Blog Archives
ERMAGHERD! PAUL RYAN WANTS RAPISTS TO HAVE PARENTAL RIGHTS!
Well that’s apparently what liberals would like us to believe.
Anyone with a working brain is, I trust, automatically skeptical of such a claim…as you should be.
It’s not true.
I recently received a message on tumblr from a liberal who appeared to be very smug. They wrote “What if I told you” and linked to this article “Nightmare: 31 States Allow Paternal Rights for Rapists”.
Now the websites tagline is “Progressive: Politics to Pop Culture” so we can already tell this is A.) completely biased and B.) lacks any semblance of actual journalism already.
(Before you respond that I am also biased, remember that I don’t recommend you believe me with no further questioning…which is why I link to legitimate research and news so that you can start your own research.)
Okay, so this article is a hatchet job that provides no facts. Half of the links to ‘proof’ in their article lead to either articles on their own website (which also have no real facts to back them up) and the rest of the links (3 others) have to do DIRECTLY with a case that they cite where the mother won her court case, even though the rapist DID petition for parental rights.
The article (and none of the links) even tries to give us a percentage of woman who are A.) petitioned for parental rights by their rapists or B.) A percentage of rapists who are actually granted these rights.
My thoughts on that are of course that this is because the B part of that equation would be about 0% since the idea that any reasonably sane judge would grant custody or visitation rights to a felon and a registered sex offender (of which a rapist would be both) is absolutely ludicrous.
The article is actually so very bad that I’m going to have to take most of it apart piece by piece, which is something I think my readers enjoy.
In the midst of all the outrage over Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” comments, Missouri resident Shauna Prewitt waded into the war zone. The victim of a brutal rape, Prewitt later gave birth to a daughter borne of that encounter. When her rapist later filed for custody of her child, Prewitt’s nightmare became frighteningly worse. This courageous woman shared her experience with the rest of America; she is not alone:
“Prewitt says that if she knew then what she knows now about the laws in 31 states thatgrant men who father children via rape visitation rights that are equal to those that other fathers also enjoy, she might not have chosen to keep her child.
“My attacker sought custody of my daughter, but thankfully I got lucky and his visitation rights were terminated,” Prewitt says. “But I’m not sure I would have made the decision I did had I known I might be tethered to my rapist for the rest of my life.””
Okay, so you are saying that a convicted rapist petitioned for parental rights and were denied…that’s not ‘luck’ that’s just common sense on the judge’s part.
This section is curiously lacking in any sort of statistic on how many women this happens to and how often the rapist succeeds…that just might be pertinent.
What does this have to do with Todd Akin’s comments? The idea that there can be “legitimate rape” because the woman was not impregnated during that vile act, and conversely, the notion of “false rape” when it results in pregnancy, is mind-blowingly frightening.
I must be missing something, but when did Akin claim that a pregnancy resulting from rape made it a ‘false rape’?
Regardless, most Conservatives saw Akin’s comments for the stupidity they were (he’s far better than his opponent regardless) so attempting to pin his comments on conservatives in general is just ridiculous.
For a victim to be forced to bear the child of the man who sexually assaulted her, and in many cases also drugged, abducted, terrorized, battered, disfigured, pummeled, shot, or stabbed her is unimaginable. While the sponsors of HR-3 will insist that such a victim was never raped, since alas, there is a pregnancy; these legislators also tell the perpetrator that he, by default, cannot be considered a rapist. In such a world, Ms. Prewitt would have had no grounds upon which to terminate the visitation of the rapist bastard who fathered her child.
Okay…so Akin was in on creating HR-3. However if you actually read the bill, like I actually did, you will find that it has no restrictions on women being raped having an abortion.
Nor does it change the definition of rape or say that women who get pregnant ‘weren’t really raped’ because they got pregnant. Now you just reaching the territory of stupid. Nor have the legislators in question tried to say that ‘if you get pregnant, then your rapists isn’t actually a rapist’.
So, yeah…she would still have grounds, except in the fantasy world you are constructing which has nothing to do with reality.
It’s nice how you never link to the text of the actual bill you are badmouthing, you just make up what you think is in the bill and feed it to your readers. Fact checking might help you.
What are we to take away from Prewitt’s experience? Consider that 31 states have not yet adopted special laws that restrict the ability of rapists to assert their custodian and visitation rights to a child born through rape. These 31 states effectively grant men who father children via rape visitation rights that are equal to those that other fathers also enjoy.
Okay, so maybe we should have a law that says ‘no felon or sex offender may petition for custodial rights of children’, but the states you are criticizing to NOT ‘effectively grant men who father children via rape visitation rights.’
What the state laws allow is for them to petition the court for those rights.
Remember earlier when I said that the idea that judge would grant such a person custodial rights was ludicrous?
Remember when you never gave us any statistics on how often this is attempted or how often it succeeds?
