Yes, actually, it is. If you're going to speak about Congress exerting it's power to control people's lives, then you need to examine if Congress can even DO it in the first place. You don't decide based on JUST if it's a good idea. You decide also based on IF Congress may do what it wilt.

The government funds health care. Whether that is constitutional is outside the scope of this discussion, though I realize it's your second-favorite topic. I'm just a bit surprised you didn't work in firearms somehow.

Use of roofies would in fact be forcible rape, in Georgia, Felony Rape (16-6-1).

Federal law also applies to 49 other states and the District of Columbia, notwithstanding whether the courts would agree with your interpretation of the Georgia statute.

Girl A is 1 day before her age of consent birthday. She has sex with BF who is over the age of consent. This is violent to you?

Girl A is 1 day before her ninth birthday. Is this violent to you?

So, it looks like incest was covered as a separate grouping as was if the woman was a minor and in the case of statutory rape.

Minor victims of incest are covered. Incest victims over the age of consent are not, nor are statutory rape victims whose rapist is not a relative -- a case when, according to you, the crime is not forcible. If a twelve-year-old is impregnated by her mother's live-in boyfriend, she would not be covered by this exception.

You'll find that if you look at actual legal code, that the term forcible rape is very easily synonymous with FELONY rape. If I'm not mistaken, this is old English Common law basics, probably something that MOST other states have in common.

You'll find if you look at the actual legal code, your opinion is not considered authoritative. Legal language has specific meaning, and the fact that you consider the terms synonymous does not mean that it will be held so in every court in every state.

"Forcible rape" is not a term with a specific legal meaning. Its application, aside from being cruel to the victims who were "asking for it," would be a litigation nightmare.

It is a form of sexual assault. Assault implies force does it not?

Usually, but not necessarily. Roget's Thesaurus is also not authoritative on the statutory meaning of words.

Here's the legal code for Ga since you clearly didn't actually research this point at all, but then noone else complaining about the Forcible Rape language did either.

That's one down and fifty to go. The bill under consideration is federal law; the law of Georgia is irrelevant to the rest of the country.

I really figured you'd have had a better grasp of legal principles than this Andy.

I really figured you knew better than to be so snide and condescending, Ryan.

I think the path is "statute" -> "Blackstones Law Dictionary" -> "Dictionary". My attorney did just this when he was trying to determine what the county meant by "business vehicle" when I was being charged with having one. He and the Judge both settled on plan language.

And you spent how much time and money fighting that? Did you not argue at the time that the law was maddeningly imprecise, and that having to legislate the definition was unduly burdensome? Is it not reasonable to expect at least the degree of linguistic precision in a federal health care law that you demand from a local zoning statute?

Even so, HR.3 was amended to remove the forcible term. Even before you wrote the above.

That would be why I mentioned that fact in my original post.

It goes along with how Republicans are "perfectly willing to restrict women's access to health care." Because, if someone else isn't paying for it, it's being taken away.

If the government withholds funding; does its best to discourage employers from providing private insurance coverage; and exempts abortion from the laws requiring other forms of life-saving care, the sum effect is to restrict access. That is why I listed all three items as premises leading to the conclusion.