You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 09, 2016, 11:09:26 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her  (Read 5929 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online TheVillain

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #25 on: January 30, 2011, 04:46:39 AM »
And you still don't address my point. If it's just an incest requirement change, why use the term "forcible rape"? Why even bring up rape at all?

Look, to put it an even simpler way. If a complete stranger wanted to cook you dinner and he said "And there is absolutely no canned liver-flavored wet dog food in my lasagna", do you blindly dig in? Or do you check his trash for aluminum cans in response to his oddly specific denial?
« Last Edit: January 30, 2011, 04:48:57 AM by TheVillain »

Offline Jude

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #26 on: January 30, 2011, 04:49:16 AM »
Because they have to bring up rape in order to give women who were raped the exemption from the law.  If they did not bring up rape, no woman would be able to receive Federal funds in any circumstances at all (violent or not) for their abortions.  They brought up rape to keep the current framework of exemptions when it comes to rape.

I'm starting to feel like you don't know anything about the Hyde amendment...  I really suggest you go read the full text of this proposed law and educate yourself before weighing in on this subject.

Online TheVillain

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #27 on: January 30, 2011, 04:52:06 AM »
No, they didn't have to bring it up. Law doesn't work that way. Precedence is assumed in the event that changes to the law don't specifically address new points. If they had not mentioned rape at all, it really would just be a tweek to the incest requirements.

I'm starting to think you don't know anything about a little thing called "Legal Precedence"- or at least ignore it when it suits your argument.

Offline Jude

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #28 on: January 30, 2011, 04:55:30 AM »
The Hyde amendment is not law.  It is a rider that barely qualifies as enforcible policy.  The purpose of HR3 is to fix that by passing a proper law through more respectable channels instead of circumventing typical processes and sneaking it in via appropriations.  This is also intended to be a law that will allay concerns of conservatives that the recently passed Healthcare provisions will destroy the Hyde Amendment due to its already weak standing.

Online TheVillain

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #29 on: January 30, 2011, 04:59:56 AM »
Which such a distinction has no bearing here, since I was talking Law in the broad, philosophical sense of the mechanisms by which a government works to manage society. All you've really done is insist that Crest toothpaste isn't a proper representative of the Colgate brand. You would be right, but I was taking about toothpaste in general.

Though the mistake upon further review is understandable so I'm not going to go after that point that hard.

But do you at least see my point here? The House GOP has given us the legal equivalent of a Suspiciously Specific Denial.

Edited to add linky.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2011, 05:04:17 AM by TheVillain »

Offline Jude

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #30 on: January 30, 2011, 05:04:07 AM »
I don't understand how we were speaking philosophically.  You asked why the rape stuff was included, I explained that if it was not that there would be no exemptions for ANY raped women.  You claimed I was wrong.  I explained that isn't the case because the Hyde amendment isn't an actual law, it's a rider passed by appropriations and does not follow normal legislative rules.  I have explained to you why it was necessary to mention rape, thus met the challenge you proposed -- I fail to see how any of what I've discussed relates to philosophical concepts, not practical realities.

EDIT:  As far as the tropes thing goes, is it possible that they were being too specific purposely because they wanted to disclude non-violent types of rape?  Yes.  It is entirely possible, I will not deny that.  I simply don't understand why you jump to that conclusion when it would require dismissing public statements made to the contrary and ascribing malicious intent to people involved unfairly.  That is certainly not "presumed innocent until proven guilty" thinking.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2011, 05:08:19 AM by Jude »

Online TheVillain

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #31 on: January 30, 2011, 05:06:29 AM »
You asked why the rape stuff was included, I explained that if it was not that there would be no exemptions for ANY raped women. *snip* I have explained to you why it was necessary to mention rape, thus met the challenge you proposed -- I fail to see how any of what I've discussed relates to philosophical concepts and practical realities.

