Rep. Todd Akins Didn’t “Misspeak” About “Legitimate” Rape
Let’s take a look at what Todd Akins said:
Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican nominee for Senate in Missouri who is running against Sen. Claire McCaskill, justified his opposition to abortion rights even in case of rape with a claim that victims of “legitimate rape” have unnamed biological defenses that prevent pregnancy.
“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
Akin said that even in the worst-case scenario — when the supposed natural protections against unwanted pregnancy fail — abortion should still not be a legal option for the rape victim.
“Let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work, or something,” Akin said. “I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.” [emphasis mine]
Okay… deep breath. Let’s break this down.
“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
I’ve really become tired with the Republican Madonna/whore standard, and that’s exactly what Akins is saying here. Women who are “legitimately” raped don’t become pregnant. Women who claim they were raped and did become pregnant are pretty much liars who probably enjoyed it/were asking for it because… “the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.”
Is he claiming that women produce a super-secret spermicide that self-triggers in times of crisis? Akins is saying that women who are really raped don’t get pregnant because they’re good girls. He then goes on to say:
“Let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work, or something,”
Love that assume. He’s using this word because he doesn’t believe that women who are “legitimately” raped will become pregnant.
“I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”
This statement couldn’t be clearer. Akins doesn’t support abortion in the cases of rape because… women who are “legitimately” raped will not become pregnant… because the bodies of women who are “legitimately” raped secrete a special spermicide that prevents pregnancy.
Akins didn’t misspeak (That’s what he’s now claiming). Not one little bit. You can find his “science” at many “pro-life” sites. Remember, Akins belongs to a party that attempted to change the definition of rape last year. Then they were calling it “forcible” rape. Akins simply changed “forcible” to “legitimate.”
Tags: Republican War On Women
The Romney campaign couldn’t come up with any word stronger than “disagree” in reaction to Akins’ comment.
The rape exception is a fascinating crack in the pro-life movement, exposing two different camps. If you really are opposed to abortion on the grounds that it is an unacceptable taking of life, then the circumstances of the pregnancy don’t matter, and I’d have to respect that.
But so many pro-lifers admit to the rape exception, which clearly reveals that for them, it’s all about the woman’s behavior, and not about the rights of the unborn at all.
The Romney campaign really didn’t need to comment on Akins at all, but feeling pressured on women’s issues, they took the opportunity to explain they supported the rape exception.
And the refusal to prosecute the women under their proposed anti-abortion laws is another example of their mind-blowing cognitive dissonance, probably springing from the same twisted conceptual root as the rape exception.
Is anyone surprised that another redneck, dumbass shit eater Republican showed his true colors. He’s not so much pro-life as anti-women’s rights. I’m sure he wants to keep all women barefoot, pregnant, and waiting on the menfolk hand and foot.
I’ve been a woman my whole life and this is the first time I’ve ever heard that a woman’s reproductive system has a way of “shutting down” to prevent pregnancy during a rape.
Not just showed his true colors, but pulled back the curtain on abit of the stone cold crazy fabrications that wingnuts have to adopt in order to justify the unjustifiable.
Interestingly, conservatives aren’t even coming to this fool’s defense — this one shows Twitter messages from Patrick Ruffini, Reihan Salam.
Karl Rove wants him to “explain”.
Scott Brown wants him to apologize!
If this whacko had any honor whatsoever he would just step down now. But then, honor isn’t in the wingnut playbook.
Further, it is clear from his apology (“it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year.”) that he did not recant his belief that women can shut down pregnancy.
His “misspeak” was in making public his belief. What he meant was that he is sorry that he said what he believes to be true or that he could have said it better. But the bottom line is that he actually believes what he said.
I’m providing a link to an article in the Atlantic, the significant part of which I am excerpting (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/a-canard-that-will-not-die-legitimate-rape-doesnt-cause-pregnancy/261303/#)
When pro-lifers speak of rape pregnancies, we should commonly use the phrase “forcible rape” or “assault rape,” for that specifies what we’re talking about. Rape can also be statutory. Depending upon your state law, statutory rape can be consensual, but we’re not addressing that here …. Assault rape pregnancies are extremely rare.
