The GOP Tries to Redefine Rape Exemptions—Again

A House bill banning abortions after 20 weeks includes provisions requiring women to report rape to police to qualify for exemptions.

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), sponsor of the House 20-week abortion ban<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=64334452">Christopher Halloran</a>/Shutterstock

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The House debated and passed a bill on Tuesday that would ban all abortions after 20 weeks across the country. The bill, passed by a nearly party-line vote of 228 to 196, replicates laws passed in a dozen states in the past three years limiting the time period during which women can obtain a legal abortion.

HR 1797, sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), is not expected to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate, and President Barack Obama has already threatened to veto it. But it does contain a provision that redefines rape exemptions, significantly limiting the number of women who would qualify. In order to obtain an abortion after 20 weeks under this law, a woman who was raped must be able to prove that she reported the rape to authorities—a requirement not present in other rape exceptions to federal abortion laws.

Republicans added this provision to the bill, which originally included no exceptions for rape or incest, after the House Judiciary committee approved it last week. But the alternative language Republicans inserted creates its own problems. It is more restrictive than the Hyde Amendment, the law barring federal funds from being used to pay for abortions. Hyde specifically exempts cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at stake—with no requirement that women have documentation from police that they reported the crime.

According to numbers from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, less than half of all rapes or sexual assaults are reported to the police (the bureau’s latest report actually found that the percentage reported to police has declined in recent years—from 56 percent in 2003 to 35 percent in 2010). Democrats pointed out that fear of violence, concerns about dealing with the legal system, and shame may prevent many women from reporting rape.

“They leave out even Hyde exceptions for rape and incest, and then they try to shove it back in, but they do it with this crazy requirement that rape victims prove that they reported the rapes, only underscoring the point we’ve been making all this time which is that they really have no respect for women,” Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) told Mother Jones on Tuesday.

“They’re redefining women’s bodies and women’s health care just off the top of their heads all the time,” said DeGette, noting that she had never before seen a rape exception formulated like this.

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), who led the floor debate on the Republican side in the early afternoon, dismissed Democrats’ criticism of the rape exception. “They would find something to criticize in this bill no matter what,” Foxx told Mother Jones.

Franks also deflected the criticism. “This bill doesn’t take place until the sixth month of gestation,” he said. “A lot of these questions are already answered.”

Republicans had been criticized following a hearing on the bill that featured 23 Republican men and zero GOP women, and Franks attracted more negative attention last Wednesday when he suggested during a hearing that rape exemptions weren’t necessary because the incidence of pregnancy from rape is “very low.” After that, Republican leadership decided to hand control of the floor debate to GOP women. Foxx led the debate early in the afternoon, and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) took the helm later in the day. “We wanted to have as many women voices speaking on the bill, because the other side has tried to talk about everything but the bill,” Franks told reporters, accusing Democrats of having “injected false issues” into the debate by pointing out the gender ratio in the committee. Franks sat toward the back of the House floor during Tuesday’s debate and did not speak in favor of his own bill.

Franks’ proposed ban mirrors laws passed in a dozen other states that are based on the scientifically dubious premise that a fetus can feel pain 20 weeks after conception. A federal district court in Idaho struck down that state’s ban in March, and a federal appeals court deemed Arizona’s 20-week ban unconstitutional last month. Franks tried to pass a law last year that would have banned abortions at 20 weeks in the District of Columbia as well, but that bill failed.

Abortions after 20 weeks are extremely rare, accounting for only 1.4 percent of all abortions, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Many of those procedures happen because a life-threatening medical problem or a fetal abnormality only became apparent late in a pregnancy. (Other cases may involve women who realized only very far along that they were even pregnant, teens who hid a pregnancy, or women who couldn’t afford an abortion earlier in the pregnancy.) The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists, in a court filing supporting the challenge to Arizona’s law, said that such a ban is “neither supported by scientific evidence nor necessary to achieve an important public health directive.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate