In a statement (PDF) released Nov. 2, the Catholic Conference of Illinois lambasted Gov. Quinn for agreeing to present a “Pro-Choice Leadership Award” at an upcoming event for Personal PAC, an abortion-rights political action committee. The leadership award is going to Jennie Goodman, a rape-crisis counselor, and a rape victim herself.

The statement, co-signed by five bishops and Chicago Archbishop Cardinal Francis George, read, in part:

We deeply regret the Governor’s decision to present this award, which so closely associates him with a political action group whose purpose is contrary to the common good. With this action, Governor Quinn has gone beyond a political alignment with those supporting the legal right to kill children in their mother’s wombs to rewarding those deemed most successful in this terrible work.

Upon learning more about the event and about Goodman’s work with rape victims, the Catholic Conference released another statement (PDF) the following day, calling Quinn’s decision to present this award “irreconcilable with any honest profession of Catholic faith” while at the same time trying to offer compassion for rape victims.

Communication director Mary Massingale put it:

“Governor Quinn’s statement today that he is recognizing a rape victim for her advocacy work dodges the issue. Our hearts go out to any victim of rape, one of the most personally violent crimes against women.”

“A rape victim demands all the respect and sympathy that anybody can give,” George told the Tribune, when asked about the incident. He said he “deeply regret[s]” the statements he made about Goodman’s “terrible work” before learning who she was. He told the daily he did not regret, however, telling Quinn, who is Catholic, that participating in the even is immoral.

In an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Goodman described how she was violently raped 20 years ago.

From the Sun-Times:

Goodman, who is pro-choice and whose mother sits on the board of Personal PAC, never had an abortion because she didn’t get pregnant after the rape. As a counselor, she said, she never directed a rape victim to an abortion clinic. All of that makes her question why she would be the object of such charged language from the cardinal and other bishops.

“It upsets me when they kind of make me feel like I’m a baby killer,” Goodman told the Chicago Sun-Times.

“It does hurt. And it hurts for all those people who have been raped. Yeah, it definitely hit home and hurt me. You don’t know me,” she said, referring to the cardinal. “You don’t know my situation.”

But after protest from women’s groups this year, the FBI this week announced it would expand its definition of rape in its Uniform Crime Reports (UCR).

The new definition of rape — no longer “forcible” — resembles that of sexual assault, defining the crime as “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

The old “forcible rape” definition read simply: “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.” This previous definition included the note: “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 FBI has said it will continue to collect data on “forcible rape,” but only for research and comparison.

How the FBI defines rape made headlines this year, because the term “forcible rape” appeared in Republican Rep. Chris Smith’s “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” early this year. The bill stipulated only women who were victims of “forcible rape” (and incest and to save the life of the mother) could use Medicaid to pay for an abortion. After public outcry, the language was changed from “forcible rape” to “rape.”

Soon after, Ms. Magazine and the Feminist Majority Foundation launched the “Rape is Rape,” campaign in conjunction with Change.org. In the form of a petition, the organizations called on the FBI to count all rapes in the UCR. Nearly 140,000 emails were sent to the FBI and the Department of Justice, according to Ms. Magazine.

The definition change could impact how cities are rated in terms of safety. Every year, the FBI releases its Uniform Crime Reports, which rank major U.S. cities based on violent crimes, which consist of murder, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

The Uniform Crime Report Subcommittee of the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) voted unanimously on Tuesday broaden its rape definition. Next, the International Association of Chiefs of Police will review the new definition and make final recommendation to the CJIS Advisory Policy Board (APB) at their December 6-7, 2011, meeting to be held in Albuquerque, N.M. A final definition will be recommended to FBI Director Robert Mueller. A new definition will likely not be decided before 2012.

Watch part of the interview:

Leading up the interview, In the Arena’s blog posted an excerpt from Paul’s new book Liberty Defined: Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom, in which Paul explains his anti-abortion rights stance from the perspective of an OB/GYN and suggests that America has overstepped ”the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die.”