No, you didn't. You just insisted that it's necessary thanks to the Hyde Amendment when thanks to how Law works in it's most fundamental levels it most certainly was not needed. See last post, I edited it while you were writing it.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2011, 05:07:57 AM by TheVillain »

Offline Jude

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #32 on: January 30, 2011, 05:17:40 AM »
I appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue, but I think we've reached the point that it's most constructive to agree to disagree.  Have a good Sunday!

Offline VekseidTopic starter

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #33 on: January 30, 2011, 10:49:43 PM »
Everyone seems to be missing that this law could not change the definition of rape even if they were trying to tighten the Hyde amendment to only include rape based on physical violence.

Most of the rape victims I know were drugged.

One of them was twelve.

I find even the suggestion that they deserves less recompense for what happened to them, just because they do not suffer physical injury, to be vile in the extreme.

Quote
If you took the maximally cynical position on this issue you would only be able to conclude that Republicans want to tighten abortion restrictions so that people who suffer date rape and such cannot get a partially (or totally) Federally funded abortion.  All of that stuff about "changing the definition of rape" is pure baseless nonsense that has nothing to do with this whatsoever.  It's misinformation predicated on paranoid extrapolation at best, and an outright cynical lie for political gain by liberals at worse.

And when a twelve year old girl gets drugged and violated, she deserves fewer protections, yet that's okay because it's not modifying the status of rape, according to you.

No.

Quote
Also if you believe what the cosponsor said, it was never their intent to tighten abortion legislation in as much as it relates to rape.  The only difference between this law and the Hyde amendment (which is currently law) if you exclude the word 'forcible' (which is fair to do on the words of the congressmen) is the fact that abortion in the case of incest will now be exempt from federal funding if the person involved is not a minor.  That is to say if this law is passed someone who is 18+ that is pregnant with a child that is the product of incest will no longer be able to receive any Federal funding for their abortion.  That is the only thing this would change.

As if your bolded part is any more morally sound.

Given the fact that
1) Republicans do often bash the rape exemption and
2) This is not the first time the rape exemption has faced a threat

I'm not convinced that the insertion of the word 'forcible' was innocuous, no.

Offline Jude

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #34 on: January 31, 2011, 02:53:22 AM »
Most of the rape victims I know were drugged.

One of them was twelve.

I find even the suggestion that they deserves less recompense for what happened to them, just because they do not suffer physical injury, to be vile in the extreme.
So do I.
And when a twelve year old girl gets drugged and violated, she deserves fewer protections, yet that's okay because it's not modifying the status of rape, according to you.
I feel like you're twisting the meaning of the word "protections" to suit your needs, as well as straw-manning me personally.  I would be pretty outraged too if I thought they were seriously trying to narrow the exemption to only include rape with physical violence involved.
No.
Could you please not debate like this?  Whenever you type one-word denials of people's points of view it's very condescending and uncivil from my perspective.  That may not be your intent, but it always makes discussing things with you very grating and stressful.  It doesn't seem very conducive to constructive dialog.
As if your bolded part is any more morally sound.
I'm not sure that it is, but spreading misinformation about this issue is not morally sound either.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  I'm still think you should edit the title of the post to take out the blatantly incorrect information present therein given that this is a bill cosponsored by a Democrat and a Republican that has yet to reach the house floor to be endorsed by House Republicans as your title implies.
Given the fact that
1) Republicans do often bash the rape exemption and
2) This is not the first time the rape exemption has faced a threat

I'm not convinced that the insertion of the word 'forcible' was innocuous, no.
You can choose to believe that the Democrat who claims it was incidental is a liar, and that's fine.  I can't convince you otherwise and I won't even try -- my attempts at doing so thus far with other people have been incredibly fruitless.  But please, follow this issue and if it turns out that the Republicans in the House reword the law (or otherwise explain why the term forcible rape would include acts of rape which do not involve physical violence) remember your presumption here in the context of assuming the worst of political opponents and where it leads you.

