Skip to main content

Another Republican Congressman talks about rape

First there was Todd Akin. Then there was Richard Mourdock. Now we have Arizona Representative Trent Franks taking it upon himself to discuss the matter of rape.

Franks proposed a measure which would ban abortions after 20 weeks during pregnancies. This measure is currently being considered by the House Judiciary Committee. In response, Democrats have proposed an amendment to the bill which would make exceptions for rape and incest.

Here's what Mr. Franks had to say about this proposed amendment:

"Before, when my friends on the left side of the aisle here tried to make rape and incest the subject - because, you know, the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.

But when you make that exception, there's usually a requirement to report the rape within 48 hours. And in this case that's impossible because this is in the sixth month of gestation. And that's what completely negates and vitiates the purpose for such an amendment."

Right, because every woman who is raped isn't at all ashamed, embarrassed, or frightened about the incident, and due to this, 100% of women whom are raped report the matter within 48 hours of it happening. ...and every woman who is raped, and becomes pregnant via the rape, has an easy time deciding what to do with regard to the potential child, all the while quite possibly fearing for her life and battling depression.

I'm surprised that a Republican hasn't stood up by this point and proposed a bill which would fine any male Congressional Republican (or one running for Congress) whenever he publicly utters the word rape. Knowing them, though, the proceeds would likely go to an organization by the name of The Legitimate Rape Foundation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/12/gop-congressman-rate-of-pregnancies-from-rape-is-very-low/

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...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...