[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

I had to read the article a few times because I thought I was still too tired to actually understand it but from what I gather, government assistance is given for "forcible rape". Towards the middle-end of the article, it says the goal is to examine what "forcible rape" means because the term has been used for a while but never gotten a standard definition that was accepted. It seems like a very sneaky way of writing the article because at the start of the article, there is no mention of this, instead it begins by saying what is and what is not supported by the government so the reader already generates strong feelings for/against it. After most of the is over, then it says there is no standard definition used in the federal criminal code despite the fact the article attempts to show there is one. The goal of the article is to show no definition of "forcible rape" is given by applying the unfounded term to several circumstances to show how ridiculous it would be.

Reading through it, it's not just drugged women who in the author's opinion, aren't getting government funding, it's also

" rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes."

I must say though, some parts summarize it up perfectly:

" Laurie Levenson, a former assistant US attorney and expert on criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, notes that the new bill's authors are "using language that's not particularly clear, and some people are going to lose protection."
...
"Somebody needs to look closely at this," Levenson says. "This is a bill that could have a dramatic effect on women, and language is important. It sure sounds like somebody didn't want [the exception to cover] all the different types of rape that are recognized under the law." "