EDIT:  Edited to be more concise and make sure I don't come off as snippy.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2011, 03:02:52 AM by Jude »

Offline VekseidTopic starter

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #35 on: January 31, 2011, 04:01:12 AM »
I feel like you're twisting the meaning of the word "protections" to suit your needs, as well as straw-manning me personally.  I would be pretty outraged too if I thought they were seriously trying to narrow the exemption to only include rape with physical violence involved.

Could you please not debate like this?  Whenever you type one-word denials of people's points of view it's very condescending and uncivil from my perspective.  That may not be your intent, but it always makes discussing things with you very grating and stressful.

I am sorry, but this does strike a personal chord for me, because it strikes a chord for many of my friends.

Maybe it's because I know women who have been yelled at for not fighting back. Maybe it's because I know women who were scolded for going outside at the wrong time, to the wrong bar, accepting a drink from the wrong person.

Maybe it's because I know women who have had to face that choice. The thought of seeing their rapist's face in their own child. Each day, every day, for decades.

If someone wants to remove protections from a majority of rape victims based on an ill thought standard, yes, it's redefining it. For that particular issue, those women would not be able to claim rape. It is not like pregnancy is some trivial consequence to be brushed off.

Quote
It doesn't seem very conducive to constructive dialog.I'm not sure that it is, but spreading misinformation about this issue is not morally sound either.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  I'm still think you should edit the title of the post to take out the blatantly incorrect information present therein given that this is a bill cosponsored by a Democrat and a Republican that has yet to reach the house floor to be endorsed by House Republicans as your title implies.You can choose to believe that the Democrat who claims it was incidental is a liar, and that's fine.  I can't convince you otherwise and I won't even try -- my attempts at doing so thus far with other people have been incredibly fruitless.  But please, follow this issue and if it turns out that the Republicans in the House reword the law (or otherwise explain why the term forcible rape would include acts of rape which do not involve physical violence) remember your presumption here in the context of assuming the worst of political opponents and where it leads you.

EDIT:  Edited to be more concise and make sure I don't come off as snippy.

The bill has 173 cosponsors, not one. Only nine are democrats.

And while Lipinski might be telling the truth, it says nothing about what the other 172 think. It does not address the fact that women who actually have been raped face enough of an uphill battle as is.

Ill-written laws need to be called out fast and hard.

Offline Jude

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #36 on: January 31, 2011, 04:29:14 AM »
I didn't know there were 173 consponsors, so you're point is very well taken on that, as for the rest... Isn't when we feel emotional about something that civility in discussion is most important?  When people aren't emotion about things it isn't even an issue.

Offline Noelle

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #37 on: January 31, 2011, 11:28:07 AM »
I'm almost positive nobody here is arguing in favor of making different levels of "acceptable" rape, so that insinuation should probably stop. I think we're all cognizant of the fact that rape is an abhorrent act and that the law should be doing what it can to protect the victims instead of trying to use strange and unnecessary wording like "forcible rape" (since it is redundant). So let's please move past the emotional responses and actually talk about the bill.

I think what Jude is trying to say is that even if they were trying to delineate different "types" of rape, it's in the context of getting federally-funded abortions. It is speaking nothing of availability of abortions to them except for access to federal funding. It's speaking nothing about how rape is charged in a court of law. They can still get an abortion with private funds, they can still go to the police and file a report and get their rapist convicted as of this bill -- and that's even if you're taking it cynically. If there is a part of this bill that compromises any of that, please do point it out to me and I will gladly retract this statement.

This doesn't mean I'd defend the bill if it really is as the most cynical views make it out to be and it doesn't mean I'd defend it now -- because I wouldn't, and I don't. I think they need to re-examine the language they're using and its severely negative implication and make the necessary corrections to ensure there are no misunderstandings or abuses. What it does mean is that defining it as something you're not even certain it is, no matter how much you disagree with it, is unfair and misleading.

Offline Sandman02

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #38 on: January 31, 2011, 08:54:40 PM »
I think what Jude is trying to say is that even if they were trying to delineate different "types" of rape, it's in the context of getting federally-funded abortions. It is speaking nothing of availability of abortions to them except for access to federal funding. It's speaking nothing about how rape is charged in a court of law.

