House Re­pub­lic­ans are look­ing to breathe new life in­to an an­ti­abor­tion bill that was pulled from House con­sid­er­a­tion earli­er this year over con­cerns that it was in­sens­it­ive to wo­men who be­come preg­nant as a res­ult of rape.

But find­ing a com­prom­ise will be dif­fi­cult, and in a sign of just how sens­it­ive the is­sue is, two camps in­volved in the ne­go­ti­ations are already on sep­ar­ate pages about what the bill’s re­write will look like.

Many House Re­pub­lic­an wo­men strongly ob­jec­ted to the bill when it came up in Janu­ary over a pro­vi­sion that re­quired wo­men to have re­por­ted a rape to law en­force­ment in or­der to be eli­gible for a late-term abor­tion. Re­pub­lic­an lead­ers’ hand­ling of the bill and their de­cision to pull it from the floor were seen as signs that they were strug­gling to gov­ern their his­tor­ic­ally large ma­jor­ity.

Now, one of the con­gress­wo­men in­stru­ment­al in scut­tling the bill says that she was shown a draft two weeks ago that she could sup­port.

“If it is brought up for a vote, I be­lieve as it stands right now “¦ I am in sup­port of it,” said Rep. Ren­ee Ellmers, chair­wo­man of the Re­pub­lic­an Wo­men’s Policy Com­mit­tee.

Ellmers said that in­stead of a re­quire­ment that rape vic­tims re­port the crime to law en­force­ment, the ver­sion she saw would man­date that the wo­man must in­form the doc­tor per­form­ing the abor­tion that she was raped in or­der to be eli­gible for a late-term abor­tion.

“The de­mand that it be re­por­ted to law en­force­ment was com­pletely un­real­ist­ic and only fur­ther vic­tim­ized the vic­tims of rape, and I think that’s something that we have to be very con­scien­tious about,” Ellmers said.

Ellmers ad­ded that the new lan­guage cla­ri­fies ex­cep­tions in the case of in­cest as well. Pre­vi­ously, the bill al­lowed only minors who were vic­tims of in­cest to be eli­gible for late-term abor­tions. Now, the bill would open up the pro­ced­ure to any wo­men who be­come preg­nant as a res­ult of in­cest, no mat­ter the age, she said.

“In­cest is in­cest. There can’t really be a cutoff age,” Ellmers said. “That was, I thought, not well thought out.” Ellmers said she has not yet spoken with all House Re­pub­lic­an wo­men about the changes, but she hopes to do so soon.

The prob­lem, however, is that the bill’s chief spon­sor said the lan­guage he is craft­ing is not quite what Ellmers de­scribed.

“We con­tin­ue to search for lan­guage that will uni­fy the pro-life base,” Rep. Trent Franks said in a state­ment. “However it is com­pletely pre­ma­ture to say what that fi­nal lan­guage will be. With that said, the draft be­ing dis­cussed now dif­fers in sub­stant­ive ways from” Ellmers’ de­scrip­tion.

Franks and his staff de­clined, however, to spe­cify how his draft is dif­fer­ent.

It is un­clear when the bill will come up, but House Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Kev­in Mc­Carthy said on Monday that he is com­mit­ted to bring­ing the bill back to the floor.

The bill was also dis­cussed in a Tues­day morn­ing meet­ing of the Val­ues Ac­tion Team, a group of an­ti­abor­tion le­gis­lat­ors, and mem­bers were left with the dis­tinct im­pres­sion that it would see floor con­sid­er­a­tion this year, ac­cord­ing to Rep. John Flem­ing, the group’s vice chair­man.

Still, it is not yet clear that an­ti­abor­tion out­side groups would ac­cept new lan­guage. The groups had op­posed changes to the bill when it was con­sidered in Janu­ary, which is one of the reas­ons it could not be salvaged at the time. And soften­ing the rape re­port­ing lan­guage could leave the bill too weak for some mem­bers. Flem­ing, for in­stance, said he be­lieves the re­port­ing re­quire­ment should be in the bill. “You leave a huge loop­hole,” he said. “All you’ve got to do is say, ‘I’ve been raped,’ and no ques­tions are asked.”

The bill would in­sti­tute a fed­er­al ban on abor­tions past the 20th week of preg­nancy, with ex­cep­tions for rape, in­cest, and the life of the moth­er, a policy that most House Re­pub­lic­ans do sup­port.