HR 3: Misogyny in action: or, America elected a GOP-dominated congress and all we got was this stupid redefinition of Rape

[Trigger warning--obvs. discussion of rape]

So, seriously? I have great, huge respect for the bloggers more articulate and knowledgeable than myself who have already ably handled this topic, so I really urge people to go read them for a run-down of what the language of HR 3 means, most particularly Sec. 309, which limits rape and incest limitations to "forcible rape" and incest only for minors, and concentrates the endangerment to the life of the pregnant woman on "physical" illness, etc., quite leaving out the toll that a pregnancy can take on the mental health of a person.

But all in all, although this callous dismissal of some rape victims (disappearing them) and some at-risk lives (diminishing them) is breath-takingly misogynistic in its disregard for real women and their needs and chips away at access to reproductive health care, I can't address that without getting obnoxious and calling it something like "The Rapist Fatherhood Protection Act" or getting really snide and calling it the "John Boehner Pals Around with Terrorists Act". But those things aren't especially civil of me, are they?

Just because the act, as written, probably would lead to some rapist being technically a father if a woman, impregnated trans man, or minor child, could not afford an abortion and conditions were such, due to lack of funds and local restriction of access, that they could not afford one, they would bear the child of a person who violated them (while they were unconscious, while they had an unequal-power relationship that enabled coercion, or while they were young and that family member still had leverage over their person) doesn't mean the authors of that act think rapists should be proud papas, right? And just because Speaker of the House John Boehner's aide sat down with a hateful misogynistic bigot who endorses acts of terrorism against doctors and womens' health clinics, doesn't necessarily mean that John Boehner dances to the tune of the radical social conservative retrograde right, which sees little wrong with the bombing of clinics or shooting of health care professionals, no?

Well, those things might be a little true, since they wrote and so many signed onto the damn bill--but I think a big part of all this is the following--

This is HR 3.  The Party that gave us numberless budgets and budget-cutting proposals that proposed exactly nothing they exactly definitely wanted to cut, got voted into power because of a supposedly economics-based dissatisfaction. And because they have no idea how to create jobs since they specifically think the government doesn't create jobs, and they can't cut more taxes because they want to pretend to be fiscal conservatives with reference to the budget and Obama and the last Congress already extended the tax cuts, they are down to signifying for the social conservatives, because...they got nothing.

They will also grill some Muslims, I understand. Maybe they'll try to roll back civil rights legislation while they are at it somewhere down the line.

Please, oh, please, let this kind of stupidity mean these wretches will be one-term and done! But all the same, I wrote my (GOP) congressman about this issue, and I encourage everyone to ding their own representative to reject this nonsense. Restricting the access of women to a legal medical procedure and redefining rape is not the business of the Congress. After all, so many of them are still learning about the Constitution (from Justice Scalia, who I still think is confused about who all is a person.)

Can I add---*sob*?