Redefining Rape

So the house wants to pass a bill that would redefine rape and may ultimately force women to carry a rape pregnancy to full term.

If a rape wasn't considered "violent" or "forced" then the government will not provide financial support for an abortion, this also includes if you were drugged or a victim of incest.  So if you're insurance does not cover or in some cases you are taxes on the insurance cost and the costs are just too high you are forced to carry this pregnancy to full term.

I'm trying to avoid ranting and maintain a logical well thought out argument against this and state; this is *not* a pro-life pro-choice debate. This is not about whether or not abortion is *ok*.

So issue number one;

--Where do you define the line between "coercion" and "forced" rape?
Does she have to be beaten to a certain extent for it to be forced? And where is *that* line?  If someone holds a gun to my head but does not beat me, am I supposed to risk death to fight him? And if I don't and get pregnant the government is saying I'm on my own with the costs if my insurance won't cover it or if the tax (yes some insurance tax you on it) is too expensive.

--Incest is no longer an exception; People who are victims of incest will no longer qualify for assistance if it results in a pregnancy. It goes without saying but I'll say it anyway, children of incest are unhealthy.  Not to mention the mothers emotional instability while having to carry this pregnancy to full term-what encourages this mother to take care of herself and the growing baby inside of her?

--Increase in back alley abortions; women have a history of being hurt or dying in back alley abortions.  Women who do not want to carry these infants to full term will find a way to abort the pregnancy regardless of the side effects on their own health.  Lets remember these women are emotionally unstable due to a life altering crime and anything is possible.

--If these women do carry the child to full term; if they carry because they cannot get assistance it means they have limited or no health care.  From a logical (but somewhat cold-forgive me) position-these women will need government assistance to remain healthy during the pregnancy. Isn't this potentially more expensive than the abortion?

--If these women carry and place the child in adoption or foster or keep the child temporarily until one of these other options are available; again the cost of the pregnancy now combined with state assistance for foster parents, adoptive parents and the agencies involved in these processes.

--This also creates other social issues like; it could imply that women who did not or were incapable of fighting their attacker were somehow  "asking for it" or that they are somehow "less" of a victim.  Will this change peoples feelings about rape during trials against attackers?

B