Post by RichAdespite it, she never bothered to LEAVE THE GUY even though she was 18!!
Post by Adam H. KermanPost by David JohnstonPost by Adam H. KermanPost by David JohnstonPost by Adam H. KermanPost by David JohnstonPost by Adam H. KermanPost by David JohnstonShe is not accusing him of forcible rape. A swim coach is in a superb
position to groom a teenage girl.
I could have sworn that the term Johnston just used was banned as
anti-PC. Shame shame shame
No, it's still OK to call a teenager a girl.
The un-PC term is "forcible rape"; a politician got in trouble for using
it two years ago.
I doubt it. What will get a politician in trouble is belittling a
molestation charge because it wasn't forcible rape.
Wrong again, Johnston.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2012/
You're linking to an article I can't read.
How does that let you off the hook from giving us an example of exactly
what you were thinking of, to prove that you didn't get caught making
shit up again
What, you mean like you made up the idea that "forcible rape" was a
forbiddent expression?
I said specifically that it's forbidden to P.C. and thought it was amusing
that you defied PC to use it, or do you have a reading comprehension
problem?
I was teasing. I didn't expect that you would discern that as you have
no detectable sense of humor.
Post by RichAPost by Adam H. Kermanhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2012/08/27/paul-ryan-the-term-forcible-rape-was-stock-language/
Nope. I can't read any Washington Post articles. But since you told me
what it was I could track down another venue.
Post by Adam H. KermanIn any event, Paul Ryan had co-sponsored language in which Medicaid
recipients couldn't get an abortion paid for if the rape wasn't
"forcible rape". Ryan didn't want Medicaid to pay for abortions of
knocked up high school girls of consensual sex with their boyfriends who
couldn't be bothered to use birth control.
It got translated into Paul Ryan wants some poor 11 year old girl who
had sex with her 30 year old teacher to be forced to carry the baby to
term!!!!!
Regardless of what he wanted, unless there was the threat of force (or
incest) involved in the child rape, it would mean that Medicaid wouldn't
cover it.
It would have been paid for however such things are paid for today. In
any event, no one supported it.
Post by RichAIt didn't help that Akins was the co-sponsor.
Akins believes medically impossible things. Ryan's merely a Catholic,
opposed to abortion for religious reasons.
Post by RichAPost by Adam H. KermanBut statutory rape laws have NEVER applied to situations like
that, and no state's criminal code recognizes that a very young girl can
give consent under circumstances in which there's an extreme age
difference or an adult with responsibility over her.
Yes, that makes it rape. It doesn't make it "forcible" rape.
In the federal aggregate crime statistics definition in use since the
1920s until 2012, it meant,
the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her
will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of
force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force)
and other sex offenses are excluded.
The term "carnal knowledge" doesn't seem to have a consistent
definition, appears to mean vaginal sex outside marriage.
But that's a crime statistics definition, not a legal definition. It
never was defined for the purpose of Social Security law.
Ryan would have made a mess of things, of course. But the accusations
against him were over the top, entirely due to using that term.
Elsewhere, he's stated with clarity his ideas on abortion restrictions,
which would have been limited to the health of the mother.