  I am inclined to agree with Noelle on this - this is the best way to interpret the issue given the information. Is this not still abominable, though? Rape is rape - a situation in which consent was not given for a sexual act. To deny women access to an abortion for a pregnancy that came about entirely against their will is just wrong.

  I do get it - a human life should be celebrated. In a perfect world that is always the case. But becoming a mother is a transformative process, a lifelong commitment, and a HUGE strain on your resources (physically and emotionally) no matter how you spin it. To force this upon women who did not and could not consent to it is just monstrous. I am sorry for my strong, somewhat deriding language here, but like Vekseid the issue also strikes an emotion chord.

Offline Wolfy

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #39 on: January 31, 2011, 08:58:46 PM »
Oi, we already had Sarah Palin trying to make it so rape victims had to PAY for rape kits, and now this?

..Seriously, what the fuck Republicans.

Offline Noelle

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #40 on: January 31, 2011, 09:11:50 PM »
There is no proof here that they are trying to redefine rape.  This law has absolutely nothing to do with the way rapes are tried and convicted. It may not even be about rape in general, it was very likely just a stupid choice of words by the people writing/presenting it that very sorely needs to be retracted and apologized for. It was already pointed out that there were even a few Democrats on board, so although Republicans are notoriously idiotic about handling women's issues, stupidity knows no boundaries.

And Sandman, I couldn't agree more that if in fact they are somehow trying to finagle the word 'rape', it is horrifying even in the context of whether or not you have access to federal funding -- rape victims need to given the right resources to adequately deal with their trauma in the way they need to, be it physically or emotionally, without the interference of others trying to marginalize that experience. But again, we don't know if that's what the intent of this whole 'forcible rape' gaffe is. I'm not unaware that rape is an emotional topic, but that's not really an excuse to ignore everything and zoom in only on the word rape while completely missing the context and ignoring the possible intent.

Online Zeitgeist

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #41 on: January 31, 2011, 11:05:17 PM »
Kudos to Jude for calling out the hysteria on this, and pointing out the facts.

All the same, this was an unforced error by the Republicans. It was stupid of them to get their hands into this like they have. Surely stand up for the right to life, but this? This was asking for hell. They need to stay focused on the economy, employment and the national debt.

Are there any statistics on the number of rapes that result in a pregnancy? I'm guessing not, and if there were they'd likely be ambiguous considering the number of rapes that go unreported. My point is, is all this hysteria about some fraction of a fractional percentage of pregnancies?

Though I am pretty much pro-life, I certainly cannot see myself standing in the way of a rape victim who would desire an abortion.

Offline elone

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #42 on: January 31, 2011, 11:36:54 PM »
I wasn't even aware of this. Am I living under a rock? Anyway, did some quick research. First I looked up the Hyde amendment. Apparently it was a response to Roe v. Wade to prohibit federal funding for abortions. Had an impact on low income and Medicaid people. (Republicans like to hit those least able to defend themselves). Anyway, it is not a law, but a rider attached to appropriations bills and has I think been done every year to keep it in effect. It has some exceptions, one of which is rape.  The new bill (I just read it) excepts forcible rape, minors, cases where mother's life is in danger.  The main thing is the term "forcible". Apparently, there is no legal definition for forcible rape, so such a thing doesn't exist. So if there is no such thing as forcible rape, then there is no rape, therefore no exemption. At least that is some peoples technical argument.

To me this is a knee jerk reaction to the new Health Care bill. I also, think they are trying to pass an actual law so they will not have to continually pass the Hyde amendment year after year. Apparently there are changes to the wording of the Hyde amendment year-to-year.