HR-3’s “legitimate rape” and “forcible rape” language would nullify the laws of the other 19 states for all of the reasons given above.
HR-3 uses no such language. Did you even read the bill?
After all, HR-3 says no such father could be a rapist – and fathers have rights.
HR-3 says no such thing. Did you even read the bill?
Data shows that roughly 27% of all American women faced with Shauna Prewitt’s circumstances make the decision to have and raise the baby; roughly 47% give birth but put the baby up for adoption.
Ooh! This looks like a buildup to some actual statistics on how many rapists petition and succeed in petitioning for custodial rights!
In the world of HR-3, the 26% who opt to have an abortion would be criminalized.
Whoops….no, just more fantasy world.
In point of fact, HR-3 actually say:
‘Sec. 306. Non-preemption of other Federal laws
‘Nothing in this chapter shall repeal, amend, or have any effect on any other Federal law to the extent such law imposes any limitation on the use of funds for abortion or for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion, beyond the limitations set forth in this chapter.
which means, for those with less reading comprehension, that this bill does not change the law on abortion at all. All it does is say that federal money cannot be used for abortions, except in the case of:
‘Sec. 308. Treatment of abortions related to rape, incest, or preserving the life of the mother
‘The limitations established in sections 301, 302, and 303 shall not apply to an abortion–
‘(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or
‘(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
So actually…this law doesn’t change anything for women who have been raped or have lives that are being endangered by the pregnancy.
To escape an imminent jail term, women would be forced to have their rapist’s baby
No, just stop.
and face the likelihood of being tethered to him for life.
Really, stop. Your fantasy world is not amusing anymore. You really need to live in reality.
Likewise, any rapist-father, now legally classified as non-rapist under Akin/Ryan law, could withhold consent to adoption as the unwed biological father and insinuate himself into the lives of mother and child.
No, they are still considered rapists. HR-3 has nothing to do with the definition of rape or defining what constitutes a rapist, a felon, or a sex offender is.
As previously stated, the rapist could attempt any of these things, but a judge would throw out the requests nearly as fast as they were made, HR-3 has NOTHING to do with this.
Consider the psychological aspects of rape: it is about domination, humiliation, control, and brutal degradation. For such a man to have controlling interests in the life of a child spawned by his brutality is heinous and reprehensible.
Oh look, we agree on something. This may be the only truthful thing you’ve said in this entire piece of crap.
Still has nothing to do with HR-3.
Legislation that would open the doors of victimized women to their attackers and give them free reign to manipulate, control, and to exert psychological torture indefinitely is downright barbaric.
Yes, yes it is.
Good job, you managed two correct (if obvious) statements in this article.
Still had nothing to do with HR-3.
Consideration should also be given to children fathered through acts of incest, and pedophilia; these two are often interrelated. In such instances, the Akin/Ryan law could grant indisputable custody to men who already have a sexual predilection for children, and would place the children of the children they raped squarely under their control.
No, no it wouldn’t.
HR-3 says NOTHING about protecting rapists or pedophiles.
In fact, it protects federal funding for abortions in one two cases at all.
‘(A) an abortion–
‘(i) in the case of a pregnancy that is the result of an act of rape or incest, or
‘(ii) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy.
- HR-3
Great job at trying to poison the well though. I’m sure most of your liberal readers won’t bother to research this bill and will run around claiming that they have and that it protects rapists and bans abortions, but we both know that’s not true.
Local Affairs and Obamacare
I mean, there are plenty of reasons to hate it. Members of our legislature can propose some nutty things (of course they rarely pass), our state university is a joke (then again, so are most state universities to my knowledge), and the heat is deplorable…unless you live in Flagstaff (liberal central), Prescott (surprisingly not as much of a liberal central, despite being an art community) or any of the other tiny little northern towns (I’m a big fan of Jerome, which is a tiny tourist trap with awesome ‘haunted’ hotels and beautiful old architecture…but also very liberal). And I live in a town that was founded by people crazy enough to put our town in a valley surrounded by mountains so that we never get rain (I love rain.)
But Arizona does have it’s good point. I know that other people (not me*) love the mild winters. This state loves their second amendment rights (Tombstone anyone? I’ve been there, if you go don’t eat at the Crystal Palace Saloon, I was sick for a week…just sayin’.) The fact that you can drive 2 hours and change climates completely is awesome and the fact that I live in a city whose founders named their town after a bird that burns to death regularly (which I usually feel like I will do in the summer) and were crazy enough to put our town in a valley surrounded by mountains so that we never get any rain. Also we don’t have Daylight Savings Time.
Also, sometimes the people are freakin’ amazing.
See, I may live in Arizona, but I’ve always been far more worried about the national political scene and I spent very little time paying attention to the local political scene** and as a result I sometimes miss stuff.
So then I see something like this on tumblr and I wonder where I was when this happened.
