Well, let's start with what I would consider to be a simple, standard definition of rape: sexual intercourse with a person without that person's consent.

Most often people do associate force with rape--in fact most dictionary definitions include that word. We hear the word and we think of someone (usually an adult woman) unsuccessfully trying to fight off an attacker.

But we know that rape can happen in other ways; we know that lack of consent can occur without physically fighting back. Sexual intercourse with anyone incapable of giving consent--due to chemical impairment by drugs or alcohol, mental ability, minor status, for example--is rape. Period. Therefore any pregnancy resulting from one of those situations would be covered under the exemptions for federal abortion funding provided for rape, incest, or to prevent the death of the mother.

This new amendment does not seem to abide by that definition. By adding the term "forcible," it seems to be taking away the simple "absence of consent" idea. Presumably, victims would have to somehow prove they were forced to engage in sexual intercourse.

While I have many problems with this wording (and, to be honest, the reasoning behind the amendment, but that's another story), my biggest concern would be for young adolescents. The wording seems to say that unless it's "forcible rape," minors could only receive federal funding for abortion in cases of incest. So if an 11-year-old doesn't put up a fight when her long-time non-family-member abuser has sexual intercourse with her, and she becomes pregnant, she doesn't qualify. If a 25-year-old has a relationship with a 13-year-old (that's a 7th or 8th grader) and she gets pregnant, she doesn't qualify. Neither of these girls, under current state laws, would be old enough to give consent, but if their health insurance doesn't cover abortion or they've got federally funded coverage, they have to stay pregnant and deal with the multitude of issues that accompany pregnancy, childbirth, and parenthood.

This bill has broad support among Republicans and conservative organizations, and broad opposition by pro-choice groups. There has been some chatter about editing and revising once it moves along through its process.

This bill, as currently worded, should not pass, but I'm not as concerned about the bill as I am for the greater societal ideology it represents. Rape does not have to be enacted by force. Rape victims should not have to prove they really didn't want it by proving they fought back. We should stop trying to re-define rape, and start working harder to stop it from happening at all.