[BigBL87]

Again, people need to actually read the article critically. There are inferences being made based on vague wording. The "bill" (which again is not even a bill yet, it is still being drafted) makes no mention of any specifics such as drugged women, etc.. It is just vague language from a document that isn't even a bill yet. It is not that the "bill" says "sexual assault of a drugged woman, drunk woman, etc." is not rape, it is that the term "forcible rape" is left ambiguous. I guarantee the wording will be clarified as the "bill" moves forward.

In parituclar, this quote from the article:

"Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes."

is making a jump largely based on the author's agenda. Because the language is vague, it is not clear whether these would be included or not, the author writes with the assumptions they wouldn't be base on the agenda he is pushing.