The title of this post and that article is incredibly
unfair. For starters, lets take a look at the part of this law that is actually being discussed here:
The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--
(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or
(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
As far as I can tell all of the outrage is based entirely on the text of this bill. I have not been able to find any Republican comments clarifying this or discussing what they mean by "forcible rape," but I don't think it is at all fair to assume that "forcible rape" excludes coercive behavior that doesn't include physical violence. All of the pontification on this issue and the extrapolation based on that wording should have occurred only after Republicans were reached for comment and actually stated that the unclear language means what liberals seem to want it to mean (in as much as they want Republicans to be guilty of horrendous things so that they can fetch their pitchforks).
It is entirely possible, and even likely, that the wording is simply poor and the use of "forcible" was added redundantly, not a hint that physical violence is a necessary condition to receive federal funding for abortions. However, even if this were not true (and forcible was a hint at physical violence being a key criteria for having these restrictions waved), that would not mean Republicans are looking to redefine rape. This would simply mean that Republicans are looking to strengthen the Hyde amendment by excluding date rape and a slew of other things from the exemption.
"It's only rape if you hit her" is an incredibly scummy, dishonest, and unfair characterization of this entire situation. I'm quite frankly appalled by the title of this topic. That is an insanely uncivil interpretation of H.R. 3 based on the evidence I've seen. Maybe someone can correct me by showing me a Republican quote to the contrary of what I've said here, but I've looked, and I couldn't find any. This is yet another example of partisans refusing to give others the benefit of the doubt, and instead jumping down the other side's throat as opposed to asking questions to clarify their opponent's position being launching an assault.