For decades, federal law (known as the Hyde Amendment) has prohibited federal money to be used for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother. But a firestorm erupted a few days ago when Mother Jones reported that the GOP was considering narrowing the rape exception to include only "forcible" rapes an undefined term that seemingly wouldn't include, say, an abortion for a 12-year-old who was willingly impregnated by a 40-year-old. Hey, just make lemonade out of those lemons, right little girl?
While at least one Democratic congresswoman blasted the new wording as "a violent act against women," one of the bills co-sponsors, pro-life Democratic congressman Dan Lipinski, claimed no intention to change the status quo.
"The language of H.R. 3 was not intended to change existing law regarding taxpayer funding for abortion in cases of rape, nor is it expected that it would do so," Lipinski said in the statement. "Nonetheless, the legislative process will provide an opportunity to clarify this should such a need exist."
Apparently the legislative process as well as, we suspect, a few days of awful PR has indeed clarified the issue, as the GOP has now decided, fine, we'll make it all rapes again.
At least the whole embarrassing issue gave The Daily Show the chance to explain how "rape rape" differs from "merely rapish," "rape with benefits," and a "rape-mare."
GOP loses 'forcible rape' language [Politico]