Missouri Republican: 'Legitimate rape' rarely causes pregnancy

[Razgovory]

Although I wouldn't call his conclusions irrelevant; somebody's buying into it all.

I think the other Republican politicos have rather conclusively proven that they don't buy his conclusion that "legitimate rape" doesn't lead to children.

All of them?

[Razgovory]

But I dunno, it's a question worth asking: would you vote for someone who would (and let's assume could) roll back Roe v. Wade, if you agreed with all their other policies and were assured that they would also be enacted?

In this world of hypotheticals, no not unless there were some substantial policies that they could enact that would outshine the tarnishing or rolling back Roe v. Wade.

You mean like the Bill Paul Ryan co-Sponsored with Todd Akin?  The Sanctity of Human Life Act of 2009.

[Admiral Yi]

Well, that's not very constructive criticism.  Why should he listen to people like you?

It's not criticism at all, constructive or otherwise.  They're answers to your questions.

[Jacob]

Can you clarify what elements you think echo said novel?

See post 158 in this thread.

And also the fact that the reason Akin is in trouble is not because of what he believes - see the bill he co-sponsored on reproductive rights - but because he had the bad judgement to speak about his motivations behind it.

[Razgovory]

Well, that's not very constructive criticism.  Why should he listen to people like you?

It's not criticism at all, constructive or otherwise.  They're answers to your questions.

Oh.

[Viking]

Although I wouldn't call his conclusions irrelevant; somebody's buying into it all.

I think the other Republican politicos have rather conclusively proven that they don't buy his conclusion that "legitimate rape" doesn't lead to children.

More serious reporting on the issue

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/a-canard-that-will-not-die-legitimate-rape-doesnt-cause-pregnancy/261303/

The thing is, his comments were hardly some kind never-before-heard gaffe. Arguments like his have cropped up again and again on the right over the past quarter century and the idea that trauma is a form of birth control continues to be promulgated by anti-abortion forces that seek to outlaw all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest. The push for a no-exceptions anti-abortion policy has for decades gone hand in hand with efforts to downplay the frequency with which rape- or incest-related pregnancies occur, and even to deny that they happen, at all. In other words, it's not just Akin singing this tune.

[CountDeMoney]

Although I wouldn't call his conclusions irrelevant; somebody's buying into it all.

I think the other Republican politicos have rather conclusively proven that they don't buy his conclusion that "legitimate rape" doesn't lead to children.

Paul Ryan does.  Please see: HR 3, cosponsors Ryan R-WI, Akin R-MO

[garbon]

Although I wouldn't call his conclusions irrelevant; somebody's buying into it all.

I think the other Republican politicos have rather conclusively proven that they don't buy his conclusion that "legitimate rape" doesn't lead to children.

All of them?

When have all members of either party said something?

[garbon]

Can you clarify what elements you think echo said novel?

See post 158 in this thread.

And also the fact that the reason Akin is in trouble is not because of what he believes - see the bill he co-sponsored on reproductive rights - but because he had the bad judgement to speak about his motivations behind it.

Hmm? How do you see postnumber?

As to the 2nd bit - that's not really his motivation. I'd guess his motivation is that he doesn't want that which he thinks is a human being to be aborted. What he said is his bizarre attempt to work around what he considers the thorny issue of rape cases.

[Viking]

Although I wouldn't call his conclusions irrelevant; somebody's buying into it all.

I think the other Republican politicos have rather conclusively proven that they don't buy his conclusion that "legitimate rape" doesn't lead to children.

Paul Ryan does.  Please see: HR 3, cosponsors Ryan R-WI, Akin R-MO

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/19/712251/how-todd-akin-and-paul-ryan-partnered-to-redefine-rape/

How Todd Akin And Paul Ryan Partnered To Redefine Rape

Earlier today, Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) claimed that "legitimate rape" does not often lead to pregnancy because "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." This is not the first time the biologically challenged senate candidate tried to minimize the impact of rape. Last year, Akin joined with GOP vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as two of the original co-sponsors of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill which, among other things, introduced the country to the bizarre term "forcible rape."
Federal law prevents federal Medicaid funds and similar programs from paying for abortions. Yet the law also contains an exception for women who are raped. The bill Akin and Ryan cosponsored would have narrowed this exception, providing that only pregnancies arising from "forcible rape" may be terminated. Because the primary target of Akin and Ryan's effort are Medicaid recipients — patients who are unlikely to be able to afford an abortion absent Medicaid funding — the likely impact of this bill would have been forcing many rape survivors to carry their rapist's baby to term. Michelle Goldberg explains who Akin and Ryan would likely target:

Under H.R. 3, only victims of "forcible rape" would qualify for federally funded abortions. Victims of statutory rape—say, a 13-year-old girl impregnated by a 30-year-old man—would be on their own. So would victims of incest if they're over 18. And while "forcible rape" isn't defined in the criminal code, the addition of the adjective seems certain to exclude acts of rape that don't involve overt violence—say, cases where a woman is drugged or has a limited mental capacity. "It's basically putting more restrictions on what was defined historically as rape," says Keenan.

