Republicans so far have referred to legitimate rape, forcible rape, easy rape, honest rape, emergency rape, enjoyable rape and now gift-from-God rape. Check out this unbelievable Republican Party Rape Advisory Chart for all of the direct quotes from Republicans on this issue.
They're not saying all of this because they just keep slipping up with words. They're stating whole theories on rape. That's not misspeaking; that's accidentally telling us what you really think.
It's not like Todd Akin meant illegitimate and he accidentally said legitimate rape. He stated a whole biological hypothesis. Why? Because he's thought that for decades and assumed the rest of us believed it, too. That's why he said it on television -- because he didn't realize that it was objectionable.
Richard Mourdock thinks kids born of rape are God's gift; otherwise, how do you justify making a woman carry her rapist's child to term? He can sleep at night by telling himself God meant for that to happen, and hence, it's okay to force women to have those kids.
The bottom line is that they don't want to have a rape exception for abortions. Do you know that in 31 states, the rapist father would get to have visitation rights with that child? So, the victim would have to be forced to see her rapist for next eighteen years on a weekly basis. How do you justify something that hideous and barbaric? You say she wouldn't have gotten pregnant if it was a legitimate rape or that God intended it anyway.
But how about Mitt Romney's position that you can have an exception for rape or incest. Okay, how do you prove that you qualify for that exception? Whose responsibility is it to show that it happened? What evidence do you have to present? Do you have to have a conviction first? Wouldn't that make it too late? If later the man is acquitted, does the woman go to prison for getting the abortion?
Will there be rape panels to decide if someone was actually raped? Someone has to decide if they get the exception or not, right? How will the woman convince the rape panel that she has been raped?
If you think this is a ridiculous hypothetical, you're totally wrong. This problem already exists. A bill has been proposed in the Pennsylvania House that requires a woman who was raped to prove that there is a record of her assault in order for her benefits to not be reduced if she is on state assistance. In New Mexico, there was a proposal that women show they were forcibly raped in order to get child support without filing paperwork on an absent parent.
And all of this is while abortion is legal in this country. Now imagine they have made it illegal, which is their stated and fervent objective. Romney claims his intention is to allow for rape and incest exceptions once they do that. Will he then tell us who he's going to put on the rape and incest panels to decide who qualifies and under what circumstances?
How in the world can any of these people claim they are for small government when they want to get between you and your doctor on the most important and private decision of your life? And how does a small-government advocate figure out who should be appointed to the government rape panel?