Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.
For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.
With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.) Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense.
There used to be a quasi-truce between the pro- and anti-choice forces on the issue of federal funding for abortion. Since 1976, federal law has prohibited the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman. But since last year, the anti-abortion side has become far more aggressive in challenging this compromise. They have been pushing to outlaw tax deductions for insurance plans that cover abortion, even if the abortion coverage is never used. The Smith bill represents a frontal attack on these long-standing exceptions.
"This bill takes us back to a time when just saying 'no' wasn't enough to qualify as rape," says Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser to the National Women's Law Center. Laurie Levenson, a former assistant US attorney and expert on criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, notes that the new bill's authors are "using language that's not particularly clear, and some people are going to lose protection." Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes. "There are a lot of aspects of rape that are not included," Levenson says.
As for the incest exception, the bill would only allow federally funded abortions if the woman is under 18.
The bill hasn't been carefully constructed, Levenson notes. The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill's authors don't offer their own definition. In some states, there is no legal definition of "forcible rape," making it unclear whetherany abortions would be covered by the rape exemption in those jurisdictions.
The main abortion-rights groups despise the Smith bill as a whole, but they are particularly outraged by its rape provisions. Tait Sye, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, calls the proposed changes "unacceptable." Donna Crane, the policy director of NARAL Pro-Choice America, says that making the "already narrow exceptions for public funding of abortion care for rape and incest survivors even more restrictive" is "unbelievably cruel and heartless."
"This bill goes far beyond current law," says Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), a co-chair of the congressional pro-choice caucus. The "re-definition" of the rape exception "is only one element" of an "extreme" bill, she adds, citing other provisions in the law that pro-abortion rights groups believe would lead to the end of private health insurance coverage for abortion.
"Somebody needs to look closely at this," Levenson says. "This is a bill that could have a dramatic effect on women, and language is important. It sure sounds like somebody didn't want [the exception to cover] all the different types of rape that are recognized under the law."
Nick Baumann covers national politics and civil liberties issues for Mother Jones' DC Bureau. For more of his stories, click here. You can also follow him on twitter. Email tips and insights to nbaumann [at] motherjones [dot] com. Get Nick Baumann's RSS feed.
House Speaker John Boehner stopped short today of saying majority Republicans will refuse to raise the debt limit and strongly urged President Obama and Democrats to work with them to cut spending.
House Speaker John Boehner said President Obama has to 'cut up the credit cards' and work with the GOP on cutting spending.
By Alex Brandon, APBoehner suggested on Fox News Sunday there is no appetite to see the United States default on its loans if Congress doesn't pass an increase in the debt limit.
"I don't think it's even a question on the table," Boehner said in his first Sunday talk show interview since becoming speaker this month.
The Ohio lawmaker repeatedly said Republicans, who bounced Democrats from the House majority in the November elections, will push to cut federal spending to 2008 levels or lower before holding a separate vote on the debt limit.
"We want to reduce spending. Period," Boehner said, adding that President Obama has "got to be willing to cut up the credit cards."
The cuts, he suggested, would be based on the will of the House. "There is no limit to the amount of spending we will cut," he said.
The White House has said cutting the federal budget by 20%, as Republicans want, could lead to thousands of children being cut from the Head Start program and fewer FBI agents.
The federal government is operating on a budget resolution that expires March 4. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said the House will take up the issue of spending levels during the week of Feb. 14.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said the United States could hit its statutory debt ceiling of $14.3 trillion, set by Congress last year, by the end of March and no later than May 16.
Boehner told Fox host Chris Wallace that he'd be willing to play golf with Obama if it could help spark discussions on spending cuts and other issues. There's no question that Boehner, ranked by Golf Digest as one of the top duffers in Congress, might have the upper hand on the links.
"I'm sure I'll have to give him (Obama) strokes," the speaker joked.
I believe the United States should set three top priorities in our response to the crisis in Egypt:
The State and Defense Departments must monitor the security of U.S. citizens in the country, with robust contingency plans to ensure the safety of our fellow citizens in Egypt. We must also ensure the open and safe navigation of the Suez Canal, recognizing its importance to world trade and our fragile economic recovery.
