Few subjects are more politically and emotionally charged than abortion. On either side of the debate, enraged activists endeavor to obliterate the opposing view, oftentimes with little regard for those caught in the crossfire, including victims of rape. Whether one agrees or disagrees with abortion laws, one can draw the following conclusion: it is not the politicians who build their careers on this subject that are harmed, it is the women faced with the dilemma. Unfortunately, some lawmakers have decided to make the legal choice of abortion as difficult and painful as possible for these women.

In the past few weeks, the issue roused additional controversy. Recently, in an attempt to limit the number of abortions paid for with government funds (which occurs in cases of rape, incest, or extreme risk of the mother’s health),  House Republicans introduced the aptly-named “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.” Rather than pulling government funds from cases of rape, this bill sought to redefine the crime.

In its text, the bill made a distinction between “forcible rape” and “non-forcible rape,” and would only cover the former. This adjusted classification is morally wrong. Again, it does not matter whether one is pro-choice or pro-life; this bill changes the meaning of a crime.

The wording suggests some rape is not legitimate; implying that one is not a victim of rape if the crime does not involve physical force. “Non-forcible” rape would include crimes such as drugged rape, date rape, and statutory rape.

These forms of rape are just as vile and traumatic as “forcible” rape, the only difference is one lacks bruises to show a jury.

It is akin to differentiating between “violent” murder and “non-violent” murder. Regardless of whether the victim was beaten to death or fatally poisoned, the result is identical and the crime is still murder. It would be preposterous to call it anything different. The same concept should apply to rape; but it does not due to Capitol Hill’s arguments over abortion.

Although every person is entitled to an opinion, the opinion should not interfere with criminal law. Perhaps a group in the House wishes to outlaw abortion. They may be able to introduce legislation which could limit or outlaw abortion, but they do not possess the right to rename and marginalize a crime.

Fortunately, this wording was removed from the bill after a powerful backlash from the media. So instead of a lawmaking disaster, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” has become a cautionary tale.

In an increasingly politicized world, it is the citizen’s duty to differentiate between valid legislation and empty lawmaking. These bills are drafted for the benefit of politicians who seek to bolster their careers with hot-button issues--and for that, victims of crime suffer.