If you missed it last night, my colleague Kent Jones posted the video of Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), a U.S. Senate candidate, explaining his unique perspective on biology and sexual health.
"[F]rom what I understand from doctors, [pregnancy from rape] is really rare," Akin told a St. Louis TV station. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."
So, as Akin sees it, forcing a woman to carry her rapist's baby to term is fine, but it doesn't much matter because "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down" -- if it's a "legitimate" rape. What's more, contrary to the congressman's claims, rape-related pregnancies occur "with significant frequency."
Akin has a record of saying some remarkably dumb things, but this takes his troubles to new depths. (Why did Sen. Claire McCaskill and the DSCC make an aggressive effort to help Akin win his primary? This is why.)
There's a broader national significance to this, so let's flesh this out in more detail. As Kent noted, for example, Akin issued a statement arguing that he "misspoke," but he didn't apologize, it's not clear which part he didn't intend to say, and Akin didn't renounce any of his specific claims.
In the bigger picture, if Republicans are going to retake the U.S. Senate, they're almost certainly going to need to defeat McCaskill in Missouri, and unless GOP officials have a plan to disenfranchise women over the next 11 weeks, Akin's odds of victory just collapsed. Republicans are starting to panic, but under state law, Akin would have to withdraw by tomorrow, and even that would be difficult.
And what about Romney/Ryan? Akin's scandal matters more to the Republican ticket than you might think.
President Obama's re-election team has been hammering both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan for being so extreme on reproductive rights, so Akin's timing certainly doesn't help the national GOP candidates, and it's one of the reasons Romney/Ryan was quick to say late yesterday that the ticket "disagrees" with Akin's comments, adding that "a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape."
But even that's problematic -- this new stated position appears to contradict Ryan's previous position on the rape and incest exception.
And then there's the legislative problem. Remember the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act"?
In January 2011, one of the very first bills pushed by House Republicans, launched almost immediately after they took the majority, was something called the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." While existing law already restricts public funding for abortions, the law makes exceptions for impregnated rape victims -- and GOP lawmakers decided it was time to limit what can legally be considered "rape."
Specifically, Republican proponents said the exception would only apply to "forcible" rape. If the law had passed, for example, a 13-year-old girl who was impregnated by a 24-year-old man would not be able to use Medicaid funds to terminate the pregnancy, unless she could prove she'd been "forcibly" raped.
The idea that Republicans would try to redefine rape became so controversial that the effort was quietly scuttled. But who were among the original cosponsors of the legislation? Todd Akin and his good pal, Paul Ryan.
So, here's the question for the Republican ticket: "Paul Ryan and Todd Akin teamed up on a bill to redefine rape. Looking back, was that a good idea? And if Romney/Ryan is elected, will the Republican administration support similar efforts in the future?"
Update: Akin is a member of the House Science committee. I just thought I'd mention that.
Leave a Comment:
What is missing from this discussion is that rape is a CRIME. Period. There is not 'legitimate' rape, no 'forcible' rape, just RAPE. Period. These men that try to redefine rape, tie it to abortion are despicable. It's a CRIME.
So if a guy with a family hestory of decades of sevear gernatic metal addamalities of violance and sexual deveance behaver Rapes ! I'am sorry , LEGITIMATE RAPES (GOD FORBID) some one in his family, hopeful a male member, be if its a female member, then you can bring them you as a future Republican. THANK GOD I'LL BE DEAD WHEN THIS ONE RUNS FOR GOVENMENT !!!
Men are the aggressors, men rape women, men molest children, men commit incest, man is the weaker sex. The war on women should be the war on men. They can't keep it zipped. If they see a women naked they start to salivate like a dog in heat ! Women see a man naked they call the police ! Donate now to help neuter all men before the age of 12 !!! I' am sorry "ONLY REPUBLICAN MEN" !!! That should make their women happy !
Ever consider the reason why woman will continue to be victimized by men? It should be very simple to the Christians. Its in the bible. God created Man first so he obviously is superior and then he created woman obviously inferior. Then this inferior woman gave man the forbidden fruit and God banished them from the garden of Eden. Inferior women committed the original sin and should therefore be punished for all eternity. Superior man, not willing to take responsibility for his own action of accepting the fruit, ate from it anyway instead of saying no Eve we can't eat this fruit it will make God angry. So to this day woman have paid the price for Adam's weakness.
really- what they don't say in the Bible is that man was created first, but it took less than a day for God to realize that he had made a mistake. He then created woman to rectify it. Eve made Adam eat fruit which made them both aware of their nakedness (which meant they became self aware and knowledgeable), and thus the decline of religion set in. The more knowledge they acquired, the less they needed a God. We should be building altars to Eve.