Addressing abortion as a constitutional right, Paul asserts that the federal government should not have authority to “grant permission to destroy [life]” but writes that states should be able to enact their own laws dealing with abortion. For example, he suggests victims of incest or rape — rather than having abortions to terminate their pregnancies — should take emergency contraception, such as the morning-after pill, to prevent pregnancy.

From Liberty Defined:

On one occasion in the 1960s when abortion was still illegal, I witnessed, while visiting a surgical suite as an OB/GYN resident, the abortion of a fetus that weighed approximately two pounds.

It was placed in a bucket, crying and struggling to breathe, and the medical personnel pretended not to notice.

Soon the crying stopped. This harrowing event forced me to think more seriously about this important issue.

That same day in the OB suite, an early delivery occurred and the infant born was only slightly larger than the one that was just aborted.

But in this room everybody did everything conceivable to save this child’s life. My conclusion that day was that we were overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die.

These were human lives. There was no consistent moral basis to the value of life under these circumstances.

Some people believe that being pro-choice is being on the side of freedom. I’ve never understood how an act of violence, killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right.

To speak only of the mother’s cost in carrying a baby to term ignores all thought of any legal rights of the unborn. I believe that the moral consequence of cavalierly accepting abortion diminishes the value of all life.

It is now widely accepted that there’s a constitutional right to abort a human fetus. Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence.

There are only four crimes listed in the Constitution: counterfeiting, piracy, treason, and slavery. Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states.

It’s a giant leap for the federal courts to declare abortion a constitutional right and overrule all state laws regulating the procedure. If anything, the federal government has a responsibility to protect life—not grant permission to destroy it.

If a state were to legalize infanticide, it could be charged with not maintaining a republican form of government, which is required by the Constitution.

If we, for the sake of discussion, ignore the legal arguments for or against abortion and have no laws prohibiting it, serious social ramifications would remain. There are still profound moral issues, issues of consent, and fundamental questions about the origin of life and the rights of individuals.

There are two arguments that clash. Some argue that any abortion after conception should be illegal. Others argue that the mother has a right to her body and no one should interfere with her decision.

It’s amazing to me that many people I have spoken to in the pro-choice group rarely care about choice in other circumstances. Almost all regulations by the federal government to protect us from ourselves (laws against smoking, bans on narcotics, and mandatory seat belts, for example) are readily supported by the left/liberals who demand “choice.”

Of course, to the pro-choice group, the precious choice we debate is limited to the mother and not to the unborn.

The fact is that the fetus has legal rights—inheritance, a right not to be injured or aborted by unwise medical treatment, violence, or accidents. Ignoring these rights is arbitrary and places relative rights on a small, living human being.

The only issue that should be debated is the moral one: whether or not a fetus has any right to life. Scientifically, there’s no debate over whether the fetus is alive and human—if not killed, it matures into an adult human being.

[...]

So if we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change again. The law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that the states shouldn’t be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion. Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her own moral choice.

Read the full excerpt here.

On Monday, Vice President Joe Biden, during his address to the University of New Hampshire, is expected to announce that, for the first time, rape, sexual assault and sexual battery will be considered not just to be crimes, but to be acts of discrimination, similar to how sexual harassment is classified under federal law.

(Listen to Biden’s speech live here, at 11:45 a.m. EST.)

According to the Post, the initiative has been spurred by high numbers of sex offenses reported at colleges and public high schools in recent years. The Obama administration has cited 3,300 forcible sex offenses on college campuses in 2009. In 2007-2008, there were reportedly 800 rapes and attempted rapes and 3,800 incidents of sexual battery at public high schools.

Consequently, the administration is urging schools, particularly those that receive federal funding, to do more to prevent sexual violence on campuses and to act quickly when complaints arise.

Last week President Obama issued a “proclamation” in honor of National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month, wherein he declared:

Nearly one in six American women will experience an attempted or completed rape at some point in her life, and for some groups, rates of sexual violence are even higher.  Almost one in three American Indian and Alaska Native women will be sexually assaulted.  Young women ages 16 to 24 are at greatest risk, and an alarming number of young women are sexually assaulted while in college.  Too many men and boys are also affected.  With each new victim and each person still suffering from an attack, we are called with renewed purpose to respond to and rid our Nation of all forms of sexual violence.

