop getting 20 years to life in prison because some 15 year old girl consented, then backed out of her consent because Daddy finds out she's been fooling around with an older guy.

That has never been right, but it's happened.
harvey

Columbus, OH

#6 Jan 31, 2011
Dismayed wrote:
Nothing about being beaten first! Force is anything against her will...and I agree with this "change". It's about time the guys stop getting 20 years to life in prison because some 15 year old girl consented, then backed out of her consent because Daddy finds out she's been fooling around with an older guy.
That has never been right, but it's happened.
So rape of young teen girls is not that big a deal for you...wow, I hear that and am DISGUSTED by it...
Agitator

Broken Arrow, OK

#7 Jan 31, 2011
Why so they can not be convicted of rape?

Since: Dec 07

Clermont, Florida

#8 Jan 31, 2011
harvey wrote:
<quoted text>
So rape of young teen girls is not that big a deal for you...wow, I hear that and am DISGUSTED by it...
Did you not understand the word "consent"? That's not rape. And in case you're wondering, there are hundreds, probably thousands of teen girls who are sexually active...they are NOT raped.
Tired of mooches

Denver, CO

#9 Jan 31, 2011
Ok. I am aRepublican and this is the epitome of STUPID. This isn't about consensual sex, this about abortion laws, and ideology. We saw the Dems overstep and use their victory in 2008 unwisely to grind their axe and we saw the backlash in 2010. Not only is this stupid politically, but it is stupid morally. The right needs to STOP with the anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-woman moral majority crap and do what conservatives should do- reduce the need for subsidization and provide for the roads and defense and then gtf OUT of legislating morality.

I'm no liberal but some things are just WRONG.
Shady Lady

Westmont, IL

#10 Jan 31, 2011
The only part of rape they are redefining has to do with who pays for the pregancies of women who cry rape. Sometimes they cry rape to fall under the Abortion laws paid for by the American taxpayer. If we made every woman who cries rape to bring charges against the so called rapist we wouldn't be paying millions of dollars for abortions. See, women lie about being raped, especially if it looks like they will have to pay for the abortion. Do women get raped? Yes, they do, and they bring charges against the rapist.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#11 Jan 31, 2011
Rape is what the Republican party is trying to do to this nation.
harvey

Columbus, OH

#12 Jan 31, 2011
Dismayed wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you not understand the word "consent"? That's not rape. And in case you're wondering, there are hundreds, probably thousands of teen girls who are sexually active...they are NOT raped.
I don't believe there are any states where 15-year-old girls can legally "consent," troll creep, but again, it's useful that you're defining yourself as a supporter of rape, statutory or otherwise.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#13 Jan 31, 2011
Dismayed wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you not understand the word "consent"? That's not rape. And in case you're wondering, there are hundreds, probably thousands of teen girls who are sexually active...they are NOT raped.
A child CAN NOT GIVE CONSENT! This includes all under the age of 18 in this country. Now, what else are you guys gonna do - I mean, if you guys don't consider sex with a 14 year rape, are you now going to re-write the laws so people over 18 can't get convicted of statutory rape?

Why aren't you rethuglicans FOCUSING ON JOBS - YOUR SUPPOSED #1 PRIORITY?

Isn't that what you guys claim you were put into office for?
harvey

Columbus, OH

#14 Jan 31, 2011
Shady Lady wrote:
The only part of rape they are redefining has to do with who pays for the pregancies of women who cry rape. Sometimes they cry rape to fall under the Abortion laws paid for by the American taxpayer. If we made every woman who cries rape to bring charges against the so called rapist we wouldn't be paying millions of dollars for abortions. See, women lie about being raped, especially if it looks like they will have to pay for the abortion. Do women get raped? Yes, they do, and they bring charges against the rapist.
Wrong, Scummy Lady. They're redefining rape for the purpose of denying women medical support for the abortions they should have a RIGHT to. It's not enough for the reTHUGlicans to pass the vicious Hyde amendment and prevent the use of government funds for abortions...now they are actually REDEFINING one of the most vicious crimes against women (and young girls) in order to push their right-wing religious agenda even further!

There is no longer any significant difference between the American Right and its religious backers, and the Iranian Mullahs or Afghani Taliban. How long before they're pushing for the stoning of adulteresses?

You'd better worry about that last one...:)

Since: Dec 07

Navasota, TX

#15 Jan 31, 2011
harvey wrote:
Just when you think reTHUGlicans have reached bottom, they surprise you by coming up with something so sick, so twisted, so hateful that everything that went before seems tame.
Suffice to say that every rePIGlican who supports or votes for this measure at ANY point in the process should be removed from office ASAP, and disgraced for life.
Utterly disgusting...utterly shameless.
Damn them to hell.
Nothing shameless about you and patty shouting a black man should be released from jail because he impregnated a 14 year old since she complied?? Or a muslim have four "wives" who are all living in seperate houses and all recieving welfare?? Damn the both of you for expecting hard working people to pay for this BS.

Funny how you both leave things out to further your nobama upchucking.

“Ignorantia valde pestifera.”

