Monday, August 20, 2012

Accidentally Revealing Your Real Views

I could be wrong, but how is this very different (in practice, not in words) to the normal GOP position on rape/abortion/women:
Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican nominee for Senate in Missouri who is running against Sen. Claire McCaskill, justified his opposition to abortion rights even in case of rape with a claim that victims of “legitimate rape” have unnamed biological defenses that prevent pregnancy.

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview postedSunday. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
Akin said that even in the worst-case scenario — when the supposed natural protections against unwanted pregnancy fail — abortion should still not be a legal option for the rape victim.

“Let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work, or something,” Akin said. “I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”
I mean, I get that this is not what you usually hear people say, but in the end result of GOP policy towards abortion, what is the difference? The Family Research Council and like minded groups have already stated their support for Akin, and understandably so.

Also if you're considering donating to his opponent, don't, or at least not yet. This jackass is probably going to resign on his own terms, and Claire McCaskill is one of the worst douche caucus offenders, and has taken a lead in attempting to cut medicare. She'll probably win based on this debacle, but she doesn't deserve your money or active support in any way.


  1. See, I kind of disagree. Yes, abortion is the issue at hand, but the man doesn't believe rape can happen inside marriage and that the word forcible should be included in the definition of rape. This guy lacks the ability to emphasize with survivors. Even his backtracking lacks an understanding of sexual assault. The GOP have a woman program, specifically they lack any understanding of women's issues and concerns because they don't see women as people who can be in control of themselves unless through magic vag powers.

    1. Yeah, that's fair, and I think I agree. To me it just seemed like he said out loud (and in very clear terms) the thinking that is behind a lot of the GOP's anti- woman stuff, legislation like the thing he cosponsored with Paul Ryan about making it much harder for a woman to claim she was raped by the person she was married to.

      I dunno, it might also be different, but the group reaction of almost all republicans surprised me a bit, the reaction of the Family Research council and others didn't so much.