September 23, 2018 | ° F

Oppose limits proposed by bill

Abortion is, always has been and probably always will be, one of the most controversial topics in United States politics. There never seems to be much in the way of compromise regarding stances on abortion. However, the lack of compromise is taking a frightening turn for the worse, thanks to the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." The bill seeks to revamp the current allowances for victims of rape or incest to use government funds to pay for abortions. Instead, the bill aims to limit the rape exemption to cases of "forcible rape." Also, the bill would make it so that federal funds would only cover abortions in cases of incest if the woman is younger than 18-years-old.

Quite frankly, the only way to describe this bill is downright absurd. There is no justice in limiting the exception for pregnancies resulting from rape to instances of forcible rape only. What about women who are drugged by their attacker, or women who are not in the right state of mind to give proper consent? Where is the justice for them? It is unacceptable for politicians to push their own personal moral agendas at the expense of the people, especially with regards to rape, which is hands down one of the most atrocious crimes anyone could commit. To limit the exception to cases of forcible rape only is to ignore many of the different — though equally dangerous — ways in which rapes can and do occur. Just because the victim is not "forcibly" raped does not mean that said victim does not deserve that the utmost justice be served.

Also, "forcible rape" is an incredibly ambiguous term. What exactly does that mean? Will there be some arbitrary threshold of force required in order for something to be considered forcible rape, and therefore eligible for a taxpayer-funded abortion? The fact that anyone even has to ask these questions is revolting.

In the case of the incest exemptions, it makes no sense to put an 18-years-old cutoff into place. Incest can occur regardless of age. Narrowing the definition does nothing except make it impossible for people to receive the help they need and deserve.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has called the bill a "top priority." We sincerely hope this priority is one that does not reach fruition. It will do nothing but damage the nation as a whole. Besides, are there not far more important things the new Congress should be worrying about instead of committing this sort of injustice against the citizens of the United States?

The Daily Targum

Comments powered by Disqus

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Targum.