No abortions for *RAPED* military women, Christian group celebrates

No abortions for *RAPED* military women, Christian group celebrates December 14, 2011

In case you didn’t see it, The Young Turks have shed some light on this unbelievable new policy.

Lousy Canuck has transcribed the Concerned Women For America’s position on the matter from a PDF:

Dear Senator,

On behalf of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee’s (CWALAC) 500,000 members nationwide, I am writing to you to ask you to oppose Senator Jeanne Shaheen’s Amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization bill that forces taxpayers to foot the bill for abortions in the case of rape or incest. Instead of focusing on our national security at a time of war, this amendment simply serves as a political distraction.

Women already have access to abortions at a military facility in instances of rape or incest. However, American taxpayers have not been forced to pay for these abortions.

Pregnancies under such difficult circumstances need an extra measure of compassion and support. We need to remember that these women are victims of a heinous crime. But our priorities should be placed on preventing these crimes, punishing the perpetrators, and not covering up a crime by merely dealing with the physical consequences. Women deserve better than simply being given abortion as a “cure-all.”

CWALAC opposes the Shaheen amendment and will score against this amendment in our annual scorecard.


Penny Nance

Chief Executive Officer and President

Concerned Women for America


"Here I'd thought my friend had gone off the deep end. I am very much ..."

Dawkins is Worse than ISIS But ..."
"Go "back" to FB?You're talking about alternate futures."

Dawkins is Worse than ISIS But ..."
"JT is trolling today too. Was there a behind the scenes note to play knifey-spooney?"

Dawkins is Worse than ISIS But ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Oy vey…

    Because everyone’s running around screaming that abortion undoes rape… -_-

    • papango

      Oh, yeah. You can hardly have the TV on for more than a few minutes before one of those ads promoting abortion as a ‘cure all’ for women comes on.

      Sweet imaginary jesus these ‘concerned women’ piss me off. I’m glad I’m a third-wave feminist so I don’t have to pay lip service to ‘sisterhood’.

  • FormerlyNavy

    Are you fucking kidding me? seriously? there are no words….

  • marianna

    I’m pretty sure they’re not forcing the women to carry the babies to term, right? It seems they can still get abortions, and even on base, they just have to pay for it themselves…right? Not that that’s cool at all, but the video really seems to blow it out of proportion. Am I missing something?

    • Just like we are forced to pay for wars we dont agree with?

      The military by nature takes tax payer money, and uses it for something lots of tax payers do not agree with.

      To offer service members full health care, then to revoke it for this of all things, and claim its because “tax dollars shouldn’t be spent on something tax payers don’t agree with” is fucking absurd.

      • marianna

        I totally agree. But the video says the women are being forced to carry the pregnancies. I just think the point would be more powerful if they didn’t twist it around.

        • jamessweet

          If you don’t have the money, you sort of are…

    • Actually in a country like Afghanistan or other far flung bases they CANNOT get an abortion unless the military does it. That is the real issue here.

  • jufulu

    They are trying to make woman carry the fetus to term. Consider a woman whose station is somewhere like Afghanistan where there is no one off base that will provide an abortion. I’m pretty sure that military medical personnel won’t provide one or even provide Plan B. I’m not military, so is there anyone that can provide better info?

    • Steve

      If a women gets pregnant when deployed to a combat zone, she is sent home very quickly

      • jufulu

        Thanks Steve for the info. Do you know if being sent out of the combat zone is a career killer and can/would the soldier return the duty station if she were to get an abortion?

  • kantalope

    @Marianna One of the supposed benefits of being in the military is having your medical care taken care of. So, for instance if a man got kicked in the balls and required medical care it would be taken care of free.

    Apparently if a woman is raped…that medical benefit is not so available. And if you happen to be a lower ranking woman – that expense would be onerous. And there is no overtime pay so you can earn a little more money by working late.

    • marianna

      What these anti-abortion advocates are doing is disgusting and immoral. But it sounds like the failure to pay for these abortions as part of the veterans’ health care is already the status quo, so this isn’t really news. I think CWA is evil, but they didn’t create the problem (I don’t think).

      I’d like to know why this policy exists in the first place, and to what extent it limits these women’s ability to have access to abortions. The video makes it sound like they’re essentially forcing these women to carry their pregnancies to term, which is illegal and unconstitutional. If the military doctors are refusing these women–raped or not–access to safe abortions, or putting up so many hurdles that they essentially make it impossible, then this needs to be made known and the people doing it need to be punished.

      There seems to be a bigger story that’s being ignored. What CWA did seems almost beside the point. I really hope there’s someone reading this in the military who can shed some more light on this problem so someone can bring it out into the open.

  • There is a couple of things I take issue with. First, it is not true that government forces women to raise a rape child. Secondly, I don’t think any government money goes to abortion, and to be consistent, they would have to apply it in this case as well. Though it does seem to be inconsistent if government workers get tax money for abortions. That issue ought to be resolved. Thirdly, there is nothing I see in the letter that address the religious, and so attacking the religious is a straw man. I know a few atheists who are completely against abortion and would be against legislating women in the miltary having abortions. Fourthly, the Bible actually does say something against abortion, and to my knowledge, doesn’t support it. Fifthly, they can only get away with all the ridicule if the unborn is not valuable. And the guy seems to get the issue, yet he runs back into his view that they are not. Yet provided no justification for it. If the unborn are valuable human beings, then he ought to change his tone.

    So what do we have here? Nothing of substance. Just preaching to the choir.

    • papango

      1: I agree with this. The government cannot and should not force a woman to raise the child. But they are trying to force a woman to carry the child, and I find that grotesque.

      2: The military provides health care for service men and women, who are often in situations and places where their access to healthcare beyond what is provided by the military is limited. So the situation is no the same as with other members of US society. The government does pay for government employees to get terminations. So, for the sake of consistency, they should be providing this to military women.

      3: Concerned Women of America is a conservative religious group. It is valid to look at their motivations. It is pretty clear that ‘concern’ is not one of them.

      4: The man is right. There is only one example of actual abortion (the deliberate termination of a pregnancy) in the Bible, and it’s for use by priests on women who have been unfaithful. A child that is not her husbands is to be terminated by the clergy. Which is hardly an unequivocal pro-life message.

      5: This is pretty much a non-sequitor.

      • 3: Concern is a motivation. They acknowledge that rape is terrible, but also believe that the unborn is a valuable human being. Therefore, they are also concerned with that life. They aren’t saying rape isn’t bad though.

        4: There is more than one instance…

        5: What part exactly is a non sequitur? I can try to clear that up for you.

        • papango

          3: Nobody who thinks abortion is a ‘cure all’ for rape has any clue what it is like. Nor do they care to find out. I’m not giving any prizes for acknowledging rape is bad, that’s barely on the cusp of acceptable behaviour and hardly noteworthy. There is a huge sucking void where their concern and compassion for rape victims should be.

          4: The one in Numbers is the only one that talks about the deliberate termination of a pregnancy. The other quotes talk about newborns and killing women who might have been pregnant or accidentally causing a miscarriage. Those are all things that happen, but they’re not abortion.

          5: More of less all of it. I gather you are opposed to abortion due to the value you place on the unborn. And I can respect that as a point of view. But I’m not sure where you’re going with it in regards to the ridicule. It’s pretty clear that the value of the unborn is not universally agreed. Anti-abortion Republicans like Ellmers have also worked against the provision of maternity care, which suggests to me they don’t really value the unborn as much more than a tool.

    • I did not watch the video, because I read the letter from CWFA over at Lousy Canuck’s, but I can’t resist responding to you, Adrian.

      “First, it is not true that government forces women to raise a rape child.”

      No, of course not. They just use economics to violate her autonomy – again – by forcing her to endure 9 months of pregancy foisted upon her by a criminal.

      “…I don’t think any government money goes to abortion, and to be consistent, they would have to apply it in this case as well.”

      Yes, because consistency is what matters here. Right.

      Of course, strictly as a matter of law, U.S. courts do need to be consistent. What’s wrong with this is that the law supports inhibiting a woman’s reproductive rights to the extent that apparently even rape isn’t enough to grant her an exception.

      “…attacking the religious is a straw man.”

      Bullshit. While strictly true, the vast majority of those working to restrict women’s reproductive freedom are religious, or base their reasons for opposing said freedoms for religious reasons. Also, please explain how what you’ve said squares with CWFA as a self-described “US coalition of conservative women which promotes Biblical values and family traditions.

      “… the Bible actually does say something against abortion, and to my knowledge, doesn’t support it.”

      Which is completely irrelevant, and in any case tips your hand. Didn’t you just say that attacking the religious is a straw man, only to turn around and refer to the Bible to imply that abortion is wrong? WTF!?

      • “They just use economics to violate her autonomy by forcing her to endure 9 months of pregancy foisted upon her by a criminal.”How did they use economics to do this? I can see how they used the law, but econ?