We must have the conviction of our own convictions to support legitimate human rights and democratic aspirations of the Egyptian people. A truly democratic Egypt with a multi-party democracy could in the long run be a more stable partner for peace and economic growth than a one-party state. However, the US should continue aid to Egypt, especially military assistance, to prevent a government collapse which would give an opening to the radical Muslim Brotherhood.
We must do all we can to maintain the Camp David accords that established peace between Egypt and Israel. The last thing our economy needs is another war in the Middle East. America's prime diplomatic goal should be to maintain the peace and security of our allies.
In the end, change for the government of Egypt under its 80-year old President appears inevitable. We should support the strongest, most responsible leaders we can have to guide Egypt into a post-Mubarak, stable direction. Many of our values, the security of our allies and parts of our economy depend on navigating this crisis well.
In an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) contrasted President Obama’s request to raise the debt limit while increasing “stimulus” spending with the new House majority’s focus on cutting government spending to help create new jobs. Boehner said “there is no limit to the amount of spending we’re willing to cut.” The Speaker also discussed the ongoing situation in Egypt and the need to support those “calling out for freedom and democracy,” and highlighted the importance of addressing the challenges posed by our biggest entitlement programs like Social Security -- and the unwillingness of Senate Democratic leaders to even admit there’s a problem. Below is full video and excerpts of Boehner’s interview:
BOEHNER ON PRESIDENT OBAMA’S REQUEST TO RAISE THE DEBT LIMIT WHILE CALLING FOR MORE “STIMULUS” SPENDING:
“The President of the United States is asking us to increase the debt limit. On Tuesday night, he didn’t even address it. And I don’t think the American people will tolerate increasing the debt limit without serious reductions in spending and changes to the budget process so that we can make sure that this never happens again. The other night all he did was call for more ‘stimulus’ spending. ... Listen, there has been a spending spree going on in Washington the last couple of years that is beyond control. And if the president is going to ask us to increase the debt limit, he’s going have to be willing to cut up the credit cards.”
BOEHNER ON CUTTING GOVERNMENT SPENDING TO HELP CREATE NEW JOBS: “THERE IS NO LIMIT TO THE AMOUNT OF SPENDING WE’RE WILLING TO CUT”:
“Our team has been listening to the American people; they want us to reduce spending. And there is no limit to the amount of spending we’re willing to cut. ... The American people want us to cut spending, they don’t want more ‘stimulus’ spending. ... We started on the first day of Congress by cutting Congress’ own budget. I cut my leadership budget, all the leadership budgets were cut, committee budgets were cut. All members’ office budgets were cut. We followed that up with weekly cuts on the House floor, including this past week when we eliminated taxpayer funding of presidential elections. We also voted to repeal the job-killing health care bill which will save us $2.6 trillion in spending in the next ten years and avoid $700 billion tax increase. We have also called in our ‘Pledge to America’ to end all TARP spending, eliminate all excess ‘stimulus’ spending that still may be out there, and why don’t they get the federal government out of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and save billions in the process?”
BOEHNER ON THE IMPORTANCE OF CUTTING SPENDING TO HELP END SOME OF THE UNCERTAINTY FACING JOB CREATORS:
“Cutting spending will in fact help create jobs in America. ... The fact is this, by spending money we don’t have, running up the huge budget deficits, we create more uncertainty in the private sector. This is where cutting spending will create jobs because it is going to bring greater fiscal responsibility here in Washington, DC, end some of the uncertainty, and allow jobs to be created in America. ... We all heard what our voters had to say: cut spending, create jobs. The fact is that our spending resolution where we instructed the Appropriations Committee to come back to the House - that we voted on it this past week - said bring us back at 2008 levels pre-’stimulus,’ pre-bailout levels or less.”
BOEHNER ON SENATE DEMOCRATS IGNORING THE CHALLENGES POSED BY RUN-AWAY ENTITLEMENT SPENDING:
“I’ve made it real clear that I think it’s time for Washington to have an adult conversation with the American people about the big challenges that face us. Frankly, I think the White House is interested in having that same conversation. But here we’ve got the Senate Majority Leader who says there is no problem in Social Security. And if we can’t get Senate Democrats and their leader to recognize that we’ve got real problems I don’t know how we begin to move down this path of having this adult conversation that I’d like to have and I frankly think the president would like to have. ... The American people want us to look them in the eye and say this is how big the problem is. I think that that conversation has to happen.”
