On Wednesday, Paul Ryan caused a stir during an interview in Pittsburgh, when he tried to denounce Todd Akin, but was reminded that he co-sponsored a bill with Akin to redefine "rape." The vice presidential hopeful said there's "no splitting hairs over rape," ignoring the fact that he pushed for federal legislation last year that would have split hairs over rape.
Tricia noted earlier that Ryan was asked related questions yesterday during an interview with a CBS affiliate near the Tennessee/Virginia border, and if you missed his response, the clip is well worth checking out.
For those who can't watch clips online, here's the transcript:
REPORTER: ...Specifically where you stand when it comes to rape, and when it comes to the issue of should it be legal for a woman to be able to get an abortion if she's raped.
RYAN: I'm very proud of my pro-life record, and I've always adopted the idea that, the position that the method of conception doesn't change the definition of life. But let's remember, I'm joining the Romney-Ryan ticket. And the president makes policy. And the president, in this case the future President Mitt Romney, has exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother, which is a vast improvement of where we are right now.
Why is Mitt Romney trying to shut down media discussion of this topic? Probably because of answers like these.
In this case, when Ryan says "the method of conception" is irrelevant, he's talking about rape. In other words, the Republicans' vice presidential nominee clearly believes the government should force women to take their pregnancy to term if they are impregnated by a rapist. Republicans can only distance themselves so much from Todd Akin before we realize they share his views.
But, he adds, his perspective isn't terribly important, because he'd only be vice president, and Romney isn't inclined to be as extreme as Ryan is. It's not like vice presidents ever get elevated to the presidency, right? (Nine of the nation's 44 chief executives were vice presidents who got elevated to the presidency during their term.)
Here's a follow-up question for those with access to Ryan: if tragedy were to strike and you became president at some point during the next four years, how would you intend to shape policy to force rape victims to take their pregnancies to term?
Leave a Comment:
Ryan would just blow that question off as a hypothetical. Better to ask Romney: If you believe abortion is murder, how do you excuse the murder of a fetus that was conceived as the result of rape?
I agree. The question should be:
If you believe that human life begins at conception and that abortion is murder, are you not a 'moral relativist' and/or hypocrite if you accept any other position?
Was he trying to be funny when he said,there's no "splitting hair's" over rape?He and Romney ought to a big laugh out of that answer.I'll bet he rehearsed it.
Watch Frank Luntz coach Stephen Colbert and you tell me.
In this day and age! these two are utterly ridiculous.
Still never hear anyone concerned about the psychological impact on a child born of rape, not of its parents love. Want to raise a tortured child, anyone?
OFFICIAL ROMNEY/RYAN STATEMENT:
From now until election day we will ONLY answers questions on "How bad Obama is."
I.e., how "black" Obama is.
Isn't referring to rape as "the method of conception" in of itself yet another way of redefining rape?
On another note, isn't this a fine example of cognitive dissonance, where rape is unacceptable, unless it's used as a method for conception?
Sleep well at night do you, cultural warrior?
What in the world does this even mean? -- "And the president, in this case the future President Mitt Romney, has exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother, which is a vast improvement of where we are right now."
That is complete gibberish - it discounts the fact that any "vast improvement" would in reality mean Romney withdrawing support for, or vetoing, the kind of legislation that Ryan and his fellow rabidly conservative Republicans have put in place or will try to put into place with regard to women's reproductive health.
Ah, but here's what's worse: IF there were a Republican majority in the Senate and House, and if they both passed bills stripping funding for Abortion and contraception in all cases, Romney would sign it. No matter what his personal beliefs are. He wouldn't have the balls to veto it.
Indeed, Dave.
He means having no abortions at all, other than those which are for rape, incest and the health of the mother, would be better than what we have now.
Never mind that he is doing everything in his power to outlaw various types of birth control and reduce women's access to contraception, which will increase the amount of unwanted pregnancies.
If they defund planned parenthood as they plan, removing all government funding for the non-abortion parts (because already no government funding goes to terminations) then they will increase the amount of unwanted pregancies and increase the demand for abortions.
How can that position be moral? It isn't even logical.
Yes, and that's exactly my point, Tweed.girl! What Ryan is ostensibly saying is that Romney would take a position that's more moderate than the "forcible-rape-pro-life record" that Ryan is so "proud of" now, and that that would be a "vast improvement." So, it strikes me as gibberish - unless Ryan truly meant to say that Romney being more moderate than what he himself is right now is a vast improvement. (Not that there's any doubt that Romney would simply take dictation from the Family Research Council, etc. on what to sign off on).
June, he's saying that Romney's mostly-pro-forced-birth position-of-the-moment is better than "what we have now," by which he means Roe v. Wade permitting us lowly women-folk to control our own bodies.
