that Roe is based on shaky legal grounds, so it depends on how you interpret the constitution.  Roe hinges on a right to bodily privacy and is based on Griswold v. Conn. which saw a penumbra or shadow of privacy implied int he 4th amendment--if they can't go after your house without a proper warrant, they should have even fewer right to control your body.  The strict constitutionalists on the SCOTUS disagree.  Get grishakagal going on this one, or read some of the anti-choice legal eagles opinions on it. I disagree with them, natch.

And it is perfectly possible to allow exceptions for extreme cases--and you are right about just how difficult it would be to obtain an abortion for rape if all else were banned. You'd have to prove you reported it (many rapes aren't reported; most of the calls we got at the crisis center were form women who didn't report). And then what would the standard be? Would reporting be enough?  Would you h ave to have someone arrested and charged?  The reason they'd allow the exception is simply that this would, in their eyes, an extreme and rare case--and thus few in numbers--which would allow the woman to come before the fetus.  They also know most Americans wouldn't buy into banning for rape--that's what screwed the ban in SD.
Unfortuantely while you'd think they'd want contraception and info available, they don't. Thay also want to ban all "abortifacient" methods (the Pill, IUD, Depo shots, Plan B) so their claim to push rpevention is BS--anti-chocie Dems killed a bill that owuld ahve provided funding for sex comrpehensive sex and contracpetives becasue it owudl encourage sexual activity and fund aboritfacient methods!