BOEHNER ON EGYPT AND SUPPORTING THOSE PEOPLE CALLING OUT FOR FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY:
“Our Administration so far has handled this tense situation pretty well. Clearly reforms need to occur in Egypt. And frankly, anyplace around the world where people are calling out for freedom and democracy I think we have a responsibility to respond. I think listening to the Egyptian people, working with the government, to bring more democratic reforms is all in the right direction. ... What we don’t want are radical ideologies to take control of a very large and important country in the Middle East. ... There are legitimate grievances that the Egyptian people have. And they need to be addressed. Whether that is through free and fair elections, whether it’s through more democratic reforms in the short-term, I think all of these again are moving in the right direction.”
the last three years, education spending has gone up 209 percent, energy spending 150 percent, EPA spending 126 percent, transportation spending 71 percent, and science spending 47 percent. (CNBC)
republicans are going to cut.BYJD PLUSon 01/30/2011 at 10:14
Thank You, Boehner. We are tired of big and growing government and we want our lives back.
As for education . . . until we return to transmitting virtue and morality through our educational system, NO AMOUNT OF MONEY will solve our problem — not in the schools . . . not in our nation. The original intent of education was to build virtuous and moral citizens. We can create the greatest scientist and mathematicians in the world, but without a return to virtue and moral decency our entire country will continue its course of decline.BYPNUTBUTTERon 01/30/2011 at 10:55
It is time to cut the Government in wages, headcount, expenses and control. Rollback budgets several years and then begin reductions until we have a clear path and reasonable time-frame to eliminate the debt.
The welfare state is an abject failure when near ½ the citizens pay nothing in Federal Income tax and criminals recieve public assistance. Time to review ALL ENTITLEMENTS and begin the ELIMINATION of ALL SUBSIDIES.BYSUNSHINE CONNIEon 01/30/2011 at 11:20
What Boehner meant was, there's no limit to how small their cuts will be.BYSPEND BABY SPENDon 01/30/2011 at 12:33
Any talk of cuts in spending must be preceded, in my estimation, by open discussion of those areas of foreign policy that lie behind our being by far the world's biggest spenders on national security. National defense is but one component, homeland security another, nation building. foreign aid designed to gain the cooperation of other countries, and veterans affairs the rest—all under "national security." About a trillion dollars annually are spent on that collective of five, putting us far ahead of such spending by any other country and very nearly putting us ahead of the rest of the world combined. The question of why we spend so extravagantly, answered satisfactorily, will make clear to all that the choices we're making in foreign policy are responsible and should, in fact, be debated broadly and openly. The projection of American power everywhere is a tremendously expensive undertaking, especially for a nation running huge annual deficits. So, too, the undertaking of military interventions and outright wars with questionable purpose and outcome. And, lest it be overlooked, so too our long-time support of Israel—financially, militarily, and at the U.N.—regardless the consequence in treasure and lives. We have taken it upon ourselves, ever since WWII to be the world's hegemon, and few of those paying taxes in the U.S. realize what that has meant to our national budget. Talking cuts in national expenditures toward reducing the deficit and debt requires total honesty and clarity. It is not enough to attack, say, "entitlements" as fat targets without also attacking the fat targets some of our foreign policy decisions have createdBYRON W. SMITHon 01/30/2011 at 12:48
We need to stop wefare, food stamps, hud and earned income credit but that want happen.BYDAVID PPOOLon 01/30/2011 at 14:49
The time has come for drastic actions. The citizens of our country expect the government to shoulder too many of their own personal problems. The role of the government needs to be redefined. Protect against foreign invaders (politically, economically, and militarily), and enforce laws that protect oppression of the weak by the rich and powerful. We need the Government to run a budget surplus until our national debt is paid. We need to take active measures to reinfuse the manufacturing industrial sector rather than being a consumer economy based on service industries. We need the government to repeal tax codes that cause businesses to go oversees instead of investing domestically. If we don't do this, the US dollar's status as the world's reserve currency is in serious jeopardy. If that happens our current way of life and standard of living is over.BYGARY WORTZon 01/30/2011 at 14:54
Lets go back to 1996 levels of spending. Better yet, when was the last time the budget had a surplus? We cannot continue deficit spending. It has to stop sometime. Its Fantasyland to believe we can just keep spending money that isn't there. Sooner or later it will have to be paid back or we will have to go bankrupt. That is the sad reality of the situation.BYRON SWEETon 01/30/2011 at 14:54
While your finding all these wonderful cuts .. let's not forget that rolling spending back to 2008 levels also means you are causing hardship to the poor and working class Americans. Our spending doesn't get rolled back to 2008 levels, daily living costs keep rising and it gets more and more difficult for folks to purchase just the basic necessities. You really need to be responsible toward all of your constitutes not just the wealthy who will not be effected by the cuts you have proposed recently.
