Kansas Rep. Pete DeGraaf: Being impregnated during a rape is just like getting a flat tire

[Anonymous]

Why can't raped women use the morning after pill?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why can't raped women use the morning after pill?

Why is that ideologically different than an abortion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a now 44 year old who was in a similar position to LIVID last summer. LIVID, I want to meet you someday!

As for this moron in Kansas, I suppose we should require a separate insurance rider for men in case of castration. If he happens to get castrated, medical insurance will not cover the reattachment procedure unless he has specifically obtained the medical rider in advance.

I really wish men would equate a woman's reproductive organs with their penis. Most men are violently protective of their penises. I am violently protective of my uterus and who gets to reside inside.

I had a friend whose Gyn. advised her to have a hysterectomy (sp. ?) because, "You've had your children and you don't need any of that stuff anymore." "Stuff" meaning reproducive organs. She told him to get his boat, house, and car payment from some other patient and she found a female Gyn. If MD's whose specialty is to treat females, think this way, there isn't much hope. This happened about five years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't raped women use the morning after pill?

Why is that ideologically different than an abortion?

It prevents conception?

[Anonymous]

Actually, it prevents a fertilized embryo from implanting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll probably get flamed for this but to me I think he just ssaid it wrong. Ok so they banned medical insurance from covering abortions in all cases except to save the life of the mother. But then have a provision for an abortion only policy not just in cases of rape but also unwanted pregnacy

I think that's a bunch of nonsense. An abortion insurance policy? Really?

I haven't had a miscarriage or an abortion, but medically, they can be IDENTICAL and I'm relatively sure that the insurance codes don't differentiate between an abortion that someone gets because she WANTS one and an abortion that someone gets as part of a miscarriage.

But the insurance company has access to the medical records, which would show whether the embryo or fetus was showing a heartbeat or not. If heartbeat then the insurance co would only pay for the abortion IF the woman had filed a police report claiming rape AND if the woman had previously purchased rape abortion insurance.

Call me a crazy radical feminist, but I really don't want my insurance company or some asshole from Kansas making decisions about what I can and can't do with my own body. This kind of law would never be enacted, for example, regarding cancer. If it was a men's issue, abortions would probably come with subscriptions to Sports Illustrated and complimentary cigars.

the point is, that over half the country also wants to consider the other person involved - the unborn baby. we can argue over the fringes, but don't you think they deserve a voice too?

The problem is that regardless of what "over half this country" wants is that abortion is a LEGAL PROCEDURE. These bureaucratic roadblocks are intended to circumvent the law. They aren't criminalizing abortion, of course - they are just making it difficult, expensive, and humiliating to get one, regardless of a woman's reason for wanting to get one.

The problem with your logic about "the other person involved" is that my belief that a fetus does not have rights does not harm YOU. Your belief that the fetus has rights assumes that the fetus's rights trump MY rights, which then forces me to continue a pregnancy conceived in fear, pain and shame. I don't understand how you can stand behind your argument about compassion for the rights of "the other person involved" while doing that. I just don't.

of course it doesn't harm me, but it does kill an innocent life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, it prevents a fertilized embryo from implanting.

This is probably preferable to the abortion insurance. Of course, it would then be presupposed that she knew she was going to be raped and this is why she had a suppor of the morning after pill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll probably get flamed for this but to me I think he just ssaid it wrong. Ok so they banned medical insurance from covering abortions in all cases except to save the life of the mother. But then have a provision for an abortion only policy not just in cases of rape but also unwanted pregnacy

I think that's a bunch of nonsense. An abortion insurance policy? Really?

I haven't had a miscarriage or an abortion, but medically, they can be IDENTICAL and I'm relatively sure that the insurance codes don't differentiate between an abortion that someone gets because she WANTS one and an abortion that someone gets as part of a miscarriage.

But the insurance company has access to the medical records, which would show whether the embryo or fetus was showing a heartbeat or not. If heartbeat then the insurance co would only pay for the abortion IF the woman had filed a police report claiming rape AND if the woman had previously purchased rape abortion insurance.

