Republicans have spent the last few days furiously trying to distance themselves from Missouri Rep. Todd Akin's assertion that women who are victims of "legitimate rape" do not get pregnant. They've tried to get him to drop out of his U.S. Senate race, even as polls say he's leading. But they have a tough case to make, since the real takeaway from Akin's ludicrous charge is that his approach to women's rights (if not necessarily the "legitimate rape" claim itself) is entirely consistent with the ideology of the modern Republican party.
GOP concern that the rape exception to abortion bans would be used to allow too many abortions is not new. In 2011, Akin was one of 226 sponsors of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which, among other things, sought to rewrite the definition of rape (to change the language to "forcible rape") in an effort to make it harder for women to get a post-rape abortion. Who else was a sponsor? Rep. Paul Ryan. With millions of Americans out of work, 226 members of Congress (nearly all Republicans) were laser-focused on abortion and limiting the definition of rape (the bill was H.R. 3, so it was among the first pieces of legislation offered that session). And Paul Ryan was one of them.
Given the waves of condemnation (as well as fundraising efforts) resulting from Akin's "legitimate rape" claim, it's no surprise that Ryan is now trying to walk back his sponsorship of H.R. 3, cutting off a questioner about Akin's claim with the statement, "Rape is rape. Rape is rape, period. End of story."
Ryan would desperately like his answer to the be the end of the story, but it won't be. It's just the beginning, as it becomes clear that Akin's "legitimate rape" charge was in keeping with the Republicans' "war on women" since taking control of the House in the 2010 midterm elections. (I detailed some of the aspects of the GOP assault on women's rights in June.)
Akin's assertion isn't problematic for Republicans because it is outrageous. It's a disaster for them because it shines a light on the GOP's disdain for women's rights.
Firedoglake recently put together a piece on Ryan's record on right-to-life issues. He voted to ban the FDA from approving any drug that could be used to abort a fetus. He voted for numerous "fetal protection" acts, including some that would criminalize a mother's behavior (not just a doctor's). He supported intervening to keep Terri Schiavo alive. He supported a bill requiring a doctor to tell mothers that the fetus could experience pain after 20 weeks. He spread the myth that health care reform legislation funded abortions. He opposed the president's requirement that health care plans provide birth control coverage. He sponsored a bill that would establish in law that life started at conception.
Ryan also sponsored the Sanctity of Human Life Act, which, if strictly interpreted, could ban not only abortion but also in vitro fertilization and some forms of birth control. He voted to defund Planned Parenthood four times. And he sponsored a "fetal personhood" bill, a concept so outside the mainstream it was voted down by the people of Mississippi last year.
And on women's issues that don't pertain to abortion, Ryan's record isn't much better. He voted against the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. And he supported the watered-down version of the Violence Against Women Act authorization that would have gutted the original law.
When it comes to women's rights issues, Ryan's record is closer to Akin's than it is to the beliefs of a majority of Americans.
And it's not just Ryan. The 2012 Republican platform supports a constitutional amendment banning abortion with no exception made for incest or rape. Not surprising, given that Rep. Steve King of Iowa said he hadn't "heard" of someone getting pregnant from incest.
(Given Mitt Romney's epic inability to tell the truth and comic record of flip-flopping on most issues, it's hard to pin down his views on abortion. So his choice of Ryan as a running mate and willingness to run under the GOP platform will have to speak for themselves.)
The bottom line is that the Republicans have spent the last two years conducting an all-out assault on the rights of women. So when Akin made his high-profile, obviously offensive and ridiculous charge about "legitimate rape," it didn't stand as the ranting of a looney on the fringes, outside of the boundaries of his party. Rather, he made his claim under the backdrop of a history of people who really believe the nonsense he spouted. And his assertion is in line with the approach of his party, who only a year ago sought to redefine rape to make the term cover fewer attacks.
Akin isn't an outlier. He is more accurately described as sitting on the right side (but fully inside) of a party that wants to legislate a return to a 19th century view of women's rights. Akin's looney claim didn't come from nowhere. It is a product of the far right's attempts to roll back women's rights, a view that has taken over the Republican party.
Ryan and Romney desperately want voters to see Akin as outside of the GOP mainstream. But the record shows that Akin and Ryan are more in tune than divided on women's issues. Akin speaks with a Republican voice, not a fringe one, and that's something that most Americans, I'm guessing, will not see as a good thing.
Follow Mitchell Bard on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MitchellBard
Michael Kimmel: Rape and Women's Voice
Chris Weigant: 2012 Electoral Math -- Pre-Convention Baseline
Karl Frisch: Mitt Romney and the Temple of Womb
WHEN DID WE START CATEGORIZING RAPE?
The GOP want nothing more than to return women to the level of the 1930s-40s. Barefoot, Pregnant and in the kitchen.
First, there are legal distinctions with regard to rape. Forcible rape is much different from statutory rape. The former is always wrong, but the latter often has many variations - including consent. So, "rape is rape" is not at all true. Akin was attempting to address this distinction.