It appears Mr Boehner, that you wish to protect all those high profit corporations that pay your campaign bills while neglecting the rest of America. The wealthy should not be the soul policy setters. I fear your enthusiasm for their needs and desires will back-fire on you. Don't forget there is a far larger percentage of voters who make much less then a million a year .. don't count us out during 2012.BYSEAROSEon 01/30/2011 at 15:02
Cap public servant pay from national budget at $1000 per week, Except have every country contribute 20% transaction tax on currency exodus for imports easy collection by banks for International Justice and Electoral Commission to fight wars as run by vote of G30 presidents and run local justice subject to 1000 common sense local courts in each country, each with 10 elected judges and 10 lotto selected jurist.BYLORIS HEMLOFon 01/30/2011 at 15:19
IN HIS STATE of the Union address Tuesday night, President Obama failed to present a credible plan for long-term debt reduction. It's no secret that we think he made a big mistake. If America can't get a handle on its finances, everything else is at risk: military strength, the safety net for the poor, the ability to invest for future economic growth. But now that the president has punted, is there any conceivable path toward fiscal sanity?
Last year it seemed the president had set out on such a path. He appointed a bipartisan commission to study the debt, the idea being that it could propose solutions that everyone knows are needed but that are so politically charged neither party dares propose them first. And the commission, chaired by Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, came through: It produced a credible plan that won support from key members of both parties. Mr. Obama could have embraced the results without accepting every facet of them and challenged congressional leaders to do the same, with the goal of fashioning a debt-reduction plan that would reassure markets and international lenders.
The president took a cagier route. He hailed the commission's "important progress" without endorsing any of its recommendations. He acknowledged that the government will have to raise taxes, but said it in such a convoluted way - referring to the need to cut "spending through tax breaks and loopholes" - that no one could possibly understand. He pledged a willingness to reform Social Security, but "without slashing benefits for future generations" - phrasing that conceivably left him room to reduce benefits, below some slash threshold known only to him, while sounding as though he opposes any cuts at all.
What could explain such cynicism? One theory would be that Mr. Obama doesn't agree about the seriousness of the problem. If this is so, his rhetoric - two years ago he warned, "We can no longer afford to leave the hard choices for the next budget, the next administration or the next generation," and on Tuesday he reiterated, "Now, the final step - a critical step - in winning the future is to make sure we aren't buried under a mountain of debt" - is just that, rhetoric. But the arithmetic is so clear, and mainstream economists are so in agreement, that it seems unlikely that Mr. Obama would be a secret dissenter.
A second possibility is that he calculated the chances of getting a deal at close to zero. House Republicans are convinced that the problem can be solved simply by cutting spending. The arithmetic again says otherwise, but until they come around, Mr. Obama may have concluded that there's no point in trying to bargain - might as well wait until 2013. In that case the key goal would be reelection, which would explain why the Tuesday speech at times sounded like a campaign kickoff: drawing distinctions between Democratic farsightedness and Republican myopia, and appealing to core interest groups such as teachers, construction workers and senior citizens.
The third, and scariest, possibility is this: The White House may have decided that debt reduction is so tough it has to await what officials, speaking not for attribution, have termed a "forcing event" - a spike in interest rates, a reluctance by foreigners to buy U.S. debt or some other market disruption that would frighten Congress into action. What's disturbing about this idea is that such "forcing events" tend to take on lives of their own; once a panic starts, it's not easily controlled.
It's not too late for Mr. Obama to apply a different kind of forcing event: presidential leadership. We understand it's tough. Americans say they want deficit reduction, but they oppose just about every kind of tax hike or spending cut needed to make deficit reduction happen. But they also are genuinely worried about the debt and the European example. Candor, instead of caginess, might yield results.
President Obama tours a General Electric plant in in Schenectady, N.Y., with GE Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt on Jan. 21. GE paid 3.6 cents on the dollar in corporate taxes in the past three years.
January 29, 2011
During his State of the Union address, President Obama said the current tax system is broken.
"Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all," he said. "But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change."
Just how broken is the corporate tax system? Consider the tax rate paid by two of America's biggest companies — Wal-Mart and General Electric. Wal-Mart paid 34 cents in taxes for every dollar of profit it made in the past three years. General Electric paid just 3.6 cents on the dollar.
Welcome to the mysterious world of the corporate income tax, says tax expert Len Burman at Syracuse University. "There are big companies that consider their tax departments to be profit centers," he says.
That's right; instead of concentrating on making light bulbs, power plants or whatnot, companies use the tax system to boost their profits.
Moving Income Overseas
How do they do it?
Burman says it helps to be large and have lots of overseas subsidiaries.
"They make money by moving income overseas or in different kinds of activities or adjusting their accounting in such a way that they can pay less taxes than their competitors do," he says.
Winners And Losers Under The Current Tax Code
Low effective tax rates are common in the pharmaceutical and computer equipment industries. But in other industries that are more dependent on domestic customers and services, the opportunities for reducing taxes are more limited.
Tax rates are an average of three years, as presented in the most recent company annual reports.
Companies say their behavior is driven by the fact that corporate taxes in United States are among the highest in the world.
True — but there are other ways to look at it, says Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center in Washington.
"If you look at the statutory tax rate — the 35 percent tax rate — we're among the highest among industrialized countries. If you look at the effective tax rate — the actual tax rate that companies pay after all the adjustments they make — we're much closer to the center of the pack," he says.
That's around 25 percent or so.
And when companies work aggressively to minimize their U.S. taxes, they leave billions of dollars in profits parked overseas.
When Companies Make Tax-Based Decisions
For example, Burman says, think about a company that moves its pharmaceutical plant from New Jersey to Ireland for tax purposes. In addition to the loss of American jobs, there are other costs to consider.
"The company might say, 'Well, it's worth incurring the transportation costs, hauling all the medicines back overseas from Ireland to the U.S., because of all the money they save on taxes, but that's just a pure waste."
Pharmaceutical and biotech companies pay some of the lowest tax rates around — in the low single digits, according to research from New York University.
Most retailers — like Wal-Mart — pay the full 35 percent corporate tax rate.
"Right now, we have the tax code that provides incentives for you to do this type of behavior or that type of behavior," says Rachelle Bernstein, the tax counsel for the National Retail Federation. "The better way to do it [is to] lower the rates, broaden the base and let businesses make the right decisions without the tax code in the way."
There are big companies that consider their tax departments to be profit centers.
- Len Burman, a tax expert at Syracuse University
Congress has showered the pharmaceutical and biotech industries with tax write-offs for research and development. Meanwhile, energy companies get tax breaks for exploration.
But retailers and many companies that don't do much business overseas tend to get very few write-offs.
Obama didn't lay out a detailed plan for reforming the corporate tax in his State of the Union speech.
He said only that he wants to weed out the loopholes so that overall rates can be lower for everyone while raising the same amount of money.
Yet Another Try At Tax Overhaul
There is a precedent for the kind of tax overhaul he's proposing.
Back in 1986, President Reagan reached a deal with Congress that cleaned out many loopholes.
Syracuse University's Burman says that deal actually raised corporate taxes quite a bit while lowering individual tax rates.
"There was a turning point when a bunch of corporate CEOs came to Washington and said, 'Well, we really like this proposal even though you're going to hammer our companies because we personally are going to pay a whole lot less in income tax.' "
But in the current fiscal environment, there may not be enough money to buy off CEOs with yet another round of tax cuts.
— Flickr/Steve Rhodes (Creative Commons).
