Akin on Abortion: It is a Common Practice For Doctors To Give Abortion To Women Who “Are Not Actually Pregnant”

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.

74 thoughts on “Akin on Abortion: It is a Common Practice For Doctors To Give Abortion To Women Who “Are Not Actually Pregnant””

  1. Gene, thanks for doing the reading and saving me the time as well as the anguish/anger at stupid rulings. You must live to serve 🙂

  2. performing abortions on women that are not pregnant is the equivilant of performing brain surgery on Rep. Akin

    {rimshot}

    thanks I’ll be here all week, don’t forget to tip your veal and try your waitress

  3. For a different take on the debates tonight. An opportunity to hear the “other” presidential candidates.

    Watch the Democracy Now! special 3-hour expanded presidential debate broadcast tonight! As Barack Obama and Mitt Romney face off in the “official debate,” we’ll hit pause and allow third party candidates, Green Party’s Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party, equal time to answer the questions. Amy Goodman will moderate the discussion.

    From 8:30-11:30pm ET, you can stream the live program at http://www.democracynow.org/ or watch on television via Link TV (DISH Network Channel 9410 or DirecTV Channel 375) or Free Speech TV (DISH Network Channel 9415 or DirecTV Channel 348). Join the conversation on the Democracy Now! Facebook page or on Twitter at #ExpandTheDebate.

  4. Bron,

    Yeah, he’s a dirtbag alright, but fortunately in that case it doesn’t look like the law is settled yet. This is why the appeals system has more than one layer.

  5. Speaking of abortions and stupids:
    Here am I going nuclear on GB Messpo at the 2,000 dead in Afghanistan thread. He came down, “with all due respect” on sorrowing mother. What did he base it on.
    A CBS report based on police interrogation leaks, with accused excuses, lies, ex-parte grudg-bearers, etc.

    I called our GB out. Guess all will attack. So predictable. But read my beef before you fetch the rope.
    —————-

    92 idealist707
    1, October 3, 2012 at 6:19 pm

    Messpo,

    As a lawyer (I presume) and a GB, do you buy stories relayed by CBS or any news media?

    Do you buy redacted, and edited interrogation material from police leaks? From parts speaking in their own behalf, trying to get free? From ex-parte people with what axes to grind, what old grudges to pay back, from fathers still in denial stages?

    You sir, are a joke if you do.

    Do you always fail to see the real culpables here? That is to say the people that sent him there, kept him there, and made him into what he became.

    Frankly I don’t care where the truth of this single deed lies, because it lies not with these soldiers.
    It is a tragedy and the rest of the nation and you too bear the blame.

    Are you blaming the PTSD’s, the mentally deranged former soldiers, the suicides?

    Wonder what you did after Vietnam when the vets were being spat upon? Did you spit too?

    You are a true patriot. Did they name the law after you? Guess not, there are so many like you who are willing to send other mens sons there.
    Rafflaw’s son could maybe enlighten you. If light can help you.

    How’re your civilian killing drones doing today?
    Has your police dept. got some yet? The ones with the Gatlings mounted?

    Billie is just one of thousands of sorrowing mothers, and some fathers too.
    Is a folded flag and the sight of war billionaires compensation for those losses?
    —————

  6. Gene:

    the guy is a dirt bag in any case. what kind of person would do that?

    As you say though, the law is the law and whether you like the verdict/precedent is immaterial.

  7. Bron,

    The key part of that ruling was that the Connecticut Supreme Court granted the state’s petition for certification to appeal and will consider whether the Appellate Court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the jury when it determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the complainant was physically helpless as defined by § 53a-65 (6). The state is not denying that the statutory language needs clarification, hence asking the CSC for certification. The defendant argues narrow interpretation for the terms “physically helpless” and the state argues for a broader interpretation. From what I read of the facts and the argument set forth in the Amicus brief filed by the Arc of Connecticut (a state advocacy group for the disabled)? The prosecution may get their way and have the Appellate Court overruled and the lower court’s jury verdict reinstated. It reads like her helplessness was manifest by the accommodations the state had to make to allow the victim to testify at trial and absent her testimony prosecution would have been a practical impossibility.

  8. Without doing a lot of research on the Connecticut case, it appears the prosecution dropped the ball on the “mental defective” issue. I don’t know anything about CT law, but most states have laws against abusing vulnerable adults. She clearly did not have the capacity to give consent.

    I once worked on a case where the victim had CP so bad she was barely verbal. She had no real comprehension regarding what happened to her, but there was a next door neighbor who saw the rape take place in the bushes next to the house, and they had semen samples. The DA in that case went nuclear on the defendant with all the included charges, and the perp ended up with an extremely long sentence. The prosecutor in that case presented extensive psychiatric and psychological testimony, as well as a counselor from the school for the handicapped regarding the young woman’s cognitive and physical limitations.

