I don't actually agree with the legislation in this case. While I don't have an issue with differing legal types of rape (for example, I have no problem with a harsher eye under the law is given to instances where a person is drugged or physically beaten along with the rape because in essense two crimes are being committed, where as in statutory rapes or scenarios where during sex an individual indicates they wish to stop and the other side does not where generally one law is being violated. Both are eggregious offenses, but I don't have an inherent issue under the law of seperating them for punative purposes) I don't believe we need laws on a federal level making stipulations based on non-consistent language.
I would imagine however that for one who is pro-life, the view in the case of some instances of statutory rape or rape that occurs due to an outside substance impairing ones judgement and ability to consent are such that the individuals actions create a situation where the law should err on the side of the child not because "the bitch deserves" to be pregnant but rather due to the notion that utlimately they still made choices that led to the eventual scenario where as the child is the only one that was helpless where as in their mind a "forcible" situation is one where the woman is always as helpless as the child was in the act occuring, and as such its more reasonable to err on her side instead.
Now, you highlight...before you went into your over the top partisan rhetoric...part of why I have issues with the law and wouldn't support it. Not all instances of statutory rape are the situation of the 15 year old and an 18 year old, and not all instances of rape due to substances impairing the individual are situations where the individual is just drinking a whole lot and is drunk. IF you're going to try to give a limit on federal funds, I think doing so in a way that limits it to only cases where the state had found that the individual was raped, would be the only way to really do it in a solid manner...and I'd have a huge issue with that because of the under reported nature of Rape and the issue that there is a wide gap between the number of provable criminal instances of rape and the number of times it happens in reality but simply isn't provable in a court of law.
I show my "bluster and indignation" to the idiocy that you' been spewing lately because it's that...idiocy. It's over the top, ridiculous, ignorant, partisan bull****. If you wish for responses singularly focused on your actual baseline points, rather than the dumbass assertions you go on to use that baseline to state, then perhaps you should leave such things out of your post so I can more easily focus on those baseline posts.