Real Rape Victims Don't Get Pregnant

[Telesha]

Um....no.

Regretted it as soon as I'd typed it...

So yes, Aken was one voice, but he's hardly an outlier in the GOP's assault on women.

Don't forget that the official GOP party platform has, since 2004, been "no abortions, no exceptions."

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

Update:
Romney says that Akin should back out of the race.

[Ostroeuropa]

Update:
Romney says that Akin should back out of the race.

After consulting my conscience (poll stats) I have concluded that it would be wrong (politically unviable) for you to retain office. (While the media is watching.)

[Telesha]

I'm horribly unfamiliar with the ins-and-outs of MO ballot law: Is it possible for Akin to switch to Independent?

Because the vibe I'm getting tells me that even if the GOP manage to force him off of their ticket, he might run anyway just to spite them.

[Mail Jeevas]

Update:
Romney says that Akin should back out of the race.

Well, he has two hours to take the suggestion.

Not like the other two Republican candidates are much better -- they just haven't said something that unreasonable yet.

[Northern Dominus]

Um....no.

Regretted it as soon as I'd typed it...

Well at least you feel remorse about it.

Which is more that can be said for Todd Akin, Darrell Issa, Roy Blunt, Charmaine Yoest, Scott Walker, Karen Handel, Mitch McConnell, Mike Pence, and other neo-con political mooks waging the war on women's reproductive systems, wages, and well-being.

Update:
Romney says that Akin should back out of the race.

Additonal Update:
He's not insisting out of any sort of moral or ethical grounding, he's saying it because it might hurt the various Republican campaigns this year.

[Indira]

This guy makes me want to hit him. Repeatedly. A sign that the Republicans are panicking;D

[Choronzon]

A lot of the state supported it, as a Virginian, I supported it.

Who knew that misogyny ran rampant in a southern state?

[Northern Dominus]

Yeah, huh?


That's the same Governor of Virginia who was embarrassed earlier this year by the vaginal sonogram requirement his legislature passed.

A lot of the state supported it, as a Virginian, I supported it.

So you're complicit int he mass molestation of women courtesy of the GOP.

Good to know.

[Nulono]

Too Legit to Quit?

Um....no.

I think it's important to remember not to take state nutjobs and claim they represent the whole party. Mainstream GOP members don't want to end women's suffrage.

Uh, are you sure about that?

In 2011 the House passed a bill that redefined rape.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... e-abortion

The bill did not redefine rape. It limited exceptions for the ban on publicly funded abortions.

They also proposed to cut $78 Million from WIC a program designed to assist low-income breastfeeding mothers.
http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=12856

They want to cut assistance from all poor people, not just women.

Then there was Roy Blunt, another neo-conservative politician from Missouri, who proposed an amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Heathcare act to prioritize religion over women's heath and access to birth control.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... l-mandate/

Again, not specifically aimed at women, just that they want to let pharmacists not violate their consciences.

And most recently, Republicans came out in force against the Violence against Women Act.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/us/po ... wanted=all

On the surface, I was going to say I couldn't defend that, but reading the actual article, I see that they're not in favor of violence against women, but against some riders on the bill that they see as expanding immigration.

Then there's been the assaults at the state level.
Multiple states have attempted or have already passed mandates forcing women to have transvaginal ultrasounds, listen to fetal heartbeats, or to be forced to read junk science linking abortions to cervical cancer in addition to placing strict restrictions on abortions that, if not in violation of roe v wade are dangerously close.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/opini ... .html?_r=1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/0 ... 58185.html

These all sound like informed consent before abortion, which I have no problem with.

Then of course there's the flat-out abuse and slut shaming.

For example Arizona made it ok for employers to pry into the personal lives of employees when they use company healthcare policies to obtain birth control
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/us/ar ... erage.html

Yeah, that part is just stupid.

Then of course there's every-bodies favorite Union-Busting uterus-violating governor,

Because everyone knows informed consent is such a violation!

Scott Walker, who repealed legislation that allowed victims of workplace discrimination, such as women not being paid at the same rates for the same duties, to address the grievances in court.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... women.html

Again, they're against the government regulating businesses in general, including but not limited to equal pay for women and minorities.

And of course who could forget the standout story this year, the Big Pink Monster cutting off donations to Planned Parenthood because their director at the time was a confirmed neo-conservative.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi ... in/252405/
http://www.wwl.com/pages/12872531.php?c ... d=10426456

No, funding was cut off because they already had a policy of not funding organizations under federal investigation.