…. What is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that’s physical trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get and stay pregnant a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy. So what further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one knows, but this factor certainly cuts this last figure by at least 50 percent and probably more.
I am providing a link to the original piece (April 1999) that appears to shape Akin’s beliefs. The article is the second one, titled “Rape Pregnancies Are Rare By J. C. Willke, MD”
http://www.lifeissues.org/connector/display.asp?page=99apr.html
This was not a misspeak on Akins part. This is a belief that has long been held by many educated, but somehow ignorant folks.
And just to be clear, I am not in favor of abortion, but I am in favor of truth.
Romney goes from “disagreeing” with Akins to “Congressman’s Akin comments on rape are insulting, inexcusable, and, frankly, wrong,” Romney told National Review. “Like millions of other Americans, we found them to be offensive.“
“There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy. So what further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one knows, but this factor certainly cuts this last figure by at least 50 percent and probably more.”
And there it is. Thanks, Dave.
BTW, love the way the author states that no one the percentage, and then goes on to give, with certainty, a percentage.
Romney can say whatever he wants, but Ryan is firmly in Akin’s camp here, and we need to keep hammering at this until we get Ryan on the record.
Also, expect the Texas biology textbooks to incorporate this made up “fact” in the next edition.
The rationalization of anything happening “infrequently” always fails to consider the actual person who suffers a tragedy; from their standpoint, whether or not it happened to others is irrelevant.
CNN live right now – Wolf is actually pointing out that Romney’s claim that the Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in the case of rape would constitute a reversal of Ryan’s previously stated position. And Ashleigh Banfield (like any normal human being) is so perplexed by Akin’s nonsense statements that she’s having trouble reporting the issue with a straight face. Like she’s trying to prevent herself from saying, “Seriously? Is this guy fucking kidding me? Where the fuck do they come up with shit this nuts?”
Will Bunch points out that a PA conservative made a similar claim back in the day:
Ah yes! I recall the secretion theory! I particularly like the weather one:
“Federal Judge James Leon Holmes, a Bush appointee, said in an article published circa 1997: “Concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami”
And let’s not forget Republican State Senator Bill Napoli who provided the definition of “forcible” rape:
And there we go.
From dKos, Akin appears to be a goner one way or another:
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Of all the cruel and devastating lies perpetrated by Republicans, like trickle-down and welfare queens, THIS is the one they go down for? Go figure.
Akins not getting any more of Karl Rove’s money.
So only “religious” “virgins” can be forcibly raped? WTF? All of these aholes need to go.
From Pres. Obama!!
“Rape is rape. And the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we are talking about doesn’t make sense to the American people and certainly doesn’t make sense to me. So what I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn’t have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women.”
typical islamofascist rant.
So what is Adkin really suggesting? The republicans want to do
away with birth control, so now we have to depend on brutal sex
so that the secret super spermicide kicks in! Bull S–t!!!
Akins has a spiritual adviser who is a real piece of work:
This guy also believes that women can be responsible for being raped, and that their husbands should be the deciders for abortions. Just go read this stuff — they get this in their churches, people.
A sidebar to the conversation that I only saw mentioned briefly in the previous comments:
All the talk about “forceable” rape just kills me. When talking about rape, the word “forceable” is implied. There is no such thing as “unforced rape.” No matter what the circumstances, rape begins right after a woman says “no.” From that point on, whether she is beaten to a pulp, or she lies silent and submits for fear of that outcome, if a man proceeds with any sexual contact, she is being raped.
“rape begins right after a woman says “no.” From that point on, whether she is beaten to a pulp, or she lies silent and submits for fear of that outcome, if a man proceeds with any sexual contact, she is being raped.”
But even so, state laws have had to make Solomonic distinctions, because society recognizes that not all unwanted sexual contact is rape, and that some sexual crimes are “worse” than others. There is first, second, third, and fourth-degree rape, and then there is a whole range of non-rape sexual offenses, with proportionate penalties. Many of these laws take into account the degree of force or compulsion used, or degree of consent. It’s hard to know someone’s state of mind, or to figure out who said what, but that’s what juries are for.