It's funny that Paul Ryan suggests that his views shouldn't matter to voters. If that's the case, then it shouldn't matter who a presidential candidate chooses to be his running mate. Unfortunately, for Romney and Ryan, it does matter.
Also, let's not forget that Romney "absolutely" supports constitutional personhood amendments. So, one can reasonably conclude that Ryan is misleading others about Romney's position.
So Ryan considers rape just another "method of conception"?!?
I'm trying to understand the day to day consequences of Ryan's position. A woman is raped - she reports it to the police, not an insignificant decision by any means. She becomes pregnant realizing that she can't get an abortion. Authorities know she was raped and someone who knew she was pregnant tells the police she is no longer pregnant, for whatever reason. The police are now compelled to investigate the chance that an illegal abortion may have taken place so the woman who was the original victim, is now the suspect in a crime and could be charged with murder?
Other consequences? Women stop reporting rapes and so more and more rapes occur because rapists realize that the crime wont be reported. Is this where Ryan and his ilk want this country to go?
If abortion becomes illegal, the man who caused that pregnancy, whatever the "method of conception", better also be included in that charge of murder. Maybe if men thought that they would be criminally liable they would think twice about unprotected sex. I am so tired of women always being at fault.
Ryan's answer can be summarized as, "nothing to see here, can we please-please-please just move along?!". While I'm pleased to see Mr. Ryan confronted with the reality of his "moral beliefs" that he trumpets as "the will of the American People", I am hoping we can also see the VERY misleading label of "Pro-Life" challenged in the public square. I am Pro-Life (certainly not anti-life)...I am not in agreement with this obsession to outlaw abortion. I am NOT "Pro-Abortion", as I'm often labeled for supporting the right of a Woman to choose the legal procedure regardless of circumstance. While Paul Ryan is certainly "anti-abortion", as a label that is too simplistic and ignores the myriad issues that are wrapped up neatly into a convenient soundbite. "No Choice" or "Anti-Choice" are the closest to accurate in my opinion. And it's not just the "choice", or exercise of a Woman's free will, regarding the prevention of pregnancy or childbirth. The choice involves so much more...beliefs, self-determination, personal health. Essentially everything, but the most important in our America just might be the ability to enter or re-enter the workforce. Chick-fil-a has some interesting restrictions on employment including the "single mother" and the trend is to allow employers more freedom in THEIR choice of discrimination in hiring and firing. There are more laws being introduced that actually deem single parents as "endangering a child" or attempt to outlaw the working couple or single parent through supervision or accountability laws. The complexity of the issue BEGS the media to stop using the inaccurate and misleading label of "Pro-Life" or at least requires that interviewers ask their interviewee to define, precisely, what that label means to them and whether they've considered ANY negative consequences associated with such an extreme and often belligerent stance. A stance on OTHER people's lives and choices, not involving their own. We know the core issue is identified as "family values", but the truth is so obvious that Newt Gingrich blurted it out on a seemingly unrelated topic...it's right wing social engineering.
Seems to me that Mr. Ryan is the Joffrey Baratheon of American politics; there seems to be more than a physical resemblance.
The religious right does not want a law banning all abortions; they want a Constitutional amendment. A law can be repealed much easier than an amendment. Romney and Ryan will oblige the religious right if Congress votes to send an amendment to the states. The Republicans control a large number of states and it will be very easy for them to pick off some Dem state legislatures and get the amendment approved. Ryan is just double talking the media and voters, but he supports an amendment.
Not planning to become "the man"?? Did anyone else watch the body language at his pronouncement of "the next President" OOPS giggle giggle, "Vice President"... When Ryan took stage, he assumed the leadership position, by placing his hand on Romney's back, guiding him "out front" and telling him what to do... (If not him, "someone" may be prepping him to be "the man".)
Why American women allow men to decide these issues makes me laugh. We want to complain how the Taliban treat women as less than, but in America this is okay ?? People need to wake up. If tragedy struck Ryan's family or any other higher up in the Republican party, I believe all of a sudden abortion on demand would be realized. Also why is the media afraid to raise the issue of the Romney boys and the way they produced their children...isn't it against what Daddy's party addvocates, just asking the question
They seem to deal only in abstracts.
Imagine a woman or girl, raped, traumatised and now pregnant. She wants to terminate the pregnancy (those who don't want to terminate the pregnancy don't come into this discussion, their choice is always respected.)
Romney, Ryan, Akin et al tell her no, you can't.
She repeats, day after day, I don't want it, I don't want this, I don't want him growing in side me every day for another 8 months. I don't want to think about the rape ever again and now I have to remember it every day. Please, please, I don't want this.
And they keep saying no.