Call me a crazy radical feminist, but I really don't want my insurance company or some asshole from Kansas making decisions about what I can and can't do with my own body. This kind of law would never be enacted, for example, regarding cancer. If it was a men's issue, abortions would probably come with subscriptions to Sports Illustrated and complimentary cigars.

the point is, that over half the country also wants to consider the other person involved - the unborn baby. we can argue over the fringes, but don't you think they deserve a voice too?

1. Where do you come up with that little nugget of non-truth?
2. You're crazy.
3. You're nuts.
4. Go away.

so if you support the sanctity of human life you are crazy and nuts? got it, thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll probably get flamed for this but to me I think he just ssaid it wrong. Ok so they banned medical insurance from covering abortions in all cases except to save the life of the mother. But then have a provision for an abortion only policy not just in cases of rape but also unwanted pregnacy

I think that's a bunch of nonsense. An abortion insurance policy? Really?

I haven't had a miscarriage or an abortion, but medically, they can be IDENTICAL and I'm relatively sure that the insurance codes don't differentiate between an abortion that someone gets because she WANTS one and an abortion that someone gets as part of a miscarriage.

But the insurance company has access to the medical records, which would show whether the embryo or fetus was showing a heartbeat or not. If heartbeat then the insurance co would only pay for the abortion IF the woman had filed a police report claiming rape AND if the woman had previously purchased rape abortion insurance.

Call me a crazy radical feminist, but I really don't want my insurance company or some asshole from Kansas making decisions about what I can and can't do with my own body. This kind of law would never be enacted, for example, regarding cancer. If it was a men's issue, abortions would probably come with subscriptions to Sports Illustrated and complimentary cigars.

the point is, that over half the country also wants to consider the other person involved - the unborn baby. we can argue over the fringes, but don't you think they deserve a voice too?

The problem is that regardless of what "over half this country" wants is that abortion is a LEGAL PROCEDURE. These bureaucratic roadblocks are intended to circumvent the law. They aren't criminalizing abortion, of course - they are just making it difficult, expensive, and humiliating to get one, regardless of a woman's reason for wanting to get one.

The problem with your logic about "the other person involved" is that my belief that a fetus does not have rights does not harm YOU. Your belief that the fetus has rights assumes that the fetus's rights trump MY rights, which then forces me to continue a pregnancy conceived in fear, pain and shame. I don't understand how you can stand behind your argument about compassion for the rights of "the other person involved" while doing that. I just don't.

of course it doesn't harm me, but it does kill an innocent life.

It is a byproduct of rape and has done irreparable harm to the woman raped.

[Anonymous]

I don't get it. I feel like this is a ploy to get people emotional outraged for no reason. It's like something is left out because what's written here doesn't even make sense.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if all these "killing an innocent life" people would feel the same if they were brutally raped and then forced to bear the child?

[Anonymous]

PP is stupid to say a woman should have morning after pills on hand in case she's raped. It's easy to go pick it up after the fact. There's just little excuse/tiny chance for rape to turn into a full blown pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP is stupid to say a woman should have morning after pills on hand in case she's raped. It's easy to go pick it up after the fact. There's just little excuse/tiny chance for rape to turn into a full blown pregnancy.

It's not so easy when some pharmacists now also have "right of conscience" refusals. So you walk into the pharmacy, having just been raped (let's assume you are physically and mentally well enough to get there within the window, by the way), and Mr. Pharmacist says sorry, I don't believe in the morning-after pill because I think it's an abortifacient, and I'm not going to give it to you.

Oh, and you live in a rural area where there are no other pharmacies that have the pill, or you can't get there, so now you are stuck because under PP's rationale, you don't have an excuse for being pregnant by a rapist.

[Anonymous]

That is a VERY rare, worst case scenario. Get real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP is stupid to say a woman should have morning after pills on hand in case she's raped. It's easy to go pick it up after the fact. There's just little excuse/tiny chance for rape to turn into a full blown pregnancy.

Read the entire thread and you may, just possibly, realize this was a tongue-in-cheek remark.