Since: Jan 09

Harding Township, NJ

#16 Jan 31, 2011
And the cafeteria-Christian fundie social agenda barrels along, as expected.

Exactly what does the "redefinition of rape" have to do with the economy or jobs?

Maybe the GOP is now pushing to create a new job classification ' "rapist for hire" - to invent a new cottage industry ... so they can claim it created X-number of new jobs?

And the frightwing trolls and morons just keep lapping it up, pretending the GOP House's waste of the entire month of January on bullsh*t non-binding resolutions, symbolic votes and utterly-off-topic "redefine rape" actions could be seen in any way, by anyone with more than two functioning brain cells - as legitimate legislature.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#17 Jan 31, 2011
Shady Lady wrote:
The only part of rape they are redefining has to do with who pays for the pregancies of women who cry rape. Sometimes they cry rape to fall under the Abortion laws paid for by the American taxpayer. If we made every woman who cries rape to bring charges against the so called rapist we wouldn't be paying millions of dollars for abortions. See, women lie about being raped, especially if it looks like they will have to pay for the abortion. Do women get raped? Yes, they do, and they bring charges against the rapist.
Guess what an abortion costs dipshit?

About $350.00.

Guess what having that kid costs?

Between $12,000.00 and $15,000.00 - varies by state, and if nthe child is born prematurely, over $1000.00 in an ICU ward - which can last upwards of two weeks.

And that's just for the birth dummy!

If I knew you were gonna ionfect these threads with crap you never can or even attempt to back up, I would have given YOUR mother the money - or coat hanger!

Since: Dec 07

Clermont, Florida

#18 Jan 31, 2011
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
A child CAN NOT GIVE CONSENT! This includes all under the age of 18 in this country. Now, what else are you guys gonna do - I mean, if you guys don't consider sex with a 14 year rape, are you now going to re-write the laws so people over 18 can't get convicted of statutory rape?
Why aren't you rethuglicans FOCUSING ON JOBS - YOUR SUPPOSED #1 PRIORITY?
Isn't that what you guys claim you were put into office for?
You're wrong again Kimosabi...different states have different ages for legal consent. Next time think before you speak.

http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

Second, I'm not a republican. But I do think we should have jobs as a priority...who's to say that's not a priority with those in congress? There are other things, however, to be considered.

Since: Dec 07

Navasota, TX

#19 Jan 31, 2011
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
A child CAN NOT GIVE CONSENT! This includes all under the age of 18 in this country. Now, what else are you guys gonna do - I mean, if you guys don't consider sex with a 14 year rape, are you now going to re-write the laws so people over 18 can't get convicted of statutory rape?
Why aren't you rethuglicans FOCUSING ON JOBS - YOUR SUPPOSED #1 PRIORITY?
Isn't that what you guys claim you were put into office for?
Really??

Then why did Clinton pardon Rep. Mel Reynolds. The Illinois Democrat was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old.

Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms, if your against it so much??

Rep. Fred Richmond. This New York Democrat was arrested in 1978 for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old. He was later ousted from congress for drug possession.

The dem hypocricy continues!!
NUMBER NINE

Ashford, AL

#20 Jan 31, 2011
Congress is tiding up some loose ends. This should loosen up some funding that been held way too long. The taxes this creates will run the gov for many many moons.

Simular circumstance apeared early in the Bush Administration . Watch the bond market come back to life . The naz ans the nyse should be a new serge of "Volts" also.(lol)

This will be one of many naturaly occuring stimulations that always leap frog and leave behind new financial sprouts.

Analists and sceptics have been warning about a collasp for years , these markers usually signal a complete out of balance market and a major power strugle begins . These black hole are recongnized as bla=ck thurs and blu=e mondays . They actually dont exist. Major gaping and shortfalls are more acurate.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#21 Jan 31, 2011
Bluebonnets-Thistle wrote:
<quoted text>
Really??
Then why did Clinton pardon Rep. Mel Reynolds. The Illinois Democrat was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old.
Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms, if your against it so much??
Rep. Fred Richmond. This New York Democrat was arrested in 1978 for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old. He was later ousted from congress for drug possession.
The dem hypocricy continues!!
These are very legitimate questions, and I am aghast at this also. This should never had been done, so no, I will not give ANY president a free pass on something of this magnitude.

I will state that many presidents have made very questionable pardons, on both sides of the isle. This though is a re-writing of the rape provisions, not of who was pardoned.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 10
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christopher Smith Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Want to register to vote in this state? You'll ... (Feb '16) Feb '16 wild child 12
News Republicans blame Cruz for year-end confirmations (Dec '14) Dec '14 RayOne 6
News Rep. Smith: Obama Gave $227 Million To Group Im... (Oct '14) Oct '14 Foster 3
News CDC chief says ebola must be contained in Africa (Aug '14) Aug '14 yep 7
News Supporters hail freedom for Sudanese Christian ... (Jul '14) Jul '14 American_Infidel 6
News Antiabortion bill would have the IRS verify rape (Jan '14) Jan '14 Cat74 14
News Syrian Christians ask why the U.S. is siding ag... (Jun '13) Jul '13 rtloder 143
More from around the web