For example, current U.S. Senator Sam Brownback doesn't have an exception for rape and incest. Here's how Jessica Valenti (from Feministing and NARAL's blog) feels about that.
Lovely. Compassionate conservatives, huh?From that sarcastic post you might be thinking Jessica thinks conservatives who have rape/incest exceptions can be compassionate conservatives while conservatives without those exceptions aren't really compassionate. The problem is Jessica heaps more insults on the motives of people with exceptions.
Option #2 - You have an exception for rape and incest.
According to Jessica, if you have an exception for rape and incest, it's seemingly because you want to punish women for having consensual sex.
This logic goes to show that this isn't about making sure women are informed—it's about punishing them. So women who were raped shouldn't have to have their noses rubbed in their pregnancies and be punished any further--that's just for the "bad" women who wanted to have sex. Ugh.
What's common to both of these posts is a complete lack of any kind of argument from Jessica. She would much rather insult prolifers than actually make solid arguments as to why having a rape/incest exception is so bad and why not having one is also horrible.
Sadly, this kind of response is fairly typical of the pro-choice feminist bloggers I read. If someone doesn't have exceptions, then they're a nutjob. If they do, then their real motive is to punish women for having sex.