        “What’s wrong with this is that the law supports inhibiting a woman’s reproductive rights to the extent that apparently even rape isn’t enough to grant her an exception.” If you believe that abortion is permissible, then sure, this is retarded. But if you’re a prolifer, this is consistent. None of us are saying that what happened to her wasn’t terrible, it was, but if you believe that the fetus is a valuable human being, as I do, then there is nothing wrong with this decision. It all just depends where you fall on the abortion debate.

        Attacking religion is a straw man because nowhere in the statement was religion mentioned. Now, I didn’t look up their values statement, so I’ll grant that, but to further attack religion is still a straw man because they can, and do, have good secular reasons for being against abortion. The video commentator disagrees, but at least he recognizes that such a case is possible.

        My further comment about the Bible was my reasoning GRANTED that this guy was right. I’m not arguing here from the Bible . I’m saying, attacking it is a straw man or at least irrelevant, but even if it weren’t, granting the commentator the Biblical arena, then he would still be wrong on those grounds. My comments were to show that he would still be wrong. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear or explicit enough to follow.

        • Do you have any clue how much it costs to deliver a baby? I personally don’t, but I’ve heard it is not cheap and one cannot expect medical insurance to cover the full bill. And if the mother does not give up the baby for adoption, then there is the cost of raising the child. These anti-abortion people have never done anything to push for government support in paying for these costs even though they force such costs onto people by trying to outlaw abortions. This is inconsistent. This is against secular reasoning (at least thorough reasoning). I’d bet this group is against safe-sex education and birth control, too. Why? Because that’s their religion. So, no, attacking religion is not a straw man.

    • ema

      First, it is not true that government forces women to raise a rape child.

      Care to support this assertion?

      Secondly, I don’t think any government money goes to abortion….

      Yes, it does, for [non-military] women in cases of rape and incest.

      Thirdly, there is nothing I see in the letter that address the religious….

      CWALAC’s position is that taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to foot the bill for the medical treatment of the physical consequences suffered by soldiers who are victims of crime.

      The fact that you may know a few atheists who agree that soldiers who are stabbed in a robbery, or burned as a result of arson, should pay out-of-pocket for their medical care is not enough to infer that religious belief doesn’t play a role in supporting this appalling position.

      Fourthly, the Bible actually does say something against abortion, and to my knowledge, doesn’t support it.

      How is what the Bible says relevant to medicine, the Department of Defense (both reality-based), and policy in a country that isn’t a theocracy?

      Fifthly, they can only get away with all the ridicule if the unborn is not valuable.

      Define “unborn” and “valuable.”

      So what do we have here? Nothing of substance.

      Really, you deem the opposition to taxpayers paying for the proper medical care of our soldiers [n]othing of substance?

      • papango

        Adoption is legal in all parts of the US. They can force the women to carry the baby, but nobody can force them to raise it.

  • Hermien

    So if i been raped now its ok i can violently kill a small animal by drowning it in salt water or shredding it while live limb from limb? …No? ..but its ok to do this to my own flesh, remember half the genes come from the mom . perhaps the trauma of a rape pqegnancy is exagerated and the trauma of abortion downplayed… Coz havin that baby mite help heal u both but aborting it increases it and yr left with nothing but a big black hole

    • But that is not how it works.. What you are removing in a regular abortion is comparable to a wart in size. It’s a mass of cells with no sentience and it will not even be remotely human for a month.

      I would dare you to look into the eyes of the rape victim and say that their trauma is exaggerated… That must have been the most stupid statement I have ever heard, seriously, you should win an award for it.

      Have you though about, just a Cenk said, how it would feel to have the rapist inside you, the agony and remorse when the child grows inside? Not to mention the kid when it asks, “why don’t you and dad live together?”

      -“Well, he raped me”.

      Grow up.

    • papango

      The idea that having a rapists baby will ‘help you heal’ is pretty extraordinary. I think you need more than speculation and poor English if you want it to be taken seriously. I’m also unconvinced by the assertion that an abortion is more tramatic than a rape.

  • unbound

    Multiple trolls in this thread. I put papango on top for best response to the trolls so far…

  • maureen.brian

    I suggest that the self-righteous and the obtuse might want to revisit this story in conjunction with the piece over at PZ’s the other day.

    For the truly thick I’ll spell it out – if the US Military had to account for the numbers of abortion-after-rape they paid for then they might be forced to admit that sexual abuse of service personnel is a big problem and one they show no sign of addressing.

  • I’m just sorry that there are so many horrid implications after someone is sexually assaulted from within the VA or DoD communities.


    Women fighting for the systematic deconstruction of women’s rights. *sigh*

    They should read the statistics. The majority of women that get abortions are in fact religious.