It depends what the definition of rape is

Abortion opponent Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), co-sponsor of the No Taxpayer
Funding for Abortion Act, was in Chicago yesterday to speak to the City Club.

With the news here focused on the horrific, life-threatening “Blizzard of ’11,”
Roskam’s remarks haven’t received much notice. They should.

According to a report
in the Chicago Tribune, Roskam, the new chief
deputy Republican whip, addressed “controversy over a ban on federal funding of
abortions, including a new definition of what constitutes rape.” Roskam, who
holds the seat once held by anti-abortion stalwart Henry Hyde, explained that
House Republicans planned to push for a federal statutory ban on taxpayer
funding of abortions. As the Tribune’s
Rick Pearson noted, “The definition of rape as an exception entitled to federal
funding has been changed to ‘forcible rape.’ ”

Roskam told the reporter after the event that he believes the bill’s language will change. 

One can only hope. “Forcible rape” sounds like a bad, sad joke, and certainly
an example of idiotic redundancy. The idea that such a phrase could even be
written and made public, preliminary or not, reveals the mindset, at the moment,
of the anti-abortion forces.

Correction:  In an earlier draft of this post the writer said that [Rep.] “Roskam told the audience that the ‘forcible rape’ language will change.” Rep. Roskam was not speaking to the general audience at the time but to a reporter who asked him a question after the event. He did not use the words “forcible rape’ when answering the reporter’s question. The writer regrets the error.