I knew my abortion blog post was going to miss something and, sure enough, recent reports are surfacing on how a new abortion bill also includes a provision that muddies the waters of "What is a rape?"* The term in their bill for allowable abortions is "forcible rape" which, some people argue, would only include rapes in which a person is held down against their will. Victims of incest seems like it would automatically be nixed from the list as could women who were drugged and raped (since nobody had to hold them down...)

I know that Pro-Lifers don't want anyone to get abortions but isn't redefining rape a rather obvious step too far? Qualifying which rapes really matter seems like a disgusting discussion and I'd have more respect for these politicians if they just came out and said that rape as a whole wouldn't be a reason for an abortion. (I know, I know, be careful what you wish for...) Sometimes there just isn't room for compromise and I think that this is a perfect example. When a political discussion starts going down the road of "When is rape not rape?" then it's pretty clear to me that we're headed in the wrong direction.

*And no, Mother Jones is hardly an unbiased news source and they fail to mention that a Democrat co-sponsored the bill but the central facts of the reporting seem to be on the up and up. Rep. Lipinski, the Democrat who supported the bill, later came forward and said that the altering of the definition of rape wasn't his intention and that the language could be fixed when debate on the floor of the House went forward. Although I do find it odd to co-sponsor a bill that has the problematic language that this one has and then later say, "Well, we can fix that if it's a problem."