Although a version of this bill passed the GOP-controlled House, the "forcible rape" language was eventually removed due to widespread public outcry. Paul Ryan, however, believes that the "forcible rape" language does not actually go far enough to force women to carry their rapist's baby. Ryan believes that abortion should be illegal in all cases except for "cases in which a doctor deems an abortion necessary to save the mother's life." So rape survivors are out of luck.
And, of course, as we learned today, Akin isn't even sure that "legitimate" rape survivors can get pregnant in the first place.

learn to link seedy

[garbon]

Although I wouldn't call his conclusions irrelevant; somebody's buying into it all.

I think the other Republican politicos have rather conclusively proven that they don't buy his conclusion that "legitimate rape" doesn't lead to children.

More serious reporting on the issue

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/a-canard-that-will-not-die-legitimate-rape-doesnt-cause-pregnancy/261303/

The thing is, his comments were hardly some kind never-before-heard gaffe. Arguments like his have cropped up again and again on the right over the past quarter century and the idea that trauma is a form of birth control continues to be promulgated by anti-abortion forces that seek to outlaw all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest. The push for a no-exceptions anti-abortion policy has for decades gone hand in hand with efforts to downplay the frequency with which rape- or incest-related pregnancies occur, and even to deny that they happen, at all. In other words, it's not just Akin singing this tune.

So we shouldn't care that it gets said now because it was said before? Similarly, we shouldn't care that several prominent Republicans have denounced said reasoning?

[Jacob]

So we shouldn't care that it gets said now because it was said before? Similarly, we shouldn't care that several prominent Republicans have denounced said reasoning?

It's good they've denounced it. It'd be better if they reversed the numerous state level initiatives that have come from that sort of reasoning (as per Seedy's post - the number is right below the thread title).

[garbon]

Although I wouldn't call his conclusions irrelevant; somebody's buying into it all.

I think the other Republican politicos have rather conclusively proven that they don't buy his conclusion that "legitimate rape" doesn't lead to children.

Paul Ryan does.  Please see: HR 3, cosponsors Ryan R-WI, Akin R-MO

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/19/712251/how-todd-akin-and-paul-ryan-partnered-to-redefine-rape/

How Todd Akin And Paul Ryan Partnered To Redefine Rape

Earlier today, Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) claimed that "legitimate rape" does not often lead to pregnancy because "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." This is not the first time the biologically challenged senate candidate tried to minimize the impact of rape. Last year, Akin joined with GOP vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as two of the original co-sponsors of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill which, among other things, introduced the country to the bizarre term "forcible rape."
Federal law prevents federal Medicaid funds and similar programs from paying for abortions. Yet the law also contains an exception for women who are raped. The bill Akin and Ryan cosponsored would have narrowed this exception, providing that only pregnancies arising from "forcible rape" may be terminated. Because the primary target of Akin and Ryan's effort are Medicaid recipients — patients who are unlikely to be able to afford an abortion absent Medicaid funding — the likely impact of this bill would have been forcing many rape survivors to carry their rapist's baby to term. Michelle Goldberg explains who Akin and Ryan would likely target:

Under H.R. 3, only victims of "forcible rape" would qualify for federally funded abortions. Victims of statutory rape—say, a 13-year-old girl impregnated by a 30-year-old man—would be on their own. So would victims of incest if they're over 18. And while "forcible rape" isn't defined in the criminal code, the addition of the adjective seems certain to exclude acts of rape that don't involve overt violence—say, cases where a woman is drugged or has a limited mental capacity. "It's basically putting more restrictions on what was defined historically as rape," says Keenan.

Although a version of this bill passed the GOP-controlled House, the "forcible rape" language was eventually removed due to widespread public outcry. Paul Ryan, however, believes that the "forcible rape" language does not actually go far enough to force women to carry their rapist's baby. Ryan believes that abortion should be illegal in all cases except for "cases in which a doctor deems an abortion necessary to save the mother's life." So rape survivors are out of luck.
And, of course, as we learned today, Akin isn't even sure that "legitimate" rape survivors can get pregnant in the first place.

learn to link seedy

I think that hooplah over the term "forcible rape" is just hooplah, given that it never actually had a definition. Isn't rape by definition - forcible?

[garbon]

So we shouldn't care that it gets said now because it was said before? Similarly, we shouldn't care that several prominent Republicans have denounced said reasoning?

It's good they've denounced it. It'd be better if they reversed the numerous state level initiatives that have come from that sort of reasoning (as per Seedy's post - the number is right below the thread title).

Like I said the reason for these deplorable initiatives is not because babies can't be born of rape.

Anti-abortion laws are what it takes to be compared to the Handmaid's Tale?

[Jacob]

I think that hooplah over the term "forcible rape" is just hooplah, given that it never actually had a definition. Isn't rape by definition - forcible?

You tell that to the geniuses who are so keen on distinguishing between different types of rape for their various bits of legislation rolling back reproductive rights.