Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo) appears to have a long-standing issue with women and reproductive issues. This video from 2008 shows Akin informing the Congress that it is a “common practice” for women “who are not actually pregnant” to get abortions. While he has claimed that he just used one word incorrectly in saying that women can physically stop themselves from getting pregnant from “legitimate rape,” this tape shows a certain pattern that is quite odd.
Previously, Akin stated:
“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.”
Now that Akin has refused to step aside and Republicans are past the failsafe point to replacing him, Democrats are releasing the greatest hits from his past. This one is a doozy.
Akin explains that the abortionists are just like terrorists. Curiously, he states terrorists want to take away your right to make your own decisions and then call pro-choose doctors terrorists. He then adds this interesting factoid:
You find that along with the culture of death go all kinds of other lawbreaking. The not following good sanitary procedure, giving abortions to women who are not actually pregnant, cheating on taxes, all these kinds of things. The misuse of anesthetics so that people die or almost die. All of these things are common practice, and all that information is available for America.
The common practice of aborting non-pregnant women will come as something of a surprise to many, particularly when Akin previously explained how rape victims can prevent themselves from getting pregnant.
What is truly amazing is that McCaskill is so unpopular in Missouri that the race remains relatively close despite such statements.
Kudos: Elaine M.
With stunning consistancy, whenever there’s a really stupid statement made or a completely inane political position to be taken, there ALWAYS seems to be a Republican standing near by ready to take credit for it.
Wait, wait —
If a doctor “gives” an abortion to a woman who is not actually pregnant, I want to know:
1 – Was that only attempted murder?
2 – Was that alleged pre-baby-thing living or only pretending?
3 – If that abortion had not been “given” to the unpregnant woman, would the unfoetus have grown into an unbaby or just skipped all that and immediately become a zombie undead?
4 – If it did become a zombie undead, having been not-born in the US, could it become the President of the United States one day?
5 – Would it qualify for food stamps?
“we are not persuaded that the state produced any credible evidence that the [victim] was either unconscious or so uncommunicative that she was physically incapable of manifesting to the defendant her lack of consent to sexual intercourse at the time of the alleged sexual assault,”
The three dissenting justices accused the majority of acting as a “13th juror,” in the case and substituting their opinion for that of the jury.
Richard Fourtin Jr., 28, is free and cannot be tried again.
I am waiting for the names of the Justices on both the Appellate and Supreme Courts who voted to set this guy free and guaranteed that he could not be tried again.
This guy is just playing to his political base. In reality, he probably doen’t care any more about abortion than Robama does about average Americans.
from the appellant’s writeup
“The state argues the jury could nonetheless make that inference, chiefly, as it seems, from seeing the complainant testify and considering testimony from others about her impairments, mainly her mental impairments, for which the evidence was inconclusive and beside the point.
The prosecution had implicitly acknowledged this when it prepared but did not proceed with a charge of sexual intercourse with someone “mentally defective.”
—————–
I haven’t read all of the material submitted to the court but it seems that the state didn’t press the appropriate charge.
bettykath,
And it happened in Connecticut!
Elaine, Do the laws of CT allow for a three-year old to give consent? These judges need to be recalled, forced to retire, whatever. They do not belong on the bench. Maybe they’re protecting their own pedophilia.
Off Topic–but on the subject of women and rape:
Court Requires Disabled Rape Victim To Prove She Resisted, Calls For Evidence Of ‘Biting, Kicking, Scratching’
By Zack Beauchamp
Oct 3, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/03/947981/court-requires-disabled-rape-victim-to-prove-she-fought-back-calls-for-evidence-of-biting-kicking-scratching/
Excerpt:
Defendant Richard Fourtin Jr.
In a 4-3 ruling Tuesday afternoon, the Connecticut State Supreme Court overturned the sexual assault conviction of a man who had sex with a woman who “has severe cerebral palsy, has the intellectual functional equivalent of a 3-year-old and cannot verbally communicate.” The Court held that, because Connecticut statutes define physical incapacity for the purpose of sexual assault as “unconscious or for any other reason. . . physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act,” the defendant could not be convicted if there was any chance that the victim could have communicated her lack of consent. Since the victim in this case was capable of “biting, kicking, scratching, screeching, groaning or gesturing,” the Court ruled that that victim could have communicated lack of consent despite her serious mental deficiencies:
When we consider this evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and in a manner that is consistent with the state’s theory of guilt at trial, we, like the Appellate Court, ‘are not persuaded that the state produced any credible evidence that the [victim] was either unconscious or so uncommunicative that she was physically incapable of manifesting to the defendant her lack of consent to sexual intercourse at the time of the alleged sexual assault.’
According to the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN), lack of physical resistance is not evidence of consent, as “many victims make the good judgment that physical resistance would cause the attacker to become more violent.” RAINN also notes that lack of consent is implicit “if you were under the statutory age of consent, or if you had a mental defect” as the victim did in this case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_curettage
Senator Akin does not seem to understand that women are not walking wombs. D&C and aspiration procedures are used for many reasons, not just abortion.
