[BigBL87]

FWIW, the bill has not actually been written up and is in its planning stages. It seems to me that the uproar over this is based on vague language that will certainly be clarified as the bill is actually written. The wording of the bill does not specifically rule out rapes as a result of drugging, etc., but because of the vague wording such rapes would be included if it went forward as-is (which I doubt it will go forward with such vague wording).

Considering the language used, it seems that it is more focused on cases of statutory rape in which the younger party is consenting. In such a case, as I am for the most part against abortion (when the mother's life is in danger, I think it is an option) I don't disagree with the idea behind it. Essentially, it's preventing sexually active teenagers from using abortion as a form of birth control on the government's dime, which makes sense.

Again, not saying I support the wording as is, but just pointing out that it's not even a bill yet and that the assumptions being made are from vague language, not specific statements within the bill.