I think there is always room to adjust these laws, but in general I feel they are just. I wouldn’t want to live in a society were every crime has only one punishment.
The Republicans in Missouri have made their bed. Now they need to lie in that shit. They made this guy their candidate. He must remain on the ballot. I don’t know what MO state election law is, but if he drops out, I sure as hell hope no one can be appointed. And I hope it’s not legal for a petition to get him off the ballot. This war needs to be fought. For too long Republicans have tried to change the rules when things don’t go their way. Akin must remain on the ticket, take his lumps and, hopefully, lose miserably. If he were to win, it would truly show the state of this nation and those who would support such a disgusting piece of shit.
That train has left the station. America has been electing Republicans spouting reprehensible debunked beliefs for decades. Effed-up beliefs about rape are bad, but no worse than trickle-down.
I just can’t figure out how many of them can be so far removed from reality. I’m kinda getting the feeling that their beliefs are defining their reality withh their beliefs creating a scotoma in that all information is perceived and interpreted based on a limited field of view as constrained by their blind spot(s).
Someone, like Akins, with a Masters of Divinity, probably has a biblical scotoma except that it appears to be selective, ignoring such things as,
Mark 10:21-22 “Sell what you own, and give money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.”
and Luke 14:12-14 “…but when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.
It’s really repulsive but I am very curious how they arrive at these beliefs.
There is a large for profit industry built around keeping these a -holes ignorant and blissful.
SOMETHING SHINY! SOMETHING SHINY!
I think even supportive, liberal, men who are totally pro-choice sometimes have trouble understanding women’s version of ‘pro-choice’ and why access to abortion is so important to us.
Abortion is, first and foremost, a medical procedure, in this day and age. It’s MEDICINE. It’s medicine for a potentially life-threatening condition that may strike us at pretty much any time, although most women try to do what they can to control those times. We want access to ALL the therapies that might be appropriate for managing this condition. In a supportive environment the condition might have upsides, and be managed on a chronic basis. That would mean equal pay, access to good healthcare, adequate daycare, safe and effective schools, and prompt government aid for families suffering from domestic violence or problems with addiction. Truly “intact” families wouldn’t hurt, either.
However, sometimes developing a chronic condition, even with supports, isn’t feasible. We know our limits, and this exceeds them. In that case, knowing that there IS a treatment that will largely preserve our lives in the same condition of health we had before, we WANT IT!
If men pictured this in another way… picture it as blood pressure. If you get high blood pressure it’s your fault because you failed to manage your diet and weight properly. Okay, you had a genetic risk for it, but you should have taken up marathon running and lentil burgers earlier. And because it’s your FAULT you’ll be lectured about that, day in, day out. People will run for office exclusively on a platform of eliminating programs that teach kids about lentil burgers, eliminate phys-ed classes and programs, and hold the hard line on giving people with high blood pressure responsible jobs, because you don’t want anyone in a position of authority to have a heart attack, do you? The stress of being successful might contribute to your blood pressure, too, so better track you academically into something less tense, like ceramics.
However, if you do insist, because you’re such a bad person, on getting high blood-pressure, don’t expect any help from our medical system. Sure, we HAVE a procedure that will help you become something like the person you were before. But giving you access to it will just encourage you to keep on with your own evil ways, so, because we truly love and care about you, no.
Have another donut. How’s your blood pressure?
hypothetical question time!
DISCLAIMER!!!!!!!!!!!!! my answer to this question is neither yes, nor no… I dont claim to want to tell people how to answer this, and i understand that, as a man, i have no idea what it is like to be a woman, nor to i presume to try to say I understand, althought i make every attempt i can to gain knowledge, beyond being as sympathetic and supportive as possible….. KAY?
So here is my question in relation to Choice.
Assuming the sex was 100% consensual and mutual, a decision to not use protection was consensual and mutual, the decision of… for lack of a better phrase… where to ejaculate… was consensual and mutual, and the relationship has been understood by both partners to be long term, but no plans of making a baby were discussed; should the person who will become the father once the fertilized egg becomes a person (whenever you personally feel that is… that aspect is not the focus of my question, so please try and move past it) have any say in the choice to carry the baby to term, assuming there is reason to believe no health problems will occur for anyone involved AND there is full reason to believe the father will take his fair share (at least 50%) of the responsibility for raising the child?
The basis for this question is….. men cannon have babies, but women aren’t the only ones who WANT to have babies. Again, the purpose of this question should not be what a pig I am for asking it, but what other people thing about the VERY SPECIFFIC scenario which I posed. … to further disclaim myself, im not even asking about this in a legal way…. More of a ethical/moral way. If COURSE no man should be able to force any woman to have a baby. Ok hopefully I was clear enough.
I gotcha, ben. 🙂
I can’t answer this question ethically, because, as I assure my sons, “beotches be cray.” I’m going to answer it pragmatically. If you have unprotected sex with a woman you’re not married to, she may have an abortion against your wishes. She may have a child against your wishes. She may have twins against your wishes, hit you for child-support, never let you see them and tell you as you peer through the fence at their college graduation that they are really genetically related to your best friend. She may laugh, then. 🙁
To have any change at becoming a dad in this society your safest chance is still to marry a NOT crazy person and do it within that construct. Some of the background to that has had hard ramifications for women, over time, like shotgun weddings to their rapists, etc. Some of it has been bad for men But the legal system is designed to protect families… that’s why marriage equality is important. If you want a family, that’s still the route with the most support.
(d-bags be cray, too)
okiedoke. I lean toward… The father should be allowed some say, at the discretion of the mother… in the decision that is ultimately hers to make. I got to thinking about this because of instances where single women who dont want to get married but want a kid…. a kid they birthed. Go to the sperm bank, pic your DNA and you’re good to go.
It is much different…… Hold on, disclaimer time…. This is NOT NOT NOT a lamentation of the plight of men and their inability to give birth. I dont want to give birth, it looks really really really X 10^9999 painful. dont take this as a “awwww men have it so hard, those dames dont know how luck they are” kind of thought. It is not……. It is much different for men who want a child that is part them… (gay couples, single men who want to be dads and dont want to adopt etc) The reality is, women DO have a lot of power (practically, legally and actually it is under attack and we need to stop the bastards) in this sense. Who knows. Its jsut musings and i hope i didnt express any personally held opinions here, because i didnt mean to. My personal beliefs are that babies should happen when both partners are good and ready…. emotionally, physically, financially, mentally…. and the should be damn responsible until that point… otherwise, keep abortion safe and legal….. OR to solve the plight of all the men who want to be single dads…. (snark) all those conservative women who love to be treated as brood mares should be able to find good solid work as brood mares. (kidding)
I’m not sure what the specific question was because of all the caveats (which really should not be necessary for an intellectual discussion, but unfortunately it’s safer that way).
However, if the fundamental question is, does the presumed father have some kind of rights. Generally I look at those things in an Ying and Yang context. If a person has obligations that are a consequence of their actions, they probably also should have some rights. But it is a real dilemma because exercising those rights could be in conflict with the female exercising her rights. Still, if she were to have the child the father would have a legal obligation for support, so the mother seems to have more rights, which someone might opine that it is because she “carries” the greater burden. As with many things, I can recognize the dilemma but there is no solution that is obvious to me. Not sure if that was the basic question…
there wasnt really a basic question. It was more an open ended topic for conversation since the greater debate is the rights of the mother vs the rights (if any) of others involved. Again, im not trying to espouse any views, just stirring the pot.
The time to have the conversation about having, or not having, a baby is before you have sex with someone. That said, it’s still the woman’s call. Pregnancy is a bigger deal in reality. Pregnancy is more than a baby at the end.
If a man is concerned about not having a say in what to do about a pregnancy then he should use contraception or abstain. That is where he has control.
and to apologize for the thread-jacking…
back to the topic of Todd Shitface http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-misspokewhat-i-meant-to-say-is-i-am-dumb-as-dog,29256/