Are you sure, grant? About his motivations, I mean. Have you read anything else he's said?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june06/abortion_3-03.html
" FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Napoli says most abortions are performed for what he calls "convenience." He insists that exceptions can be made for rape or incest under the provision that protects the mother's life. I asked him for a scenario in which an exception may be invoked.
BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."
and
"FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Much of what she fears as an assault on basic rights Senator Napoli sees as a return to traditional values.
BILL NAPOLI: When I was growing up here in the wild west, if a young man got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, they got married, and the whole darned neighborhood was involved in that wedding. I mean, you just didn't allow that sort of thing to happen, you know? I mean, they wanted that child to be brought up in a home with two parents, you know, that whole story. And so I happen to believe that can happen again. "
The above suggests to me that even if he is aware of a legal distinction between simple and aggravated rape (or whatever), he still wants to stress that merely being raped isn't reason enough. He apparently also thinks that couples who get pregnant (and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt by assuming that he is referring to couples, although a rapist can also be a young man who "got a girl pregnant out of wedlock") should be forced to marry.
Anybody want to guess whether he thinks gay couples should be allowed to marry, or whether a husband can rape his wife? I mean, I have my guess. |