So if a guy with a family history of decades of severe genetic metal abnormalities' of violence and sexual deviance behavior Rapes ! I' am sorry , LEGITIMATELY RAPES (GOD FORBID) some one in his family,( hopeful a male member), be if its a female member, then you can bring them you as a future Republican. THANK GOD I'LL BE DEAD WHEN THIS ONE RUNS FOR GOVERNMENT !!!
Men are the aggressors, men rape women, men molest children, men commit incest, man is the weaker sex. The war on women should be the war on men. They can't keep it zipped. If they see a women naked they start to salivate like a dog in heat ! Women see a man naked they call the police ! Donate now to help neuter all men before the age of 12 !!! I' am sorry "ONLY REPUBLICAN MEN" !!! That should make their women happy !
I say hooray! This can only help the incumbant and help secure victory in the Nov. election. We need to take back control of the house or the log jam continues even when the Pres wins big! I WILL NEVER FORGET 01 to 08, worst years in my life.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/19/712251/how-todd-akin-and-paul-ryan-partnered-to-redefine-rape/
Paul Ryan co-sponsored a bill with Akin to redefine rape along these lines so no one who is pregnant could claim exemption for being forcibly raped, otherwise, she wouldn't BE pregnant...
I am not an advocate for violence. I do not do so here. I have never used it as an adult to right any wrong or perceived slight. But, having said that, I know in my heart this much is true: If something awful like rape had ever happened to one of my daughters, this reptile would now have to doubly protect himself from me; if only from my everlasting, undying harassment. Now consider how many fathers, brothers, uncles, husbands of rape victims there are out there in the world: His best move - nay, his only move - is to resign AFTER he goes to numerous rape crisis centers explains himself and apologizes.
The male member occupies a place of privilege in the Judeo-Christian tradition to the extent that if a man violently penetrates a women, she is 'morally' bound to carry the pregnancy to term because, without a hint of irony, every sperm is sacred. This attempt to legitimize rape is a new all-time low for Republicans. Even scarier, if you press Romney/Ryan on this issue, you'll receive essentially the same answer. Archaic. Barbaric. Revolting. So how will you vote in November?
So, "pregnancy from 'legitimate rape' is really rare."
I'm wondering ... exactly how rare is it? Is it more rare than, say, voter fraud? I think it must be significantly more rare than voter fraud, or else Republicans would be contorting themselves in all kinds of different ways to prevent it from happening.
If a woman is raped and can control getting pregnant by her disdain for the act, then can't it work the other way around? If a woman wants to have sex, wants to get pregnant, then all she has to do is wish it and enjoy the process? There should be no infertility if that is the case.
Wait -- I just realized something else (I know, I'm kinda slow sometimes). I'm starting to understand where Mr. Akins is going with this argument. He's essentially saying that, if a woman is pregnant from being raped, then it could not have been a "legitimate rape" or her body would have "shut it down." So even if R/R claim that they would permit abortion for rape victims, the claim rings hollow because, by definition, if the woman is pregnant, then the rape could not have been "legitimate." Got it.
OK ...There is a magical female process that can somehow abort a zygote that was fetilized by a forced rape. Uh oh, her problems have only just begun because according to these whack jobs, that zygote was really a person and she should be charged with murder. I would like this TEA-liban tool and anyone else who is in favor of that personhood nonsense to explain that away.
OOOOh.... somebody is mad about the 'no nooky for wingnuts" comment! (LOL!) OK girls, this election is up to you! I said this to my husbandmonths ago. I don't know what the problem is. Women need to say NO! Remember, girls, SEX IS FOR PROCREATION ONLY, NOT RECREATION (Really?) Hmmmm. OK, procreation only for the wingnuts,girls! It is up to you!
Just imagine for a moment what this country's laws would look like if we made abortion illegal but made exceptions in the case of rape. In that case, abortion doctors would be placed in the legally sticky position of having to determine the circumstances of the pregnancy before they can legally conduct an abortion. If an accused rapist is brought to trial and acquitted, does the abortion become retroactively illegal? Will doctors have to say to a terrified teenage girl things like, "I'm sorry your father raped you, but I need you to get a police report first"?
I think that these republican legislators think that they can head off these potential issues by just making all abortion illegal in all cases, regardless of circumstance. Incest? Rape? Health of the mother or the fetus? Let's just take choices out the equation altogether. Where is the morality now, congressman?
Rape victims did not make a choice and you are not giving them one either.
Do they have to wait until the accused rapist is tried before they can have the abortion? Maybe that's why the Republicans are filibustering all the judges. If it takes 6-8 months before the rapist can be tried, it's sort of a moot point.
One thing is assured that if the Repubs keep the House the first thing they will consider is an attempt to overturn Roe/Wade. If Romney wins, he will not be able to increase jobs any more than Obama, but WS will be happy, and perhaps business will increase hiring due to certainty of who is now in charge. This will apply to Obama as well if he wins.