Sexual assault is considered to be the most underreported violent crime in America, and criminal justice responses vary widely across our country.  Some communities have developed highly trained, coordinated teams who understand the nature of sexual assault and can respond with compassionate understanding.  In other places, victims hesitate to report these crimes because they fear the criminal justice system will respond with skepticism or fail to bring the perpetrator to justice.  We must ensure our police, prosecutors, and courts treat victims with the seriousness and respect they need and deserve.  We must do more to provide services that help victims recover from the trauma of sexual assault.  And ultimately, we must prevent sexual assault before it happens.

Under Vice President Joe Biden’s leadership, my Administration is committed to engaging a broad spectrum of Federal agencies and community partners to prevent sexual assault, support victims, and hold offenders accountable.  The Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women is leading the Sexual Assault Demonstration Initiative to improve the way sexual assault survivors are served.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is funding innovative prevention campaigns that engage bystanders in reducing sexual assault, and the Department of Education is working to combat sexual violence at schools and universities.  We will continue to support new approaches that show promise in changing cultural attitudes toward sexual violence and preventing these crimes.

Read the rest of the proclamation here.

At Friday’s Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraiser in Philadelphia, Vice President Joe Biden — talking about the federal budget — threw in a rape analogy, as reported by The Hill, calling Republicans who favor cutting spending while cutting taxes for the wealthy just like people who blame rape victims.

According to the press pool account, after reminding his audience that he helped champion the Violence Against Women Act, Biden,said:

“There was this attitude in our society of blaming the victim. When a woman got raped, blame her because she was wearing a skirt too short, she looked the wrong way or she wasn’t home in time to make the dinner. We’ve gotten by that. But it’s amazing how these Republicans, the right wing of this party – whose philosophy threw us into this God-awful hole we’re in, gave us the tremendous deficit we’ve inherited – that they’re  now using, now attempting to use, the very economic condition they have created to blame the victim – whether it’s organized labor or ordinary middle-class working men and women. It’s bizarre. It’s bizarre.”

In response to the vice president’s statement, the National Republican Campaign Committee demanded Biden apologize:

“As much as Vice President Biden should retract this specific statement, he should apologize for comparing our country’s dismal economic situation to such horrid acts as violence against women,” NRCC spokeswoman Joanna Burgos told the Hill.

On Monday, Mother Jones released a memo (PDF), obtained from House Republicans, demonstrating the GOP’s efforts to appease opponents by eliminating some of the more controversial provisions, such as redefining rape (the bill formerly outlined rape resulting from force as the only kind eligible for taxpayer funding for abortion, not statutory rape or drug-induced rape).

The idea behind New Jersey Republican Rep. Christopher Smith’s bill is to make permanent the annually-renewed Hyde Amendment, which prohibits funding abortions through Medicaid, but also to prevent employers from being able to deduct insurance plans that cover abortion.

Other policies the GOP wishes to make permanent, according to the Committee on the Judiciary memo:

• Helms amendment: prohibits funding for abortion overseas
• Smith Federal Employees Health Benefits Program amendment: prohibits funding for abortion coverage for federal employees
• Dornan amendment: bans congressionally appropriated funds for abortion in the District of Columbia
• Restrictions on abortion funding through Peace Corps and federal prisons
• Hyde-Weldon conscience clause: prevents recipients of federal funding from discriminating against health care providers who do not cover or provide abortions

The main intent, as stated: “H.R. 3 will allow Congress to pass one piece of legislation that prohibits any federal funding of abortion, no matter where in the federal system that funding might occur.”

There is an exception for cases of rape, incest and when it is necessary to save the life of the mother.

The updated version clarifies that the bill does not prohibit individuals or entities from buying privately funded coverage that includes abortion — it just cannot be purchased using federal funds or matching funds required for a federally subsidized program. Those who receive a federal health insurance subsidy would be able to pay for abortion but could not use a federal premium payment to pay for any abortion-coverage premiums.

