Vote 2020 graphic
Everything you need to know about and expect during
the most important election of our lifetimes

Paul Ryan Once Again Sponsors the Bill That Would Make It Possible for Women's Rapists to Sue Them

Illustration for article titled Paul Ryan Once Again Sponsors the Bill That Would Make It Possible for Womens Rapists to Sue Them

Well, if Paul Ryan does run in 2016, we know he'll be going full speed with the crazy, making it impossible for him to win, and Hillary will be president, and then everyone will win. Well, except for the American politics, which has been stripped of the effective multiple-party system it needs to evolve and thrive.

Advertisement

Whatevs, back to Ryan being an idiot with his morals stuck in all the wrong holes.

In an unsurprising turn of events, Ryan has signed on as cosponsor to the Sanctity of Human Life Act again. The original bill — which declares that life begins with fertilization, and would give states the right to ban all abortion, even in the cases involving incest, rape, or the life of the mother — thankfully died in Congress in 2011.

Advertisement

But now it's baaaaack, which is scary because not only is the above terrifying, there's all sorts of other creepy shit hidden in this monster. Like, if a woman who was raped in a state that banned abortions went to a state that didn't ban abortions and had an abortion? Her rapist could theoretically sue to stop the abortion from happening, and probably win. And it doesn't stop there with the reproductive weirdness, if passed, it'll probably make many forms of IVF illegal.

Luckily, it's almost for sure gonna die again, but I wonder if Ryan's career will go the way of the dodo bird soon after? The tide is turning, and a majority of voters don't want politicians making women's health choices for them. For everyone's sake, it would be best for Ryan and politicians like him to see this as the death rattle. Pack up your moral indignation and head home, guys, I'm sure there's a pot roast in your kitchen you can mansplain your garbage feelings on women's reproductive rights to.

Advertisement

[Huffington Post]

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

RyanKesler
RyanKesler

I don't really have a good grasp of the American Legal situation, but doesn't Roe v Wade, your SC decision stand unopposed as it should. Does not it not mirror the pre-eminance of Canada's Morgantaler I which essentially enshrined a Women's right to their body? I do not understand how bills like these can even make it past a basic stage in the legislature given America's constitution does not have notwithstanding clauses (Section 1, 33 et al) like Canada's charter.

Someone explain to me how short of the SC, or your executive (as I so understood from your zoo-like election), overturning Roe, pass laws restricting what essentially should be Women's choice?