Dog Bites Man: Twists the Truth

The folks behind the scurrilous “General Betray Us” ad have latched on to another issue to distort.

One of the cool things about Facebook is that it provides a painless way of gaining exposure to alternate points of view.  Liberal FB friends sometimes inspire me to rethink my own assumptions.  Other times, like this, they provide low-hanging fruit for a blog post.

Here’s the text that caught my eye this evening, in a link posted by a liberal friend I respect:

Republicans want to change the law so only certain types of rape “count.” Date rape? Not rape anymore.  Drugged? Nope. Show the GOP “no” means “no” — sign the petition demanding Congress oppose this horrible legislation.

The first clue that an interest group is pulling a fast one is when they post an online petition about a bill but don’t give a link to the actual text of the legislation. Here it is: Turns out it’s not a bill about rape, it’s an anti-abortion bill, and it makes no effort to define rape, let alone re-define it.

MoveOn has spun its web of deception out of the text of Sec. 309, which reiterates the long-standing rape exception to the ban on federal funding for abortion. The bill uses the term “forcible rape,” an undefined term that inevitably will be clarified in committee if the bill gets that far. But the idea that the bill excludes statutory rape or date rape springs solely from the fevered imaginings of the Left.

BTW, the only reason I posted a screenshot of the “Republicans want to change the law” screed — rather than just linking to it — is that Move On seems to have scrubbed that text from its site.  But if anything, the text the group is using now is even more dishonest:

Right now, federal dollars can’t be used for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is in danger. But the Smith bill would narrow that use to “cases of ‘forcible’ rape but not statutory or coerced rape.”

Nope.  The “not statutory or coerced rape” text is quoted from a New York Times editorial.  The legislation makes no reference to statutory rape.

If I were in Congress I would vote against this bill, because I’m pro-choice. But I’m not an absolutist, and I have to say I think prohibiting federal funding for abortion — so that abortion opponents don’t have to pay for what they oppose — is a reasonable compromise to reach in a society that is so deeply conflicted about abortion.  It could well be, in fact I think it’s likely, that the drafters of the legislation used the term “forcible” rape for clandestine purposes.  But that’s what committee markup sessions are for.  It’s a long way from that single word in an 1,800-word bill to the declaration that “Republicans want to change the law so only certain types of rape ‘count.'”

Update: No surprise

6 thoughts on “Dog Bites Man: Twists the Truth

  1. Reasonable assessment; “rape” is to many feminists what other “hot button” issues are to others. The analogy isn’t exact, but it is a bit like the label “communist” and “socialist” thrown at us from your side.

    • Ollie, you’ll not hear me calling anyone a communist, unless the person is LITERALLY a member of that tiny discredited fringe group. But if the word “socialism” means anything at all, then a single-payer healthcare system would be socialism.

  2. It’s a long way from that single word in an 1,800-word bill to the declaration that “Republicans want to change the law so only certain types of rape ‘count.’”


    It should NOT matter HOW a person was raped. Rape is black and white. It’s WRONG. The END.

  3. I don’t like to use the word “victim” ever so we will just say “I was rapped”. I am also “pro life”. I appreciate that you understand that I don’t want to have to pay for something that I am very strongly against, just as I understand that abortion is legal and per the law everyone has the right to make that choice for themselves. I would like to see more fairness in those laws however as they don’t address the mans choice in the matter in consensual situations but really that’s neither here nor there.

    I appreciate this blog so much because I have tried very hard to explain to people why is a propaganda web site, and how there is actual real material to read and it’s like they refuse to see that, even some of the people responding here refuse to see that.

    This legislation has nothing and I mean nothing to do with rape. The crime of rape is not being redefined and psycho pro lifers like me are not saying “hey why didn’t you take the morning after pill that you can pick up at the pharmacy instead of waiting to find out you’re pregnant to then have a very painful medical procedure that is most likely going to be done by a group of people who have little concern for your actual health?”.

    I’m the right wing nut job that people in this country love to hate. (Hi, how ya doing?) and I can grantee you that no one is trying to ban abortions (based off this legislation), and no one is trying to get Johnny raspiest off the hook for what he’s done. The majority of people on my side LOVE putting people in jail (I don’t understand why … again here nor there) and in some cases LOVE killing people who commit horrible crimes. Does it make sense that we would try to limit the people they would put in jail? No it doesn’t.

    If people have a legit reason why I should have to pay for someones abortion(s) outside of saving their lives and incest. I would love to hear it. When it comes to rape I honestly feel that’s a gray area which is why I enjoy legislation like this, so we can talk about. The problem with is they twist it so much and use big words like RAPE (btw as a someone who has been raped I find what they’re doing horribly insulting. I mean HORRIBLY) to twist things so much that we as a people can not talk about it but simply react emotionally to it.

    I’m sorry this has been so long. I’ve just been kinda angry about this.

    • a girl, I need to look at my spam filter more often, for reasons not clear to me your comment was stuck there. I am glad you appreciate my blog, and I’m sorry your comment got held up.

      I don’t think you’re a right-wing nut job. I think you’re strongly pro-life (or “anti-abortion” or “anti-choice” as your adversaries would say), and yet you recognize and accept the rule of law. I disagree with your position, but I can respect it. And I’m very sorry for your past ordeal — I hope the guy who did it is in prison.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *