Rep. Todd Akin had no sooner won Missouri’s GOP Senate primary this month than he seemed eager to hand over the election to incumbent Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill. Akin instantly became a national sensation with a shocking statement about how “legitimate rape” rarely results in pregnancy.
When confronted on his view regarding exceptions to a ban on abortions, Akin proceeded to show how to abort a Senate campaign in record time: “First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. 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. You know I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”
First there is the distinction between “legitimate” and “illegitimate” rape that is too twisted to contemplate. Then there is Akin’s rather bizarre view of the female body and the existence of some type of kill switch in cases of rape within every woman.
Akin is a six-term U.S. congressman who probably could have drifted to a win in Missouri. Polls showed him a heavy favorite against McCaskill who is unpopular with many in Missouri as well as Washington. Akin, 65, was backed by former GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and supported by many in the Tea Party. Akin was able to secure 36 percent of the vote against businessman John G. Brunner with 30 percent and former state treasurer Sarah Steelman with 29 percent. Steelman was the favorite of Sarah Palin and many in the Tea Party. Despite the tough primary, Akin was leading McCaskill in the polls.
That changed in a flash and he succeeded in moving a state from an expected win for the GOP into the doubtful column — assuming he does not withdraw from the race. Both Romney and Ryan have publicly criticized the comment. McCaskill appears to relish the thought of becoming the second most unpopular candidate in a two-person race. She has refused to call for Akin to step down and said that it would be a radical step to replace a candidate who just won the primary. Republicans however have lined up to condemn the statements and call for Akin to withdraw from the race.
Akin’s attempt to walk back from the comments was almost as awkward — claiming that he “misspoke” about rape. Here is the statement:
“As a member of Congress, I believe that working to protect the most vulnerable in our society is one of my most important responsibilities, and that includes protecting both the unborn and victims of sexual assault. In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, 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. Those who perpetrate these crimes are the lowest of the low in our society and their victims will have no stronger advocate in the Senate to help ensure they have the justice they deserve.
“I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue. But I believe deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action. I also recognize that there are those who, like my opponent, support abortion and I understand I may not have their support in this election.”
Akin does not address the medical side of the comment or even explain what he meant about legitimate rape.
“Misspoke” is a remarkably flexible term to cover any statement where, according to Merriam-Webster, you can claim that you “expressed (oneself) imperfectly or incorrectly.” Of course, there remains the cause for such misspeak. It is one thing to get a date wrong or a country wrong or even a description of some past event. Here however Akin drew a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate rape and then proceeded to offer a medical claim that is almost medieval in character.
Here is the clip showing the “misspeech”:
Given the polarized situation in Missouri, this does not necessarily mean that McCaskill will win. However, with the GOP already struggling with the female vote, this is comment is likely to be played back in an endless loop. The question is the degree of pressure from the Romney campaign to get Akin to step aside given the possible drag on the ticket in November.
Source: CNN
Elaine M
All of this rhetoric is really about nothing. The SCOTUS has ruled and until an amendment is passed or the SCOTUS reverses itself, the issue of abortion is settled. As for moving the needle to an all out assault on those of us against abortion by making it legal all the time with no restrictions is not going to happen.
Jim, look, that is so rare as to be statistically negligible. False charges can be filed for almost any cooperative action, but that is not what we are talking about, are we?
How about a mentally diminished woman, or a child raped by a relative, or statutory rape? There are many rapes that are not physically forced but coherced by others.
How bad is the Ryan-Akin anti-abortion bill?
By Greg Sargent
8/20/12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/how-bad-is-the-ryan-akin-anti-abortion-bill/2012/08/20/c7e37e04-eafe-11e1-9ddc-340d5efb1e9c_blog.html
Excerpt:
The national battle over Todd Akin’s comments about “legitimate rape” has shed light on a “personhood” bill, co-sponsored by Akin and Paul Ryan, called the Sanctity of Life Act. Much of the chatter today has focused on whether Ryan opposes abortion in cases of rape. The Romney campaign confirmed today that Ryan does personally oppose it, while clarifying that a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose it.
But what about the other legal implications of the bill Ryan and Akin co-sponsored? In an interview just now, Dem Rep. Louise Slaughter, one of the leading pro-choice voices in Congress, raised two startling possibilities.
“One of the questions around this legislation is, Could a rapist who impregnated a victim sue that victim if she decided not to carry that baby and to have an abortion?” Slaughter said. “Another question: Could in vitro fertilization be outlawed?”
It’s unclear how this legislation would work. The bill affirms that from the moment of fertilization onward, “every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.” It then says that Congress and the states have the “authority” to protect all human beings — again, defined as human life from fertilization onward — residing in their juristictions.
Slaughter’s suggestion is that this affirms the authority of Congress or the states to pass laws outlawing IVF, since that procedure requires the destruction of embryos, or that it could give legal weight to a rapist’s insistence that his victim not abort her baby — though again, it’s unclear how this would work.
“What it says is that a single cell can achieve all the protections the Constitution of the United States bestows on persons,” Slaughter said of the bill. “Scientifically the law is crazy.”
Akin’s photos on some of the other news shows makes him really look dorky. I suppose he is bald and flops that hair out over the bald spot. One of the commenters above said that he went to John Burroughs High School in Saint Louis. Years ago I knew a realy preppy snot that had gone there. It is one of those protestant, all boys, private prep schools– so the kids dont have the pedophile priests working them over. Wildwood, where he lives now is a rich suburb. So, he does not live out in the sticks. He sure looks like he does.
When a girl says she was raped but actually never said no and gave no indication that she didn’t want to but after the act regrets it and believes he should have stopped, is that legitimate rape?
Woosty’s still a Cat 1, August 20, 2012 at 9:09 am
Dredd
1, August 20, 2012 at 7:20 am
—————————————-
…that was excellent….
==========================================
Others are saying this dood is the norm in the GOP, even as one of their own for 28 years says they are crazy.
But I detect that there is a widespread crazy ongoing that is not limited to any one party, because the authorities just put a sane ex-Marine in the psycho ward because he does not believe the official 9/11 story.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/newsnation/48727898#48727898
People like Akin make be believe in retroactive birth control.
Akin is also for making the morning after pill illegal.
So if you are raped, you must just sit it out & hope and pray that you do not get pregnant.
and if you do end up pregnant, he will force you to carry your rapists baby to term.
See how that works? Rapists get to choose which women they want to carry their child.
Todd Akin and Paul Ryan thinks that is just fine and dandy. They obviously think rapists have more rights than women.
Jack, Mizzou is a pretty good school that has both math and science in its curriculum. Akin didn’t attend Mizzou, below is his educational background from Wikipedia:
“Akin was born in New York City, the son of Nancy Perry (née Bigelow) and Rev. Paul Bigelow Akin.[1] He moved to St. Louis and attended John Burroughs School. After graduating, he attended the Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Worcester, Massachusetts where he earned a degree in management engineering, and in 1984 he earned a Master of Divinity degree at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis. During college he was member of Phi Gamma Delta fraternity.”
———-
Your comment regarding an appointment for Akin only looks snarky, I recall with horror that after Missouri voters defeated John Ashcroft’s bid for another Senate term by VOTING FOR A DEAD GUY (emphasis to indicate the poor regard we had for Ashcroft) that he was appointed Attorney General by G H W Bush. And G H W Bush is regarded as the good Bush President- how soon they forget…
So, Darren, what about a tubal pregnancy?
Does that blastocyst or Zygote have the inalienable RIGHT to endanger the mothers life?
Or would you rather the mother die trying to bring this “life” to term?
The most likely result if she even tries to do so.
If Romney wins and schmuko doesnt, he will be made the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Darren,
“But in looking through the fog, he does bring up the point that regardless of the all the contention in the issue and both sides certainly have their argument and truths, often it is ignored that the life inside the womb really has no vote in whether they should live or not.”
*****
Men like Akin and Ryan are trying to pass legislation that would give the people with wombs no vote in what happens to them in certain situations. These men don’t seem to care if women die because of a problem pregnancy. They would give more rights to a zygote than to a woman. They cosponsored the Sanctity of Life bill. The sanctity of a fertilized egg seems to be more important to them than the sanctity of a pregnant woman’s life. That doesn’t seem right to me.
Darren:
Life, in some form, may begin at conception but not independent life or personhood. A 150 cell blastocyst is not a person in any meaningful sense, or even any sense at all. It’s a potential person like an acorn is a potential oak tree. This anti-abortion argument is theocracy dressed up as ethics. There is no scientific basis for affording civil rights to a non-viable fetus. We’ve known that for centuries and hence fetus cannot inherit, or vote, or do most anything a person can legally do.
Early churchmen struggled with the notion of abortion. Pope Innocent III believed life began at animation. The “quickening” he called it when the mother feels the child. Augustine and Aquinas also believed that a soul inhabits only an “animated” fetus or one that has human shape. Jerome said a fetus wasn’t human until the emergence of limbs.
If you want to read about Christianity’s struggle with the notion of abortion see here. it’s not a clear cut as they would have you believe:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm
blahblahblah…
———————————————
After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.
In Job 33:4, it states: “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”
http://joeschwartz.net/life.htm
Again, to quote Ezekiel 37:5&6, “Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live.
———————————-
“Thank goodness you can’t get pregnant from ‘legitimate rape’, because holding that aspirin between your knees can be pretty difficult during a prolonged sexual assault.” ~ Randi Rhodes
Darren, do you remember being a Zygote or a blastocyst?
Of course not- so the result of abortion is not that a “life” dies. It is the potential for life being interrupted.
Much like eggs that get fertilized but do not get implanted in the uterus. this very thing happens all the time, perhaps even more that an actual implantation.
This is why the notion that “life” begins at conception is ridiculous- should women have to submit the products of menstruation each month for analysis to see if they discarded a fertilized egg?
Should these women be punished if they had a glass of wine or exercised if they had a failed implantation?
The potential for life is everywhere, and Nature is unbelievably fecund. It does not mean that all this potential for life must be nurtured to fruition! ridiculous.
This does bring up an unsolvable issue with regard to both sides of the abortion issue that the candidate here did a deplorable job of addressing.
The anti-abortion faction declares that life begins at conception. But following their own logic what is to be of the child to be born resulting from a rape or incest. Many in this faction make exceptions to allow the abortion of a child from these circumstances.
To me that is supremely hypocritical. When they present that all life is sacred from the moment of conception, it inferrs the innocence of the child and each child has the right to life. But when result of a rape or incest, it harks upon outdated thinking Akin to society scorning those born out of wedlock were unfit for society, and in this example those born to rape or incest are even unfit for life.
So as the result of abortion, despite being for or against, a life dies in the process. The debate is whether or not personhood is achieved as to whether this life can be expendable.
Mr Akin’s approach is an embarassment. But in looking through the fog, he does bring up the point that regardless of the all the contention in the issue and both sides certainly have their argument and truths, often it is ignored that the life inside the womb really has no vote in whether they should live or not.
Paul Ryan’s rape reversal
Romney says he would not oppose abortion in instances of rape; but Paul Ryan’s record looks a lot like Todd Akin’s
By Alex Seitz-Wald
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/20/paul_ryans_rape_reversal/
Mitt Romney’s run from Todd Akin at odds with Paul Ryan
By JONATHAN ALLEN | 8/20/12
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79887.html
Akin Bad: Paul Ryan’s ‘Forcible Rape’ Bill Co-Sponsor Drags Him Into Daylight
by Tommy Christopher
August 20th, 2012
http://www.mediaite.com/online/akin-bad-paul-ryans-forcible-rape-bill-co-sponsor-drags-him-into-daylight/
Excerpt:
As reprehensible as they are, current US Congressman and possible US Senator Rep. Todd Akin‘s (R-MO) remarks on the medical effects of “legitimate rape” are a gift to voters, who will now be exposed to the truth about vice-presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), who co-sponsored a bill that insisted on an abortion exception only in cases of “forcible rape.”
The remarks also shine a light on the Romney/Ryan ticket’s competing views on rape and reproductive freedom, issues that might otherwise have been overlooked.
In case you missed it, Akin told an interviewer that pregnancy resulting from rape is “really rare” because “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
The medical basis for Akin’s statement appears to be a recently-published study from The New England Journal of Todd Akin’s Ass, but the subtext is that not all rapes are created equal, an idea that was nearly codified into law by Akin and Rep. Paul Ryan, along with 216 other Republicans (and 10 Democrats!).
H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, originally contained language restricting the exception for federally-funded abortions to “an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest,” and offered no further clarification of the term. On its face, the law would have eliminated statutory rape (on the premise that, what? That ten year-old clearly was into it?), but also left open the possibility that rapes involving drugging, or even rapes that did not result in serious enough injuries to the victim, would fail to fit the definition. He held a gun to your head? Where’s the gun? Did you check to see if it was loaded?