So no, the Republicans haven't come right out of the gate and said they want to take away the right to vote away from women.

Then you haven't refuted my post.

They've merely indicated that they don't want them to have access to have birth control, don't want them to be seen as equals to men in the workplace, don't think that women should receive any aid for being victimized by violent crime, and that they don't know what to do with their own reproductive systems and need help there too.

Wow, great oversimplification. That'd be like me saying I'm against raping your children and someone saying "Oh, now you want the government teaching me how to raise my kids, too. I guess you don't trust me to do it for myself, and I need Big Brother to lead me by the hand!".

So yes, Aken was one voice, but he's hardly an outlier in the GOP's assault on women.

I'm not saying that the GOP aren't terrible. I'm saying that their terribleness is more universal. They want to cut off funding for poor women, but they want to cut off funding for poor men as well. Also, their opposition to abortion comes not from a hatred of women, but from a belief that all human beings have a right to live.

[Gauthier]

You know, I thought the War on Women was pathetic hyperbole and I was somewhat embarrassed by it. Now I think they didn't phrase it strongly enough.

You know you're onto something.

"Mass Molestation" perhaps?

I propose "The World of GOP," in a mocking reference to the World of Gor novels where women are literally property and fucktoys.

[Nulono]

You know you're onto something.

"Mass Molestation" perhaps?

I propose "The World of GOP," in a mocking reference to the World of Gor novels where women are literally property and fucktoys.

I'm not sure how many of people would get that. Plus, it's blatant hyperbole.

[Natapoc]

I'd like to hear more about this biological mechanism by which women can prevent pregnancy in the event of rape. How does he believe it works?

[Greed and Death]

I'd like to hear more about this biological mechanism by which women can prevent pregnancy in the event of rape. How does he believe it works?

Women are supposed to carry knives, and kill themselves in the event of rape according to the Samurai Movie he was watching while his buddy took his biology Exams.

[Ovisterra]

I'd like to hear more about this biological mechanism by which women can prevent pregnancy in the event of rape. How does he believe it works?

I don't know, but the ones who get raped and manage to prevent conception with their magical built-in Pregnancy Stopper ought to be shunned because contraception is a Bad Thing^TM.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'd like to hear more about this biological mechanism by which women can prevent pregnancy in the event of rape. How does he believe it works?

Women are supposed to carry knives, and kill themselves in the event of rape according to the Samurai Movie he was watching while his buddy took his biology Exams.

I thought birds and bees were involved

[Sane Outcasts]

I'd like to hear more about this biological mechanism by which women can prevent pregnancy in the event of rape. How does he believe it works?

You see, women's reproductive systems are a series of tubes...

[Northern Dominus]

The bill did not redefine rape. It limited exceptions for the ban on publicly funded abortions.

Yes by reducing the avilability of abortions to victims of sexual assault to the narrow term of "forcible rape". Which in and of itself is a catch-22 because all rape is forceable anyway. Under H.R. 3 statutory rape wouldn't have been covered, plus it leaves a big gap of women uncovered that aren't on medicaid and don't have private insurance.

They want to cut assistance from all poor people, not just women.

True enough, but targeting a program aimed at low-income breastfeeding mothers smacks of misogynistic intent.

Again, not specifically aimed at women, just that they want to let pharmacists not violate their consciences.

If a pharmacist has a moral conundrum about handing out birth control to somebody with valid insurance, then they shouldn't be a pharmacist. They hand out prescriptions, they're not moral judges. If they wanted to influence morality then they should go into the clergy or on Fox News.

On the surface, I was going to say I couldn't defend that, but reading the actual article, I see that they're not in favor of violence against women, but against some riders on the bill that they see as expanding immigration.

Lovely. And what does that say about our country where not only do we call into question the validity of a bill that not only acknowedges that women are at additional risk from specific violent crimes, but it's done in the name of denying care to people who speak funny and who came here just like the pilgrims: without a green card or papers.

Not really a defensible position there.

These all sound like informed consent before abortion, which I have no problem with.

Except there's no link between cervical cancer and abortion, and FORCING a woman to have a trans-vaginal ultrasound before receiving an abortion isn't informed consent, it's yet another way to point at woman and shame her into not going through with it because of a misplaced and misinformed notion of conception, commonly called "personhood".

Because everyone knows informed consent is such a violation!

See above.

Again, they're against the government regulating businesses in general, including but not limited to equal pay for women and minorities.

And the fact that businesses are willing to pay women less than men for the same kind of work means they need to be meddled with until they stop doing it of their own volition. I want the best people doing the job, regardless of gender, color, creed or sexual orientation, and if it takes federal regulation to twist businesses arms to get that idea across then that's what it takes.