  9. Hey,

    There’s an abortion tonight, sorry, a debate tonight.
    Anybody abstaining? Yeah, only Stein supporters. We understand.
    I gotta sleep while you watch. Who will have your favo after-commentary for me to see tomorrow. And don’t say Faux.

    Anyone taking bets on what Romney will answer to hearing his 47 percent speech in playback instead of an Obama salvo? Wish the rules permitted. But can moderators ask questions?

  10. “There is also evidence that some women are having pregnancy when they haven’t actually had sex. Several reported being pregnant without having had sex with Akin himself.”

    Although one claims to have been impregnated by an old man claiming to be omnipresent and omnipotent, Akin denied this allegation as well saying he “was very potent. Very potent indeed.”

  11. Malisha,

    I think you could roll those dice a very long time before crapping out. Thanks for not going for a record.

  12. There is also evidence that some women are having pregnancy when they haven’t actually had sex. Several reported being pregnant without having had sex with Akin himself. He denied the allegations and attributed them to a vast left-wing conspiracy.

  13. Justice Holmes,

    Is Akin really so different than the other congress reps?

  14. ElaineM,

    Is there much reason for women to produce men?
    And all the hell besides which goes with the body.

  15. Why Does Todd Akin Believe That Women Who Aren’t Pregnant Get Abortions?
    By Amanda Marcotte
    Posted Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2012
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/10/03/todd_akin_thinks_women_who_aren_t_pregnant_get_abortions_he_s_not_alone_.html

    Excerpt:
    My post yesterday about previously unreported videos of Todd Akin’s speeches on the House floor had a lot of loony quotes from the Missouri Senate candidate, but the one that appears to have attracted the most attention was his comment that abortion providers—who he compared to terrorists—are “giving abortions to women who are not actually pregnant.” Likely this comment stuck out because, like his infamous “legitimate rape” line, it was a rancid mix of misogyny and profound ignorance about the female bodies Akin so dearly wishes to control.

    Well, just as with “legitimate rape,” it turns out the belief that doctors are performing abortions on non-pregnant women has its roots in the ever-astounding world of anti-choice mythology. Robin Marty of RH Reality Check, where I also contribute weekly, reports on one of the major sources of this claim, Carol Everett, who used to be a clinic worker and is now an anti-choice activist. Everett belongs to a grand tradition on the Christian right of true believers who claim to understand sin because they used to participate in it. (“Former terrorist” Kamal Saleem is a fine example of this bunch.) Everett’s conversion story is about her previous life working in an abortion clinic. Marty quotes Everett speaking to a Focus on the Family radio program in the ’80s:

    There are two other things I’d like to talk about. There are women who come in and have abortions but aren’t pregnant. You may say, “Oh, that doesn’t happen.” Maybe you say that. It does happen. First of all, this woman thinks she’s pregnant. She’s scheduled herself for an abortion. She’s come in and her pregnancy test is negative. They have a woman that they have paid their advertising dollars to get in there. They want to do that abortion if there is any way.

    So they do everything they can to prove that she’s pregnant or has been pregnant. You say “has been pregnant?” Yes, if they can convince her that she has been pregnant, that she’s had a spontaneous abortion. She’s going to have to go into the hospital to have a D&C to remove the rest of the contents of her uterus. They will convince her to go ahead and have a procedure she doesn’t need that day. And it happens. Channel 4 [Dallas-Fort Worth] got it on tape—a woman that went directly from our office to a doctor’s office and the doctor told her that she [had] never been pregnant, and we had tried to do an abortion on her. I don’t know what percentage that is. I have no idea…

    As Marty notes, there were some clinics in the ’70s in Chicago exposed for unsafe and deceptive practices, including D&Cs on non-pregnant women, but those clinics were exposed and many closed. The Chicago clinics were an anomaly, and not indicative of how abortion is generally provided.

    A little common sense should demonstrate why: In order for a scam like that to work, women would have to set up appointments for abortions without knowing if they’re pregnant. And they would have to do so on a regular basis in order for this to make any kind of financial sense for the clinics at all. In the ’70s, when home pregnancy testing wasn’t readily available, that might have been more plausible, but nowadays most women who call an abortion clinic know for sure that they’re pregnant and have already made up their minds. To believe otherwise is to assume that women, or at least women who get abortions, are too stupid as a class to understand even the most basic things in life.

    But this belief that women who get abortions are just bimbos being led by their noses by conniving abortion doctors is a mainstay in the anti-choice movement, as David Frum notes:

    The point being, I suppose, to present abortion not as a tragic consequence of life choices gone wrong, but instead as an act of exploitation imposed upon misguided women by a rapacious “abortion industry.” If you think about abortion that way, it’s easier to justify banning it altogether. The only problem is, thinking about it that way is an utter delusion.

Comments are closed.