Skip to main content

Republican strategist Brad Blakeman has a Princess-Bride moment regarding the term "statutory rape"

When subject turned to the FDA's (Food and Drug Administration) decision on lowering the age restriction for the morning-after pill from 17 to 15 on Fox News this morning, Republican strategist Brad Blakeman became quite upset. He became so upset that he had a Princess-Bride moment as I like to call them, where he spoke at length about a particular word, but obviously didn't know what the term meant.

In the before-mentioned movie, upon hearing the word "inconceivable" time and time again, character Inigo Montoya says, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Brad Blakeman had a similar moment on Fox News this morning when he said the following:

"This makes no sense at all. You have to be 18 years old to buy a pack of cigarettes, and the president is also encouraging criminal behavior, because in most jurisdictions in American engaging in sexual intercourse at 14, 15 years old is statutory rape. The president is somehow saying in if you engage in that activity, criminal behavior, that is okay because the government is going to provide you the out for your bad decision making. [...]"

Obviously, Mr. Blakeman is not a legal scholar. According to the legal dictionary, statutory rape is defined as, "Sexual intercourse by an adult with a person below a statutorily designated age."

In other words, just because a person has sex at the age of 14 or 15, that does not mean he or she was the victim of statutory rape. Most times, such individuals have sex with people their own age and such cases would not constitute as statutory rape as Mr. Blakeman implied.

However, as sad as it is to say, women have been raped at the age of 14 or 15. Apparently, Mr. Blakeman doesn't feel such women should be afforded the option of the morning-after pill.

I'd love to see the GOP air an honest ad in the run-up to the next election, which says, "We don't believe in restrictions on guns. We do believe in restrictions on women's health. We're the GOP - the party of family values."

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/03/1959781/fox-news-teen-sex-criminal/

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Statutory+Rape

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"