What is the opponents view on the morning after pill in cases of rape?

I know (as someone who has taught medical ethics) that hardline "pro-lifers" (including the Catholic church) reject the use of the morning after pill in cases where the rape victim may have recently ovulated. See Ashley and O'Rourke, Ehtics of Healthcare, 3rd edition p. 137

In the cases of rape, the book states:
"If ovulation has not occurred, contraceptives may be used to prevent ovulation. If ovulation has already occurred, then contraceptives may not be used because their only effect would be to cause an abortion. If the woman is not sure whether or not ovulation has occurred, a dilemma arises.
Joseph Piccione and Gerald McShane (1997) have designed an ovukit that determines with some degree of accuracy whether ovulation has occurred."

I know it is mindboggling to think that a rape victim seeking treatment at a hosptial would have to endure this, and the author goes on to lament that most Catholic hospitals just give treatment to prevent pregnancy.

What is the opponents view on this? I know the republican ticket wants to force minors to give birth to their rapist's children and was wondering if their position was as hardline as the one stated above?

Nobody has asked them specifically about that.

I hope someone does.

That is their view, and murder is always wrong. No exceptions. Ever. Raped 14 year olds are morally obligated to keep the resulting pregnancy to term, in Palin world.
Their view is extremeist and far from the more moderate view of the average American, even the average American who opposes abortion.

The reasoning goes like this: There is some very small chance of conception happening while on the birth control pill, and if that should happen the pill would prevent implantation, therefore causing murder. So they say that using birth control pills is forbidden because you might unknowingly prevent the conception from progressing to term. Can't take a chance on that. So if they succeed in overturning Roe v. Wade, the next project will be to outlaw birth control. They are already chipping away at that with the "conscience" provisions for pharmacists and others who don't want to participate in giving women the medications they want to use.

but most rational people would not take such an extreme position. The Catholic Church prohibits all birth control and all abortion, even in cases where the mother's life is in danger - unless the abortion is unintended side effect of some other medical procedure. In other words, no direct abortion in any circumstances even life of the mother. But, most real Catholics are not so hard line as this. I would like the opponent to come out and say directly whether or not the position is to deny contraceptive care to rape victims. Most people would recognize this as a crazy and extreme position.

Were you looking for McCain's view or Palin's view? I know Palin believes life begins at conception and is against terminating that "life" even in the case of rape or incest and should not be allowed for anyone, therefore, she would be against the use of the morning after pill for rape victims. I know McCain's view is that he is anti-abortion but I don't know where he stands on exceptions for rape or incest victims.