No, funding was cut off because they already had a policy of not funding organizations under federal investigation.

And if they had bothered to actually look into the investigation they would have discovered that Cliff Stearns is nothing but a meddling capricious bastard who loves violating women's reproductive system through congressional means just like his peers and was using his position of power to be rather abusive towards Planned Parenthood.

Then you haven't refuted my post.

Because your post was a smoke screen and not applicable to the debate.

Wow, great oversimplification. That'd be like me saying I'm against raping your children and someone saying "Oh, now you want the government teaching me how to raise my kids, too. I guess you don't trust me to do it for myself, and I need Big Brother to lead me by the hand!".

Because it is that simple. That's the GOP's platform when it comes to women. It's the 1950s mentality, the whole notion that women are frail and fragile and need a firm guiding hand to do every damn thing.

I know plenty of women from many walks of life that could prove them wrong many times over.

I'm not saying that the GOP aren't terrible. I'm saying that their terribleness is more universal. They want to cut off funding for poor women, but they want to cut off funding for poor men as well. Also, their opposition to abortion comes not from a hatred of women, but from a belief that all human beings have a right to live.

First yes they are assaulting not only women's rights and health but the middle class and the poor, LGBT humans, and other "enemies" of the neo-conservative wingnuts that have taken the GOP over.
And yes the GOP stance against abortion is a long-standing one, stemming from the cult-like protestant churches that have been funding their campaigns since the 80s, but that's a debate for a different thread. However it would be silly and dangerous to ignore the blatant assault on women's health and rights from the extremists elected officials in this country and large companies that value political ideology than real progress.

And that's just the elected official. The Neo-conserviative propaganda machines make sure that the issues are not only biased and skewed but plays for 24 hours a day. Need I remind anybody about Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a bevy of degrading and abusive terms for being very brave and standing up to an inquisition from an all male Congressional panel looking into contraceptives? Indefensible from every angle save for the psycho-misogynist one, and that's just the most visible incident.

[Desperate Measures]

I'd like to hear more about this biological mechanism by which women can prevent pregnancy in the event of rape. How does he believe it works?

I heard on the radio that some guy in the 80's said they "secrete a certain secretion." So, that's how. It's all very scientific.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Freind

[Revolutopia]

I'd like to hear more about this biological mechanism by which women can prevent pregnancy in the event of rape. How does he believe it works?

It was probably something intelligently designed by God when he created Adam and Eve 6000 years ago.

[Nulono]

The bill did not redefine rape. It limited exceptions for the ban on publicly funded abortions.

Yes by reducing the avilability of abortions to victims of sexual assault to the narrow term of "forcible rape". Which in and of itself is a catch-22 because all rape is forceable anyway. Under H.R. 3 statutory rape wouldn't have been covered, plus it leaves a big gap of women uncovered that aren't on medicaid and don't have private insurance.

Does that mean rape was redefined? No. Also, if all rape is forcible then the bill didn't change anything.

Also, the bill only applied to public funding of abortions.

They want to cut assistance from all poor people, not just women.

True enough, but targeting a program aimed at low-income breastfeeding mothers smacks of misogynistic intent.

That's not the only program they targeted, though. It was pretty much across the board, including NPR and PBS.

Again, not specifically aimed at women, just that they want to let pharmacists not violate their consciences.

If a pharmacist has a moral conundrum about handing out birth control to somebody with valid insurance, then they shouldn't be a pharmacist. They hand out prescriptions, they're not moral judges. If they wanted to influence morality then they should go into the clergy or on Fox News.

On the surface, I was going to say I couldn't defend that, but reading the actual article, I see that they're not in favor of violence against women, but against some riders on the bill that they see as expanding immigration.

Lovely. And what does that say about our country where not only do we call into question the validity of a bill that not only acknowedges that women are at additional risk from specific violent crimes, but it's done in the name of denying care to people who speak funny and who came here just like the pilgrims: without a green card or papers.

Not really a defensible position there.

I'm not saying it's a defensible position, just that it wasn't motivated out of misogyny. They didn't oppose the bill, just some parts of it.

These all sound like informed consent before abortion, which I have no problem with.

Except there's no link between cervical cancer and abortion, and FORCING a woman to have a trans-vaginal ultrasound before receiving an abortion isn't informed consent, it's yet another way to point at woman and shame her into not going through with it because of a misplaced and misinformed notion of conception, commonly called "personhood".

