A friend posted this on Facebook. On Facebook, it says, "Republicans want to change the law so only certain types of rape "count." Date rape? Not rape anymore. Drugged? Nope. Show the GOP "no" means "no" - sign the petition demanding Congress oppose this horrible legislation."

So I clicked on the link for more information and it turns out it's about funding abortions with federal dollars.

A far-reaching anti-choice bill, introduced by Republican Chris Smith and supported by 173 members of the House, includes a provision that could redefine rape in the realm of federal funding for reproductive health care.

Right now, federal dollars can't be used for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger. But the Smith bill would narrow that use to "cases of 'forcible' rape but not statutory or coerced rape."

As far too many women know, bruises and broken bones do not define rape - a lack of consent does. Please sign the petition today.

A compiled petition with your individual comment will be presented to your Senators and Representative.

I find this disingenuous at best, deceitful at worst. It's not talking about redefining rape in any sort of criminal sense, just about how abortions are funded. It doesn't even say that "coercive rape" isn't rape--"rape" is still in the name--just that you can't get a free abortion.

Now, would this make it harder to prosecute rapes? Would defense attorneys be able to say, "Hey, this isn't a rape by federal dollar standards, so it's not one criminally, either?" and would that be an argument a judge would have to consider? If it would make rapes harder to prosecute, is cutting off abortion funding worth it? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer and all I know about law comes from "Law and Order." But it bothers me that MoveOn is making it about rape when it's about abortion.