They seem to think any woman will just come round to the idea if she's told no. As if she will suddenly feel fine about her choice being taken away. They never seem to address the fact that this will affect woman who DO NOT WANT their rapists baby. They will be forced to do it against their will.
It's horrible.
factcheck.org put out a story saying that Obama's team is incorrect in saying that Republicans would restrict abortions in case of incest and rape
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/another-abortion-falsehood-from-obamas-truth-team/
They say this, because there is no specific mention of exceptions for rape or incest in the Republican platform although Romney and the author of the proposed amendment say they would allow exceptions.
Ok, this is just weird. I was a little shocked that factcheck would just accept what the Republicans say without checking with any legal experts on what this would mean if enacted as law/amendment. A lot of right-to-lifers know that once you start making exceptions for rape and incest, then you seriously erode their Human Life Amendment. That's why they won't concede exceptions or mention it in the amendment or the platform and people who have followed the debate for a while, would know this.
I would think that what is written matters a lot more than what the Republicans say it should mean. Bills and amendments that are passed depend on the written word not on simply what is said at the time of passing. Moreover if they don't say that there will be exceptions for rape or incest, you would assume they're not making any special considerations for those cases.
The issue with Akin... I think a lot of right-to-life people are fine if he and Ryan don't make allowances for those exceptions, so I don't think reproductive rights are such a big deal for Ryan. It's the term "forcible/legitimate" rape that is more difficult to defend.
And since I'm venting, I don't want to call these Republicans "pro-life", because that's not an accurate term. They're really pro-zygotes or pro-pregnancy.
I reread the factcheck article-They say that they don't have a draft of that iteration of the Human Life Amendment, which is why they say it is misleading to say there are no exceptions. However there are some problems with it. How do they know it does include exceptions if there's nothing to be seen. The issue of allowing legal exceptions has always been recognized as a major weakness in the amendment, because how do you say that it's not a life, if conceived in rape or incest, but otherwise it is?
Romney has stated he believes in exceptions in the past. However supporting a Human Life Amendment... it's not straightforward to say, well they don't mention exceptions so maybe they're assumed, but people haven't put them in. If there are no exceptions mentioned, that doesn't mean it's likely that there will be ones put in. It's at least as likely there won't be any.
Most of this uproar stems from the inability of males to conceive. I mean that LITERALLY, and also in the sense that they are ill-equipped to conceive of what it FEELS like to be a woman. They have no notion of what it feels like to be overpowered and FORCED to endure a sexual act, nor do they apprehend the TRAUMA and CRUELTY of being forced to bear a child under such circumstances. They cannot appreciate the sad irony of a case in which a rapist has his "way" with a woman, followed by a congress of men who also have their "way" with her in dictating,--ONCE MORE--her absence of rights with regard to what she may do with her body.
Who built this: http://www.ryancentral.com/energy.html ??
Talk about politically cynical, manipulation by deception. Ryan would like us to believe in the GOP ticket's outrage over government support for business growth. And yet - for generations - his family business, Ryan Incorporated Central, has been in the business of taking money - directly and indirectly from the government.
It started way back in the quaint 1880s with a contract to build railroad embankments. While the railroads then were privately controlled oligarchies, the 1880s railroad boom was supported by local and state government activities (easements, related approvals and tax incentives) awarded to these private companies ... the benefits of which then redounded directly to Ryan Incorporated.
Ryan Incorporated, by its own website, has expanded to work on large energy, landfill and wetlands projects. And, one has to wonder, who pays for those? Ultimately, to one degree or another, the public treasury.
Who built Ryan Incorporated? A brief history of Ryan Incorporated's government-awarded and/or publicly funded projects would be a fascinating read, I'm sure.
So they are going for it, legislate abortion rights. Supposed with exceptions only under "rape, incest, and life of the mother." The point is they are trying to rule it out, and will at the Federal level prosecutions (either fined or imprisonment) be part of the rules, and proposed by Ryan and his crew into Congress? Obviously and trying to curtail it. - this was yesterday, Thursday August 23, 2012
THINK Domestic Abuse Cases
So if a woman gets pregnant who is in a serious domestic abusive relationship trying to get away, wants an abortion, has to have the baby or be criminalized. As you know, whether the father is an abuser or not, he has rights to the child/children?
THINK Financial Responsibility (hypocrisy)
Well, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney's Budget CUTS ALL social programs. So, okay, a college student or single parent working a low paying wage job, or doesn't have a job, who can barely afford the bills with no insurance, and no benefits decides early within the statutes of pregnancy to spare her and her unborn child the dire financial and dire environment hardships, will face prosecution as this doesn't fit within the standards permitted to get an abortion, and therefore faces prosecution? - there are tons of children in the orphanage already waiting for adoption, so add to the waiting list?