Birth control pills are used for things other than birh control as well.
The apparent ignorance of the elect and their stolid reluctance to even imagine women as having a stake in the conversation regarding womens issues surrounding pregnancy and healthcare is astoundingly visible lately. Akin to the Sandra Fluke debacle….
False “pregnancies” never result in an abortion because no fetus is present. Akin’s point seems to be that women love abortions so much that they have them for fun even when they are not pregnant. Anyone who votes for such a man gets what they deserve; unfortunately they drag the rest of us with them as he is in the Senate.
Here is a tidbit of knowledge from my wasted youth that may well.become important information if morans like Akin have their way: It was know in certain circles, that if a woman presented herself in the ER and claimed to have unexplained vaginal bleeding a sympathetic doctor would perform a D&C to obtain samples for testing – no questions asked. It she just happened to be pregnant at the time the D&C ended that.
Not sure with all the fancy testing now a days if it would be this simple but maybe thats what Akin was trying to suggest. But then if he went in for a frontal lobotomy THAT would be like an abortion on a non pregnant woman. Can’t operate on something thats not there. So there is no telling what he really meant to say.
Poll: McCaskill Leads By 6 Points In Missouri
Eric Kleefeld 1:59 PM EDT, Wednesday October 3, 2012
Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill continues to lead Republican Rep. Todd Akin, who seriously damaged his campaign in late August when he falsely stated that women’s bodies can prevent pregnancy in cases of “legitimate rape.”
McCaskill leads 46 percent to 40 percent, plus 9 percent for Libertarian candidate Jonathan Dine, in a survey released Wednesday by Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling. In addition, McCaskill has an approval rating of only 44 percent, with 49 percent disapproval — but Akin is far worse off with a favorable rating of 33 percent, and an unfavorable rating of 55 percent. The survey of 700 likely voters was conducted Oct. 1-3, and has a 3.7 percent margin of error.
The pollster’s analysis cautioned that the race is still competitive, though, with Mitt Romney leading President Obama by a margin of 51 percent to 45 percent. In addition, 50 percent of voters would rather have Republicans control the Senate, compared to 42 percent who want the Democrats: “It’s possible as election day nears that more people who want the GOP in charge will suck it up and vote for Akin even though they don’t like him.” tpm
False Pregnancy (Pseudocyesis)
http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/false-pregnancy-pseudocyesis
Excerpt:
Tests for False Pregnancy
To determine whether a woman is experiencing a false pregnancy, the doctor will usually evaluate her symptoms, perform a pelvic exam and abdominal ultrasound — the same tests used to feel and visualize the unborn baby during a normal pregnancy.
In a case of false pregnancy, no baby will be seen on the ultrasound, and there won’t be any heartbeat. Sometimes, however, the doctor will find some of the physical changes that occur during pregnancy, such as an enlarged uterus and softened cervix. Urine pregnancy tests will always be negative in these cases, with the exception of rare cancers that produce similar hormones to pregnancy.
Certain medical conditions can mimic the symptoms of pregnancy, including ectopic pregnancy, morbid obesity, and cancer. These conditions may need to be ruled out with tests.
“If you asked me if it is possible the sun may come up tomorrow over the north pole instead of the east, I will tell you that it is possible, but most assuredly, unlikely.”
Thankfully unlikely, OS. The resultant and rapid changes to weather and probably severe earthquakes and volcanism would be most unpleasant. A real show stopper.
Bron,
It’s POSSIBLE that Mitt Romney cares about the “47%”–but it’s not PROBABLE.
😉
OS,
I think your dog would be doubly happy.
Don’t think Akin wears shoes.
Bron sez, “So the improbable is possible and therefore probable.”
************************************************
Bron, you appear to be statistically impaired. Probable means that if A happens, we can expect B to follow in almost every instance. Normal probability is about 95% likely to happen. Possible means that in some remote corner of the world, if X happens, Y may follow as a result, but it is NOT LIKELY!
If you asked me if it is possible the sun may come up tomorrow over the north pole instead of the east, I will tell you that it is possible, but most assuredly, unlikely. That is the difference between possibility and probability.
If I drop and anvil on your toe, it is probable that you will yell something unprintable in a family newspaper.
Otteray,
“Akin is an ideologue and ignoramus to boot. I can find no redeeming qualities in him myself, but maybe his dog likes him. If he has a dog.”
Methinks–if Akin had a dog–the dog would have to walk him.
Does Akin want to lose to show the Republican leadership who’s really in control?
“So the improbable is possible and therefore probable.”
You do realize this sentence is gibberish, don’t you?
possible \ˈpä-sə-bəl\, adj.,
1a : being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization
b : being what may be conceived, be done, or occur according to nature, custom, or manners
2a : being something that may or may not occur b : being something that may or may not be true or actual
3: having an indicated potential
probable \ˈprä-bə-bəl, ˈprä(b)-bəl\, adj.,
1: supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof
2: establishing a probability
3: likely to be or become true or real
Anecdotal evidence (without supporting proof even, simply hearsay), does not rise above the level of possible to probable.