Joseph M. Scherzer, M.D. told the Daily Caller that he ‘plans to stop practicing before 2014 when the bill’s full impact will be felt because he refuses to deal with the headache of increased government involvement in health care.’ Perhaps he neglected to mention as well longer waiting lines, fewer doctors (as he exemplifies), cut backs in Medicare reimbursement and a myriad of other issues that will destroy doctor morale. There is a caveat to Dr. Joseph M. Scherzer’s plan to throw in the towel and he said as much on a sign taped to the front door of his office. Unless Congress or the Courts Repeal the Bill:
People like this make me love my state. We have so many bold people here that refuse to be taken in by all the BS that politicians in DC (and even our own state) try to feed us. Scherzer has a blog, by the way.
83% of Doctors have considered quitting because of Obamacare, Scherzer isn’t alone in this.
Now we just need to win the Senate, keep the House, and eject Obama from the White House.
November, here we come.
_________________
*I love to bitch about the cold, but I actually love frigid weather…especially if I can stay indoors with a fire and only venture into the snow for an hour or so at a time, but I hate having to drive 2 hours to see snow in the winter. I also hate having to wait until December to wear sweaters and jackets…and forget about coats.
**Though I firmly hold that any fuck-ups in the city of Phoenix are not my fault. I didn’t vote for Stanton. I voted for Wes Gullet.
***I’d like to note that Left Coast Rebel did an interview with Obama’s second cousin, Dr. Milton R. Wolf, M.D., who is a huge nay-sayer of Obamacare.
Why I support Bachmann (via The Conservative New Ager)
So the other day a friend of mine posted the following insightful comment on facebook:
Why is everyone so upset about candidates trying to do away with the Department of Education?
It was an intelligent comment as it is a worthless federal department. But it strangely got this response:
maybe because that’s what Bachmann supports and so the perfectly reasonable [sic] people in this country know immediately it’s a bad idea…
Now I’ll grant that this second comment came from someone who has always struck me as having the I.Q. of turnip, but it does seem that this a widely held belief that Bachmann is a moron. But what is this based on? (Besides the fact that there is misogynistic hatred of women in this country which I have already talked about at length.)Well we have two odd pop culture gaffes. The kind of flubs we all make where we reach for one name and our brain pulls out another, or where we associate one place with something entirely unrelated. These flubs had nothing to do with policy and in fact any person who talks all day without a script probably makes a dozen of these a day (or if you’re Obama you just stand there going uh, uh, uh, until someone brings the teleprompter out).
Laws for the GOP to pass: Sane Teacher Certification (via The Conservative New Ager)
This all sounds pretty accurate. Especially considering it was written by one of the best teachers I’ve ever known…just sayin’.
Arguing with an Obama supporter
Okay, so I’m sick today and just laying around in my dorm room. I tried to do homework or write a real blog, but my brain is so scrambled from congestion and a fever that it was impossible.
I went on to the GayPatriot website, a website which is an independent blog for gay conservative issues. I generally find interesting articles to read there, but today I found this video.
This is ridiculously accurate, I’m sad to say.
Anyway, that’s all I have for today. I think it’s time for a nap.
Remember that President who…
Got us involved with a war in a foreign country without the approval of Congress?
Didn’t his name have ‘B’ in it?
B…
B….
Oh right, Barack Obama.
Oh! You thought I was talking about Bush? No, no I wasn’t, but while we are on the topic of Bush…Obama isn’t much of a ‘change’ from George W. is he?
Do you get the picture that I didn’t like Bush much either? I hope so, because that’s the case. Bush was an idiot with the economy. Just one more social conservative and fiscal liberal that should never have been nominated by the GOP.
That’s off topic though. I’m bringing Obama up because apparently his little involvement with NATO in Libya has pissed off Congress…both the Democrats and Republicans.
The House of Representatives voted Friday to rebuke President Obama for continuing to maintain an American role in NATO operations in Libya without the express consent of Congress, and directed the administration to provide detailed information about the cost and objectives of the American role in the conflict.
Of course, this resolution does nothing, but it does make Obama look like a foolish little boy getting his hand slapped for trying to reach into the cookie jar. That amuses me to no end.
As a legislative matter, the Boehner resolution has no practical effect, and indeed is little more than an expression of opinion. A decision by the Supreme Court over two decades ago suggested that Congress is not empowered to enforce a resolution or other directive that, unlike a bill, the president has no chance to veto.
But as a political matter, the resolution was an unusually blunt confrontation of an American president during an ongoing military conflict, and underscored a bipartisan distaste among members of Congress for bypassing their approval when waging war. Overall, , roughly two thirds of the members of Congress who voted Friday backed one or two measures disapproving of the President’s actions.
Whether I support action in Libya or not, I still appreciate that both sides of the aisle are in agreement that Obama has over-reached and is grasping for a little more power than is his due.