Perhaps a small victory for women, Mother Jones notes that the Republicans’ new version refers to women as “woman,” changed from the initial language “pregnant female” — which the magazine views as a move of respect: ” … the latter certainly gives more respect and agency to the woman rather than merely referring to her as a vessel for an unborn child.”

The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark up the bill on Thursday at 10 a.m.

“The word forcible will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment,” Smith spokesman Jeff Sagnip told Politico.

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, had criticized the bill last week.

“Heartlessly, the Smith bill would even prevent many rape survivors from getting the care they need,” she said in a statement. “If this bill passes, only rape survivors who become pregnant through ‘forcible rape’ will be allowed federal financing of abortion. This means women who are drugged, unconscious, coerced — or whatever else state lawmakers decide does not constitute ‘forcible rape’ — could be excluded from the abortion coverage they need.”

Bachmann has been particularly vocal in support of the bill — if not the bill’s controversial language.

“Not only would defunding Planned Parenthood and affiliated federal grants to abortion facilities at the federal, state and local levels save us $630 million in taxpayer dollars, but its [sic] simply the moral thing to do,” she said early last week, citing efforts by the GOP to pass abortion restrictions.

Now the victim in the case has described her conversations with Buck to the Colorado Independent — and they don’t paint him in a particularly favorable light:

Buck referred to the fact that she had invited the suspect to her apartment, saying, “It would appear to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to have sex with him.”

“So, you’re telling me that previous sexual relations is enough to provide consent; you’re telling me that because I called him and invited him up, that I invited him up for sex?” she asks.

“I’m telling you that’s what circumstances suggest to people, including myself, who have looked at it. Although you never said the word ‘yes,’ the appearance is of consent.” Buck said. [...]

“Buck told me that something morally wrong happened, but that it wasn’t legally wrong. I read him the statute (Colorado Revised Statute 18-3-402), which says it is sexual assault if the victim is physically helpless or intoxicated,” the victim said.

Read the full account here.

While Buck claims the case was so flawed as to have been impossible to prosecute, the fact is the suspect virtually confessed, according to a police transcript (below) of a phone call between the victim and suspect.

In establishing whether there were grounds to arrest the suspect, Greeley police had the victim phone the suspect from the police station. That call was recorded and entered into evidence.

In the call, this exchange takes place:

Victim: “You do realize that … it’s rape.”

Suspect: “Yeah, I do.”

Victim: “Like in a number of different ways, because I didn’t want to do it and because I was intoxicated and because I was afraid.”

Suspect: “Yes I do. I know.”

Read the complete transcript of the call here.

The alleged assault occurred five years ago. A man entered the alleged victim’s apartment and had sex with her while she was drunk, she says. As she passed in and out of consciousness, she says she told him “no” and tried to push him away. If he had been a stranger, the case may have played out differently, but he was a former lover, and she had invited him over.

Those circumstances seem to have made all the difference to Buck. [...]

He said the facts in the case didn’t warrant prosecution. “A jury could very well conclude that this is a case of buyer’s remorse,” he told the Greeley Tribune in March 2006. He went on to publicly call the facts in the case “pitiful.”

If he had handled it with a little more sensitivity, the victim, who does not want her name used, says it is possible she may have accepted the decision and moved on. But Buck’s words — as much as his refusal to prosecute — still burn in her ears.

“That comment made me feel horrible,” she told the Colorado Independent last week. “The offender admitted he did it, but Ken Buck said I was to blame. Had he (Buck) not attacked me, I might have let it go. But he put the blame on me, and I was furious. I still am furious,” she said.

Buck is leading by a small margin in his race against Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), but his support is already seriously lagging among female voters on account of his views on abortion and birth control, not to mention various additional off-color remarks:

Buck’s problems connecting with women voters in the Senate race likely began with his support for Amendment 62, the Personhood Amendment, which would make even some common forms of birth control illegal. He also said people should vote for him in the primary instead of former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton because he doesn’t wear high heels.

The latest news about Buck’s record prosecuting rape cases as district attorney has the potential to sink his support among women (and men, for that matter) still further.