Personality, I think this country has a lot more pressing problems than to worry about this picky crap. It is a woman's right to choose, that is the law, get over it and move on. Better to spend taxpayer dollars to help the those in need to obtain an abortion than to spend it on earmarks, defense overruns, and the rest of government waste. If our lawmakers don't clean up their act, maybe the people in this country will take a lesson from the Egyptians. I am old enough to remember the millions protesting Viet Nam, wish we had the fire to do the same over our gridlock and nonsense in congress. Like multi-millionaires need a tax break!  Sorry. I digress. Anyway, it boils down to right to life lobby being happy to stop even one abortion, no matter who suffers the consequences. Their intent is to chip away at freedom intil we have none.

Offline Noelle

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #43 on: February 01, 2011, 07:19:08 AM »
Quote
The main thing is the term "forcible". Apparently, there is no legal definition for forcible rape, so such a thing doesn't exist. So if there is no such thing as forcible rape, then there is no rape, therefore no exemption. At least that is some peoples technical argument.

Well...except for 'forcible' is the very definition of what makes rape...rape. There is no consenting rape. It's just a redundancy, but as it's been pointed out by Jude earlier, force is almost synonymous with rape. Which is why it's so confusing as to why they needed to qualify it that way.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #44 on: February 01, 2011, 08:15:21 AM »
There's rape under duress (I say 'yes' to avoid the use of force in the first place), and rape under the influence (I am in no condition to say either 'yes' or 'no' - see CA v. Luster).

Offline DudelRok

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #45 on: February 01, 2011, 10:39:17 AM »
Well...except for 'forcible' is the very definition of what makes rape...rape. There is no consenting rape. It's just a redundancy, but as it's been pointed out by Jude earlier, force is almost synonymous with rape. Which is why it's so confusing as to why they needed to qualify it that way.

The argument, though, is rather simple: "Law doesn't work on assumptions, it works literals and technicalities."

Adding in "force" implies that some forms of rape aren't technically rape, and sets a precedent in other cases which lowers not only women's rights but also the safety of women and children. It's rather subtle and ignorable to most people, but the law is VERY particular about such things... as that's how loopholes.

Few, very few, rapes of minors is forced or done by force.... while that seems tangent to the issue at hand, the wording of this can be used elsewhere to justify behavior that was once punishable.

Basically we're setting BACK human safety and rights by making a clear distinction between X-rape =/= Y-rape (at least in legal terms where X and Y still both equal 1) to state rape =/= rape. In reality, it isn't even something that can be argued.

There's rape under duress (I say 'yes' to avoid the use of force in the first place), and rape under the influence (I am in no condition to say either 'yes' or 'no' - see CA v. Luster).

Side: The duress one always bothered me. Are there psychological tests for such a thing to prevent the claim after actually consensual sex or is it still er... vague and scary. In my lifetime of only 24 years (the first 10 of which I will ignore for this example) I've seen two guy's lives messed up over some heavy handed lies (which were proven to be lies but the accusation still hangs in the air).
« Last Edit: February 01, 2011, 10:40:25 AM by DudelRok »

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #46 on: February 01, 2011, 11:22:55 AM »
I think if it goes to trial, 'duress' falls under the same sort of criteria as you would have for self-defense.  The question is whether 'the average person' would feel that they were in danger of severe bodily harm or death.

Offline Moonhare

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #47 on: February 01, 2011, 12:52:41 PM »
That is to say if this law is passed someone who is 18+ that is pregnant with a child that is the product of incest will no longer be able to receive any Federal funding for their abortion.  That is the only thing this would change.

I'm confused how being 18+ matters in a context of incest? Incest usual involves child abuse, which is farther reaching than an age restriction. You don't turn 18 and suddenly have the ability to say no where as a day ago, you would have been protected by the law, if they knew. It just doesn't make sense to me. Rape is rape, whether there is a gun to your head, someone holding you down, someone using a drug to make you unable to give consent, or someone holding the value of a roof, and food over your head as a threat. If you can't say no doesn't mean that you consent, no more than no means yes. Incest of this type, regardless of age, should be covered. Most women of incest have been abused for years, and don't feel that the threats of being out on the streets or cut off from all they have known are idle threats in the least.

Offline Jude

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #48 on: February 01, 2011, 02:40:33 PM »
I agree with you about the incest change.  My other complaint about that is merely a practical one:  how many incest-babies are going to be aborted by women over the age of 18?  Incest is quite rare in and of itself, happening with a woman who is over eighteen where she actually gets pregnant is probably astronomically rare -- why are they concerned about a little federal funding going towards the rarest of rarities?  I honestly don't think part is going to get through the amendment process, and the term "forcible rape" is definitely going to get replaced by rape early on.

What will actually be voted on is a literal restatement of the Hyde amendment, and whether or not it passes will hinge on the Senate's attitude towards it (and I think it probably will realistically, given how centrist a lot of the Democrats in the Senate are).

I don't really have a problem with the Hyde amendment though.  The majority of Americans are morally against abortion except in the case of rape, incest, and the health of the mother.  All the Hyde amendment does is, is make sure that the majority of the country won't be forced to economically support actions which they find reprehensible.

As far as the concerns that this is somehow taking the right to choose away from low income women goes, I have to say I think that's ridiculous.  Abortions don't cost thousands of dollars unless you wait a very long time to get one (which is either a function of personal irresponsibility or finding out that there's a health issue for the mother involved -- the latter the Hyde amendment does not block Federal funds from assisting you with).  Almost every abortion occurs within the first thirteen weeks, at which point abortions cost, on average, roughly the same amount that every low-income, childless taxpayer is given for free when they file their tax returns via the EIC (and that's at minimum).

You can't completely eliminate personal responsibility from the picture.  Women are allowed to have abortions so that they won't have to be responsible for the child that would've resulted from their pregnancy, and I think that's a good thing.  But why should the public have to ensure that everyone can afford to exercise that right as well?  That's shifting the responsibility on society, not the individual, to bare the potential burden of preventing your accidental reproduction.

From a purely practical point of view, it would be good to offer free abortions to low-income women.  If a woman can't afford an abortion there's all sorts of public funding that goes towards helping her carry that child to term (because she has to).  We'd save money overall if we simply funded that abortion.  However, as long as the abortion topic remains controversial and the majority of the country is opposed to taking such an obvious, practical step that benefits us all economically, I don't see why we should force them to.

Offline Noelle

Re: According to House Republicans, it's only rape if you hit her
« Reply #49 on: February 01, 2011, 03:06:14 PM »
The argument, though, is rather simple: "Law doesn't work on assumptions, it works literals and technicalities."

Adding in "force" implies that some forms of rape aren't technically rape, and sets a precedent in other cases which lowers not only women's rights but also the safety of women and children. It's rather subtle and ignorable to most people, but the law is VERY particular about such things... as that's how loopholes.

That's if that's what they're trying to do. I keep stressing that we don't know this, and there have even been accounts by lawmakers that that's not what they're trying to do. It could've been a very stupid mistake, but we don't really disagree here on the fundamental 'next step' that needs to happen. In either case, mine or yours, it needs to be rescinded and reworded correctly to avoid that confusion.

Quote
Few, very few, rapes of minors is forced or done by force.... while that seems tangent to the issue at hand, the wording of this can be used elsewhere to justify behavior that was once punishable.

Except this bill has nothing to do with the way rapes are convicted. I don't understand where you're getting this. This law deals with access to federal funding for abortions, not the way rape cases are tried for those accused for the crime in the first place.

And on your tangent, it's possible to consider things like statutory rape as 'forced' in that force doesn't always just mean physical violence -- mental force such as coercion (in the "I said yes to avoid more trouble" instance) and abuse of authority (such as the case of an older person taking advantage of a younger person's naivety or lower position, the teacher/student scenario, etc.) and their kin are just as valid in that sense, as well.

But again: all of this is presuming that they are, in fact, trying to redefine rape. Which thusfar, there has been no evidence anywhere to point in that direction except for personal assumptions based on party bias. Which is understandable, but being understandable doesn't make it real.