Second, it is a medical fact that conception and pregnancy are much less likely when a woman is under even minimal stress. The trauma of rape causes extreme stress and, while it may not be a relevant point, it is not "outrageous" to assert that her body makes a pregnancy less likely.
Mr. Akin's blundering is not what's important to the clamoring activists. It is the "R" next to his name and the fact that he was leading his Democrat Senate opponent by more than 10 points.
The only people trying to force this guy out of the race are Republicans. I listened to Sean Hannity basically BEG him to withdraw for an hour during drive time this Tuesday. They have no problem with what he said - only with the fact that it will alert women to the fact that THIS is what the Republican agenda is all about.
If a person believes that abortion, even of a fertilized cell, is murder, then there truly is no difference whether the fertilization happened because of a violent rape. However, common decency would lead any person to recognize that being forced to carry that pregnancy to term represents an agonizing compounding of pain to the woman (that person most conservatives so rarely consider).
If we have to admit that there are some cases where the woman's pain is paramount to the right of the fertilized cell (even to the point of banning the morning after pill), then we have to admit there might be OTHER cases where the woman's pain is paramount. And THEN we'd have to agree that this is the woman's choice - not the governments. And conservatives can't have that.
Once again, I have to point out that most of the right-to-life activists are women. None of them is in favor of pain for anyone (except maybe rapists), but this issue is just not that simple.
So what is really extreme being against abortion or being for infanticide?
But of course the media doesn't want to discuss President Obama's positions and votes on abortion. I mean how can you defend infanticide? Obama tried and failed so the media just ignored the issue all together. Must be nice to be a Democrat and not have to ever be held accountable for three votes that you took to keep infanticide legal. Thankfully George Bush made infanticide illegal without the help of Barack Obama.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/feb/24/picket-obamas-bad-moves-infanticide-come-back-haun/
He voted three times against a law that would of banned infanticide and law that would of recognized that a Doctor has to save the life of a baby born alive.
This law did not and would not effect any other abortion laws or procedures. That is what Obama used as a excuse and that has been debunked.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/
The bill that Obama voted on does indeed deal with infanticide. He voted against a doctor giving medical attention to a LIVE child born resulted from a botched abortion. Get why it is infanticide now? The baby is already born. Got a clue now?
If pregnancy after forcible rape is the only exception, and it never happens, then there is no exception - which is another position Ryan (and the GOP platform) share with Akin.
I am a 48 year Catholic woman. I don't go to church regularly. My children have gone and still go to Catholic elementary school. I believe in God. I was taught that God loves everyone and that He is the only one who can judge us. Therefore, these high and mighty people that we place in government are judging US and trying to force their morals on us. Christians of today have no place in government when they force their ideology on everyone else.
Yeah, keep on squealing about this dope. Of course it's a deflection away from the horrid economy and the fraud in the WH.
(2) If the Republicans care so much about the economy, they should spend more time actually trying to do something to make it better and less time trying to make abortion illegal and stop gay people from getting married or adopting kids.
No one is forcing them to put their priorities on these issues. That's a choice they make themselves. If they really wanted to talk about the economy instead of stripping other people of their rights, plenty of people would be interested in participating in that conversation and effort.
When you see someone being beaten on the street, do you say "well, I would never beat someone, because I believe it's wrong, but who am I to force my morals on someone else"? Hopefully, you would attempt to intervene in some way.
WE ALL need to remember that the Christian Bible says if a man TAKES a woman in a field, he should take her as is wife. It matters not that this is old testament because the Christians claim the BIBLE as their guide -- not just the "New Testament"-- unless and untill they publically denounce the BIBLE in total and the old testament specifically, which they have not.
If the GOP religious conservatives eventually get the pseudo-Christian theocracy in the USA many seem want, it is even possible that laws they enact will require that if a STALKER rapes a woman, then, under this biblical admonition and any religious dogma enacted into law supporting it, she must submit to be his "wife" -- se x sla ve.
VOTE DEMOCRAT 2012 to assure separation of church and state.
If he's truly behind the times and unable to understand modern realities, he's unable to do the job he's applying for and shouldn't represent people who live and function in the 21st century.
So your claim comes from where, exactly?
Women are worth lesst han a clump of cells in the eyes of the theocrats because they are potential "quivers" in "god's" army...and of course, half will be female, used to breed more warriors for "god"!
I realize this may sound extreme, and you are correct. There are extremist fundamentalists in Congress and Ryan and Akin are two of them...and Romney would be the icing on the cake if they could get into power. Don't believe anything he says now... If he gets elected, he'll do their bidding.
Remember, Ryan, Akin, and the rest of those Theocrats ran on jobs in 2010, but HR3, one of the first bills to be intoroduced after the election banned all abortions, the only exception...to save the life of the woman. They don't care about fixing the economyl. Romney is going to pull all of the money out of government he can, and siphon it off to his corporate cronies, under the guise of privatization to shrink the government...and we will get crap in return.