Just when you think you've heard just about every screwy accusation imaginable from Debbie Wizzerman Schultz of Florida, the stellar chairman of the Democratic National Committee, she goes out and proves us all wrong. I say that because she has apparently now actually accused Republicans of "making sure that we would redefine rape." It was during a during a recent conference call that this mouth from the south, Wizzerman Schultz said, “I think the agenda of the Republican Party and of Mitt Romney has clearly been--and can be interpreted as--an attack on the issues that matter to women."
“From the very beginning of this Congress,” she said, “the first priorities in the first bills the Republicans introduced repealing the Affordable Care Act which would dramatically impact women in a negative way [by] making sure that insurance companies could drop us or deny us coverage for preexisting conditions, making sure that we could once again be charged more simply because of our gender for insurance coverage, making sure that we would redefine rape as only being forcible rape--that was H.R. 3.” This is a total misrepresentation of what this bill actually would do. And she knew when she said it!
Anyway, what the ditsy Ms. Wizzerman Schultz was referring to is the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which sought to make the ban on federal funding of abortions permanent, removing the need to pass the Hyde Amendment every year. And what Wizzerman Schultz failed to mention here is the fact that the bill was co-sponsored by Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski (Ill.) and 16 Democrats voted with Republicans in support of the measure, which passed by a 251-175 vote last May. So again I think it quite obvious that Ms. Wizzerman Schultz is rather selective in her throwing around her accusations.
The version of the bill that has Ms. Wizzerman Schultz's panties in a bunch, contained an exemption for abortions in the case of “forcible rape” and incest. At the time, liberals seized on the term “forcible,” and claimed it would redefine rape under federal law. They argued the wording excluded non-consensual sex when not accompanied by violence, for example drug-induced rape. However, the bill did not change the criminal definition of rape under federal law or any other law whatsoever. Further, and something that should come as no surprise, while the bill passed the House it never progressed through the Senate.
Like most liberals, this screwy bimbo has a rather peculiar habit of taking herself way too seriously, and assumes that anything she has to say is very much worth listening to. But I'm curious about something. Are there really that many women in this country who are actually stupid enough to believe anything that comes out of the mouth of this certifiable loon? For the life of me I just can't believe that there are. I would like to think that most women would be able to see through all of the drivel spewed by Ms. Wizzerman Schultz. But I suppose that little theory will be put to the test come this November.
No comments:
Post a Comment