The new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, has his own agenda. One of his biggest pushes is to redefine rape to limit the number of abortions in the United States with the H.R.3, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act proposed by Chris Smith.

Whether you are for or against abortions is not the point in this article, I am pretty sure you have your mind already made up on that subject.

What is distressing is how they want to limit abortions by redefining rape.

The GOP is pushing that rape is only rape if it involves force. Now, I am pretty sure that all rape is forced because no means no. However, if this goes through, it will take a lot more than saying “no” to prove you were raped, it will take cuts and bruises.

So what is forced rape by Boehner and friend’s definition? They don’t really have one.

The term “forcible rape” is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill’s authors don’t give their own definition. In some states, there is no legal definition of “forcible rape,” and it varies from state to state, making it unclear what services would be offered for women in these areas if they are raped.

While they can’t tell you what is covered, they can tell you a whole bunch of not-really rapes. The list is huge, which makes me wonder what could possibly be covered under the new rules.

If you were drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, it’s not rape. If you have limited mental capacity, it’s not rape. If it’s statutory or it you are older than 18 and it was incest-based, it’s not rape. If you did not push, kick and bite it is not rape.

When it comes to rape, 70 percent are non forcible, and that is a big number to ignore. With this new bill, we are pushing for the one view of rape, the stereotypical virginal girl walking alone in a dark alley is raped by a stranger after being badly beaten. In reality this example is in the minority. The attacker is known to 85 to 90 percent of survivors, according to the National Institute of Justice.

I know that at Iowa State, rape is well defined and includes some descriptions that didn’t make the rape cut. It seems students and faculty at Iowa State have more knowledge of rape than some of our officials in Washington. From our Get a Yes program, and Catalyst Theatre program at Iowa State, we want students to know what rape is. We know bruises don’t make rape; no consent makes it rape.

While this new definition is linked to abortion and insurance claims, there is no word with how it will affect law enforcement and judicial affairs. Either way, this will impact numerous women and how they deal with the traumatic experience of rape.

Can we please look beyond funding and abortions and focus on the women who are survivors of a horrible ordeal? We might not all agree on the abortion stance, but I like to think no one is for rape.

This is demeaning for the women who have been traumatized and taken advantage of. It is unacceptable to go through rape only to be snubbed and be told that it isn’t really rape because force wasn’t used. It contradicts what counselors and wonderful people at ACCESS here in Ames say. It puts unnecessary blame on the survivor even though everyone else is telling her it is not her fault.

I have yet to see exactly how these women will have to prove that meet the forcible rape qualifications if they do seek an abortion, but the bill seems to state that every survivor who finds herself in need of abortion funding will have to submit her rape for government approval. Imagine you have to write down your horrible experience, and send it to government officials and have them say “no it wasn’t rape, you didn’t put up a fight.”

The bill makers seem to have no clue that many women when put in rape situations do not put up a fight because they are afraid for their lives.

Take this situation:

A woman was at a party with a male friend and she has too much to drink. Her friend tries to take advantage of her even though she said no. He is much bigger than her and she is too disoriented and scared for her life to fight back. Afterwards she calls the police and has to recount her story, unable to shower because they need to collect evidence.

They keep telling her it is not her fault. Later she finds out she is pregnant and goes to her government officials for permission to get an insurance-covered abortion. She has to tell them detail by detail what happened even though it still haunts her. Only to be told that because she was drunk, and didn’t fight back it wasn’t rape.

What message is teaching the people of America? That it’s OK to have sex with someone who is intoxicated because it really isn’t rape? That as long as you don’t hit, it’s not rape? This undoes all the teachings that many organizations have tried to drill into our head.

In America, rape and sexual assault is one of the most unreported crimes with Rape, Abuse, Incest National Network reporting 60 percent of cases never make it to the police. If we redefine rape, I doubt that number will go down. 

Even today, we still have women who say, “I think I was raped, but I was drunk so it was my fault,” or, “I said no but I couldn’t stop him.” This bill will only make matters worse for these women. They will receive contradicting messages from crisis workers and from the government. Rapists could walk free because their victims were told it wasn’t rape. How could people think this could be a good thing?

No means no, and it’s sad our officials in government still need to learn this.