Anti-abortionists base their stance on their religious beliefs. However, many Christian denominations and at least one non-Christian religion take the opposite view. The debate centers on when the soul enters the body. Anti-abortionists believe that life/soul begins at conception (and that abortion is murder); others believe that life/soul enters at birth (and thusly abortion is not murder). Both have Scripture to back their beliefs. If anti-abortionists can impose their beliefs on those who do not share them, aren’t they in violation of the first Amendment? Aren't we passing laws that favor one religious belief over the other?
And some churches believe that the soul is not enjoined with the body until baptism. In fact, wasn't that the situation with Jesus being baptized by John? And that's pretty much the view until the Enlightenment, about 1500 years later. Children weren't worth much of anything. Even God didn't mind a little child sacrifice now and then.
Please, please, please do not let this one slip under the radar. This campaign season seems unending. Each week something new comes up, daily sometimes, but this one needs to stick to Ryan like glue. H.R. 3? Three? The third law they introduced... and Ryan was there. Ryan even says:
"I'm as pro-life as a person gets," he told this to The Weekly Standard in 2010.
I really hope this sticks to them.
His FB wall is blowing up.
https://www.facebook.com/supportakin
Anti-abortionists base their stance on their religious beliefs. However, many Christian denominations and at least one non-Christian religion take the opposite view. The debate centers on when the soul enters the body. Anti-abortionists believe that life/soul begins at conception (and that abortion is murder); others believe that life/soul enters at birth (and thusly abortion is not murder). Both have Scripture to back their beliefs. If anti-abortionists can impose their beliefs on those who do not share them, aren’t they in violation of the first Amendment? Aren't we passing laws that favor one religious belief over the other?
Oh goody - he's from Missouri. They can put a bust of him next to Rush Limbaugh.
Women need to show these men we are sooooo much stronger and have more brains than they do when we vote them all out in November...GOP men especially...They want you home, quite and pregnant.....!!!!!!!
My mom always said "Be wary of men who do not believe in abortion.......because after sex you are on your own and if you are pregnant you are still on your own to have the baby. His job is done and he will just move on to the next woman....
The validity of the statement "a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape" is easily determined by considering the very recent positions espoused by both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan regarding personhood legislation. In October of 2011, Mitt Romney said that, as the governor of Massachusetts, he would have"absolutely" supported a personhood amendment for the state of Massachusetts similar to Amendment 26 on Mississippi's 2011 ballot initiative. In January 2011, Paul Ryan co-sponsored a federal personhood amendment, H.R. 212. Both of these amendments would make abortion illegal regardless of how a human embryo is conceived. If this was an episode of Debunkition Junction, a red road sign would be positioned behind Rachel inscribed with the word "False."
Not sure how you can get any more stupid than this guy.
Romney and Ryan to female voters: "The GOP has your back."
Meanwhile, Republican Senators vote against anti-domestic violence legislation,
… the governor of Wisconsin repeals "equal pay for women" legislation,
… conservative pundits and politicians claim that men deserve higher pay for equal work because "men need the added income more than do women" or because "men know more stuff than do women",
… Romney, Ryan, and the Congressional GOP leadership vow to "kill ObamaCare", including all of the components within the ACA that provide affordable preventative health care for women and children,
… Congressional and state Republican legislators strive to make affordable access to contraception and breast cancer screenings more difficult with their assault on PP and employee health insurance coverage,
… female state legislators are shunned and silenced for uttering the word "vagina" (gasp) during an abortion debate,
… GOP-controlled state legislatures mandate that women seeking an abortion provide social conservative politicians with "a womb with a view".
… Rep. Akin utters a commonly-held view among conservatives that some rapes are "rapier" than are other rapes
… and none other than Paul Ryan advocated a federal ban on abortion, in-vitro fertilization, and most forms of birth control, as well as a national mandate on the forced ultrasound requirement for women.
So much for the tea party/conservative movement's mantra: "small, non-intrusive government".
The 2012 GOP campaign slogan: A chicken in every pot and a spy-cam in every uterus.
American women to Republican Party: "WE will decide whether or not our rights are being assaulted by conservative policies, thank you very much."
Boodroo- Seriously? You're not against babies until they're born, then they're on their own. Just like all the other brain dead Republicans who think like you..
Let me tell you a little story. My sister is a born again, right wing, long time Republican. When she was 17 she got pregnant (and we come from a white, upper middle class, well-off, conservative family). This was several years before Roe v. Wade. Abortion was simply out of the question, and unavailable. After the child was born her whole attitude changed. She told me that she was absolutely against abortion, not because it had anything to do with the child, but that it was God's punishment for the mother that she should carry the child. To her, every woman who found herself pregnant should have to bear the child for her sins.
Yes, the anti-choice people are generally highly religious, extremely judgmental, and seldom concern themselves with who pays for the abortion. It's all about exacting revenge.