THINK Mothers already - its personal and private, so if a mother decides for what reason which she feels is best for children who are born, to have an abortion...children will be separated from their mother as she will be incarcerated for having an abortion or chosen the back alley and died during procedure?
THINK Now...abortion isn't my list of choices but its a choice a woman has earned rightfully...and, its a painful private and heartbreaking decision a woman has to make, which is her choice to make. Leave it alone, and let her face the creator. - take care of the children we have here first.
There is NO questions Paul Ryan and Willard Romney will cast to reverse abortion, and reproductive rights. Also, I would like to point out...
So Paul Ryan has respect for Romney's policy decisions if he were to become President, as noted, "And the president makes policy . . ." GREAT, that is what we have been saying repeatedly! But, why didn't he and cronies respect the decisions and policies that our President Obama proposed as policies. He HELPED BLOCKED every Bill Obama proposed for progress in economic stability, jobs, tried to repeal Health Care Act 33-times, Violence Against Women Act and more? Hypocrite.
(To the tune of Aretha Franklin's THINK)
The ramifications of this policy are mind boggling... And I'm thinking about the Financial Responsibility Hypocrisy mentioned in your article. On that later.
I hate being pigeon holed into one of two options: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. Life is not always black and white, and to have this argument is beautiful as long as the argument is "academic." To be faced with the gut wrenching decision to proceed with an abortion is a terrible choice and not at all easy to live with. I would never wish this on anyone.
The fact is that abortion is a medical option that -- in very personal circumstances, no matter how abhorant one considers the procedure -- must not be prohibited by law. God gave us free will, and we must trust our fine young women to exercise their free will for what is best for them, and in the long run, what is best for America.
Skipping back to the Financial Responsibility (Hypocrisy/Absurdity):
Okay, so... Young Woman is raped. The rapist has just been convicted of the crime of rape and sent to prison. Due to person-hood laws, Young Woman would be forced to give birth to Rapist Spawn.
Who is going to be responsible for the medical cost of giving birth to Rapist Spawn?
Young Woman sues the rapist for child support, but the rapist can't pay because he has been sentenced to a lenghty prison stay ("duh"). Now what? Since The State forced Young Woman to bear Rapist Spawn, is The State culpible for the cost of Rapist Spawn's birth and child support?
Or will The State then -- after Young Woman has been unable to pay her medical bills for birthing Rapist Spawn and unable to hold a job due to her single parent status -- deem Young Woman an "unfit mother" and remove Rapist Spawn by CPS to Foster Care by a couple of Log Cabin Republicans (who under the Republican platform would not qualify to adopt because they're queer) pending imminent adoption by the DINK's [Double Income No Kids] who don't make enough with their combined income to afford Invertro Fertilization and because neither of their empoyers' health insurance covers IVF.
Do you think there's enough Therapy in the world to help Rapist Spawn grow up to be a well adjusted, productive member of our society?
Would you let Rapist Spawn date your daughter?
America, "We're #1!"
I have difficulty understanding why journalists are being so squeamish to go after Congressman Paul Ryan.
Here's the kind of dialog they should be having with the Congressman:
Reporter: "Sir, is it true that you had an African-American girlfriend in college?"
Ryan: "Yes, of course, it is true. Why the question? You should remember that the GOP is the Party of Lincoln, and we believe in MERITocracy, not in any form of racism or race-baiting or racial-politics or in amplifying racial division as the Democrats do"
Reporter: "Sir, so if you did have an African-American girlfriend in college, why didn't you make her pregnant? After all you are a Catholic and condoms and birth-control pills are out, so did you legitimately forcibly-rape her, thus shutting off her biological fertility, or did you not have sex with her because having sex with a black woman is beneath your dignity?"
Ryan: "I have said all I have to say on the subject: I did have an African-American girfriend in college and I am not a racist"
Reporter: "But sir, you didn't answer my question, sir?"
Ryan: "I have said all I have to say on the subject: I did have an African-American girfriend in college and I am not a racist"
....
Have you seen how GOP politicians of late keep repeating their same talking point over and over again when they get in a bind?
so we're going to ban CONDOMS and VIAGRA...it's only FAIR right!
ok so we're going to ban CONDOMS and VIAGRA (covered by insurance, btw!) correct?
really? do you really believe any of this vitriol? no wonder half the population is on welfare
State sponsered abortion?
When female prisoners become pregnant in the USA, what is the general disposition of the pregnancy? Does the female prisoner have a choice whether to carry to term, and who pays for the procedure?
Inquiring minds.
"Rape is another method of conception".........and what Lorena Bobbit did was another method of performing a vasectomy.