Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

In case you were wondering, Representatives Todd Akin (r), Vicky Hartzler (r), Jo Ann Emerson (r), Sam Graves (r), Billy Long (r), and Blaine Luetkemeyer (r) are co-sponsors (along with 173 others) of HR 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”.

The bill contains a curious use of language:

SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

     `The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion–

           `(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or

           `(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself…

Pregnant female?

Kay at Balloon Juice:

…as a not-now-pregnant female who was included in anti-choice statutory language up until yesterday, I’d sure like to know why “pregnant females” have all of a sudden been carefully set apart from the larger category of “women”.

Any guesses? Is it meant to include the people formerly known as “girls” or is it some brand new poll-tested language intended to divide? The last time I recall using the phrase “pregnant female” I was talking about a hamster.

[emphasis added]

In Missouri, SB 95 [pdf], as introduced, line 8:

…3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs [for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet] shall provide each covered dog…

Also, SB 113 [pdf], as introduced, line 8:

…3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog…

Or HB 131, as introduced:

…3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than [ten] one hundred female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog…

Or HB 281, as introduced:

…3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog…

Or HB 94, as introduced:

…3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog…

And HB 99, and HB 332.

Why is it that the sponsors of HR 3 in Congress didn’t see fit to use the term “woman” and/or “girl” in that passage of their bill?

But, pregnant female?

The Missouri General Assembly, even in the following example of anti-choice legislation (HB 213), doesn’t use that convention of language:

…the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or when continuation of the pregnancy will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman

[emphasis added]

Or, in SB 65 [pdf], as introduced, line 13:

…a condition which, on the basis of a physician’s good faith clinical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert the death of the pregnant woman or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman

[emphasis added]

Curiouser and curiouser.