In 1986 an accident took a young woman away from her loved ones. She didn't die, she entered a comatose state and remained there permanently until she drew her final breath some 12 years later. She was placed in a nursing home where her physical needs were adequately cared for, or so everyone assumed. In 1996 staff discovered that her belly was enlarging. Tests were conducted and it was discovered that she was pregnant.
An internal investigation disclosed that a male nurse's assistant had been accused of a prior rape of a resident. It was, at the time, determined that no rape had occurred, it was consensual and he was allowed to continue in his position. Apparently, he decided that his next victim ought not to have the ability to tell anyone. His reason for raping this particular woman was the claim that he thought it would bring her out of the coma. I'm assuming his defense for the first offense was "she was asking for it".
The case made national news because the woman's family were Catholic and opted not to abort the baby. People were seriously divided over the ethics of this situation. She was obviously, as a comatose patient, not able to voice her own opinion, and since this was a groundbreaking event, could her family really have the right to make this decision for her? It also called in to question the decisions made by the management of this nursing home when they didn't terminate the employee after the first accusation. Apparently an employee having on-the-job sex with old ladies was acceptable.
A person is a resident of a nursing home due to diminished abilities both mental and physical. Since consensual sex requires that all parties involved have the mental capacity to make a consent, why was he even employed there after the first time? Another thing occurred to me and that was how does a 51 year old male suddenly take up rape as a hobby? That question was answered during his trial. He had a history of rape which happened in other states and didn't turn up in the local background check.
New York State locked the barn door after the horse got out by instituting fingerprinting as the only acceptable background check if one wants to work in the healthcare or childcare industry. You don't get to have a job in healthcare if you're convicted of a certain class of felony. My problem with this is that only 3% of rapes are ever prosecuted. Which leaves a whopping 97% of rapists who got away with it to exercise their magic penis at will. They are perfectly employable in hospitals, nursing homes, state homes for the mentally disabled and in home care. Not only that, the state also determines that it is discrimination to refuse to hire a qualified person based on his or her gender.
In the beginning of the fingerprinting regulation, the prospective employee could be put to work while the prints were being processed. They, of course, would have to be terminated if the state received detrimental information regarding that person from the FBI. During the time frame that regulation existed a local hospital hired someone, submitted his prints, put him to work and an 87 year old long term female resident was raped by him. Guess who had been accused of rape? He was awaiting trial on his charges.
This all brings me to my problem with all the "Personhood" Amendments that everyone has decided is the Holy Grail in the fight against abortions. In the rush to protect the unborn, they are opening the door to a definition of rape that does not include statutory, that does not include the capacity to give consent, nor will it include incest.
Until our culture understands that No really does mean NO! Until we accept that rape of all kinds is not the subject of a joke. Until we accept that all women have the right to be treated with respect and dignity no matter how they dress or where they are. Unless all men really understand that their penis has no magical powers to turn an act of force into one of pleasure, then we need to leave any attempt to define rape alone.
If the knowledge that elderly women in nursing homes are actually victims of rape doesn't make you understand that rape is a crime of degradation born from hate, then I don't know how to help you become a human being.
How could anyone ask that a baby born of such a brutal invasive attack on a woman be made or even allowed to be carried to term?
ReplyDeleteSarge
We had a case decades ago where a well known and flamboyantly gay man was robbed and killed by two paratroopers from Ft Campbell and his remains tossed in the flood waters of the Ohio River.
ReplyDeleteWell, his family owned a chain of funeral homes and the jokes started about "having a cold one after work without leaving the shop". A investigated proved inconclusive - nobody ever seen Rudy with a corpse.
But, that cost the family millions in business.
Rudy, I won't use a last name" followed me early one morning while I was riding by bicycle delivering papers and offered to put my bike in the back seat of his pink (no shit, pink) Cadillac convertible.
I told Dad later that morning and he explained to me what a homo-sexual was.
Do I think he was doing the dead? Absolutely.
Oh, the prosecutor immediately reduced the charge from murder to manslaughter and the two Privates got a very light sentence and early parole.
Back then, and maybe still now in some places; killing a queer isn't seen as a crime.
I am sorry, rape is rape and murder is murder...
Lady, damned good post!
Sarge
Some people are just sicker in the head than others. Also, just a reminder that homosexuals shouldn't be confused with pedophiles. Granted there are those that are, but so are some heterosexuals too.
DeleteI just wish the GOP would understand there's a penalty that people will be paying if they don't get over their attempts to prevent abortions. They very well could be endangering an entire population of older people.
I hate to veer away from the subject of rape - but Sarge, there is no reason to believe that a homosexual would be any more prone to necrophilia that a heterosexual man. Likewise a homosexual is no more likely to stalk young boys than a heterosexual is to stalk young girls.
ReplyDeleteWhat the Republicans are doing go further than the horrible crime of rape and the moral question of abortion - they are trying to declare legally that women are not bright enough and responsible enough to make important personal decisions, and that women must deffer to the more responsible and intelligent male for guidance. If Republicans have their way females will once again be subjugated to sub-citizenship and the property of their husbands and society: a return to their idea of 'the good ol'days.'
My question is: Women are fifty-two percent of the population - will they let them get away with this? If women were united as a voting block this would not even be an issue. Unfortunately it has been my observation that most southern women defer to their husbands and their churches... Maybe the younger generation will break this trend.
the Ol'Buzzard
Unfortunately it's the younger generation that's leading this charge. They never saw any of what I saw and know from personal experience. I'm their grandparents generation and they aren't interested in what we have to say. They'll figure out they should have listened when it's far too late.
Delete