Anti-rape Condom Proves Insurance SHOULD Cover Abortion

Remember that one time that Kansas Republican law maker Peter DeGraaf said that women should “prepare for rape” much in the same way that he has a spare tire, just in case? Well, sure right you are, Mr. DeGraaf!

Allow me to introduce, “Rape-aXe.” This product is an anti-rape female condom that can be worn inside a woman’s vagina and is fully equipped has a set of barbs inside that penetrate the perpetrator’s penis and must be surgically removed if activated. This product is not available in the United States (though I’m sure there’s a black market for it somewhere). It was created for women who live in areas where rape is obscenely common, namely South Africa.

Sadly, upon seeing this device, my first thought was not, “HAHA! That’ll teach ’em!” My first thought was an explosion of excuses, regulations, and legislation that would be placed on the device and its procurement, still thrusting the burden of rape on its victims. My thoughts were based on current policies and attitudes toward reproductive rights. It would only be available through prescription. A woman would have to be 18 to purchase one, or get her parents’ permission if she’s not 18. A woman would have to prove she’s in a dangerous situation where rape is likely to occur to get a prescription for one. A pharmacist could refuse to give one to a woman if it’s against his beliefs. What about those EVIL women who just want revenge or to cause pain to some poor, unsuspecting schmuck (never mind that during consensual sex, you’d likely notice this thing in a woman’s vagina before stampeding to penetration; brings a strong case to going to third base)?

It’s amazing the arguments people can come up with to continue to hold women responsible for men’s irresponsible and downright disgusting behavior. It’s also a marvel at how emotional arguments about outliers and highly improbable but statistically possible cases are suddenly defensible when men are the ones about to suffer. All those creative ideas aside, the one that really stuck a barb in my cooch was the idea of insurance. Insurance shouldn’t pay for abortion if it’s simply a choice for a woman who simply doesn’t want a child, right? What about a rapist who simply doesn’t want a mutilated cock? I would bet all the money in the universe, all the tea in China, and all the fast food in America that if this item were widely available in the United States, removal would be covered by insurance. Sadly, I doubt there’s a soul on this planet that would argue with me.

If you honestly think this device would “do more harm than good,” or that “insurance SHOULD cover its removal just in case of those evil women who just want to get back at a guy,” and yet you don’t think abortion in any and every case SHOULD be covered by insurance, then you need sit down, look in the mirror, and figure out why you’re such a goddamn, woman-hating idiot. I’ve said it a million times before and I’ll say it a million times again, if men could get pregnant, you could get an abortion at McDonald’s.

AND BY THE WAAAAAAAY, if you’re one of these folks that goes around saying, “Well, abortion should ONLY be okay if the woman has been raped,” then consider an estimated 60% of sexual assault cases go unreported and rape convictions have a success rate of less than 20% (yes, that means 88% of rapists get away with it). Plus, the US abandoned the idea of a “fair and speedy trial” at least a century ago, so you explain to me how in a period of less than six months a woman is expected to press charges, successfully prove in court rape occurred and get a conviction, then successfully prove the paternity of the father, because, how do we know she isn’t just a total slut who went home and fucked her boyfriend right after she got raped? By the way, did I mention that paternity tests cannot be done until three months into a pregnancy, technically giving mom a whopping 3 months to do all this AND do some deep soul searching to decide if she wants to keep the baby of her attacker? By the time all of this happens, the kid’s already in kindergarten.

But yes, if Rape-aXe becomes available in the US, I’m sure insurance wouldn’t cover its purchase, but would cover removal, because after all, “We do need to plan ahead,” for certain things, right, Mr. DrGraaf?


About ktrantingredhead

Aspiring writer, professional ranter.

Posted on June 20, 2011, in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: