Wednesday, February 2, 2011

No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions?


by Jillian Washburn

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act was introduced into the house on the 20th of January 2011 by Republican Chris Smith of New Jersey . One-hundred and seventy-three members of the House (13 of who are women) are in support of this bill that would change the definition of rape as we know it and push back the rights women have worked so hard to achieve. In section 309 it states that, “If the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape,” she is allowed to receive an abortion paid for by taxpayers.By choosing the language “forcible” rape, the bill makes readers wonder when rape isn’t forced. If a person has intercourse with another without their consent, by force or otherwise, it is still rape. The topic gets a little mucky when drinking is brought into play; however, if someone is not in their correct frame of mind, meaning if they are drunk or under the influence of drugs, and someone takes advantage of them, that is rape. The authors of the bill are dismissing what survivors of rape go through. What happens to  the women whos experiences don’t fall under the catergory of “forcible rape”? Do they not matter ? I’m straying from my original point, but I think an issue rising from this bill is the attempt to redefine what qualifies, and apparently doesn’t qualify, as rape. 
            Something else to consider is the fact that this bill would interfere with a woman’s right to choose. If two consenting people agree to have sex, and take responsibility for safe sex that doesn't mean that even if something going wrong, they can afford to have abortion. I realize that in a perfect situation people should have responsibility set on their shoulders, and shouldn't fall back on others for help, but not everyone can afford to help themselves. That being said, it doesn't mean the woman should be forced to carry a child for 9 months. Yes, there is the option of adoption. That is something else tax payers money will go towards. Is that what people are going to go after next? There are also other factors to add into the equation, such as being financially and emotionally ready to care for a child. Some may even say that the price of an abortion shouldn’t be hard to save up for, or get the money for before it’s too late. Not everyone is in the same financial situation. For a family, with children already struggling to get by, the money it takes to get an abortion may not come in time. If that family (woman) is forced to bring in another hungry mouth to feed, they are going to struggle even harder to provide for everyone. This situation may lead to the family needing governmental assistance (yet another thing taxpayers give their money too, am I right)? It’s interesting to see that people would be more willing to pay, over a lifetime, to take care of a child they don’t know, than to help pay for an abortion (which is what the mother wanted all along). Some people would rather get in the way, and tell the woman what she can and can’t do with her own body than let her decide for herself what is right.

No comments:

Post a Comment