I think the "definition" of "legitimate rape" is one where the woman files a report for rape, gets a rape kit/exam done, and cooperates with the police and medical staff in any investigation that ensues. At least that's what I glean from the way they are supporting/defending this bill. Still ridiculous, but at least there's some logic behind it.
It really won't matter how a woman would have to "prove" she was raped under this bill, since, if enacted, the new requirement would be promptly enjoined by a federal court. The bill is a waste of time. If it's meant to be a purely symbolic gesture, they'd be better off just passing a bill that bans abortion completely.
Changing topics, in other SCOTUS news:
1. The Court will consider whether to grant cert in the latest round of same-sex marriage cases at its January 9 conference, according to
SCOTUSblog. They may yet squeeze them in this term.
2. Here's an interesting case I only just learned about: In
Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, the Court will have to answer the question of whether a rule of judicial conduct that prohibits candidates for judicial office from personally soliciting campaign funds violates the First Amendment. I haven't read the arguments on both sides yet, but I'm inclined to say that it does. In general, I'd like to see more judicial skepticism about the rationale underlying rules of ethics imposed by state bars and similar groups--too often, such rules seem to be more about suppressing competition than ensuring ethical conduct by the regulated professionals.