Because everyone knows informed consent is such a violation!

See above.

I'm not a scientist, so I won't comment on the link between abortion and cervical cancer. Also, the ultrasound isn't the only instrument to be inserted into the uterus to perform an abortion. It has nothing to do with "shaming"; it's about providing information. I do, however, prefer the laws in other states to simply provide information on the current stage of development.

Again, they're against the government regulating businesses in general, including but not limited to equal pay for women and minorities.

And the fact that businesses are willing to pay women less than men for the same kind of work means they need to be meddled with until they stop doing it of their own volition. I want the best people doing the job, regardless of gender, color, creed or sexual orientation, and if it takes federal regulation to twist businesses arms to get that idea across then that's what it takes.

Again, I don't disagree with you there; I'm just saying Republicans aren't deregulating because they hate women; they're doing it because they hate regulation.

No, funding was cut off because they already had a policy of not funding organizations under federal investigation.

And if they had bothered to actually look into the investigation they would have discovered that Cliff Stearns is nothing but a meddling capricious bastard who loves violating women's reproductive system through congressional means just like his peers and was using his position of power to be rather abusive towards Planned Parenthood.

1. Nobody is being violated.
2. Still, their policy was already in place, and they were just applying it consistently. When they made a political statement was when they decided to make an exception.

Then you haven't refuted my post.

Because your post was a smoke screen and not applicable to the debate.

No, my post was in response to a claim that Republicans wanted to end women's suffrage. If you weren't going to refute it, you shouldn't've replied to it.

Wow, great oversimplification. That'd be like me saying I'm against raping your children and someone saying "Oh, now you want the government teaching me how to raise my kids, too. I guess you don't trust me to do it for myself, and I need Big Brother to lead me by the hand!".

Because it is that simple. That's the GOP's platform when it comes to women. It's the 1950s mentality, the whole notion that women are frail and fragile and need a firm guiding hand to do every damn thing.

I know plenty of women from many walks of life that could prove them wrong many times over.

No, that is not their platform. Their platform is that human life begins at fertilization, and all human beings should be protected. If I tell you not to beat your children, that's not because I think you're feeble-minded and can't be trusted to do anything at all; it's because you shouldn't beat your children.

I'm not saying that the GOP aren't terrible. I'm saying that their terribleness is more universal. They want to cut off funding for poor women, but they want to cut off funding for poor men as well. Also, their opposition to abortion comes not from a hatred of women, but from a belief that all human beings have a right to live.

First yes they are assaulting not only women's rights and health but the middle class and the poor, LGBT humans, and other "enemies" of the neo-conservative wingnuts that have taken the GOP over.
And yes the GOP stance against abortion is a long-standing one, stemming from the cult-like protestant churches that have been funding their campaigns since the 80s, but that's a debate for a different thread. However it would be silly and dangerous to ignore the blatant assault on women's health and rights from the extremists elected officials in this country and large companies that value political ideology than real progress.

No, their opposition to abortion is not based on "cultism", but out of a belief in universal human personhood. This is not exclusively a religious belief any more than "Thou shalt not steal" is just religious. I myself am an atheist, and I still oppose abortion. This is not about a hatred of women, but about a belief that neither women nor men should kill an innocent human being.

And that's just the elected official. The Neo-conserviative propaganda machines make sure that the issues are not only biased and skewed but plays for 24 hours a day. Need I remind anybody about Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a bevy of degrading and abusive terms for being very brave and standing up to an inquisition from an all male Congressional panel looking into contraceptives? Indefensible from every angle save for the psycho-misogynist one, and that's just the most visible incident.

Rush Limbaugh is a professional douchebag; I think we all know that.

[Alien Space Bats]

:palm: What the fuck. Now Professional Troll and all-around piece of shit Mike Huckabee says "We need more legitimate rape." People out there are still defending the Republican party?

The GOP: "God's Broken Gift" to America

[Land of the Trolls]

I don't like Claire McAskel. I've never liked her. But there is no way in hell I can vote for Todd Akins after such a statement!

[Xeng He]

I'd like to hear more about this biological mechanism by which women can prevent pregnancy in the event of rape. How does he believe it works?

There aren't a shred of unbiased sources that support him, but...

This guy.


Also here.

Meanwhile, we have a number at 5% that could theoretically include non-forcible rape, which Akin wasn't talking about, so that's a biased study to use as well.



All this said, both studies are kind of flawed for what we're talking about, so...

[Alien Space Bats]

Coming from a conservative, this guy is a fucking moron.
I feel rape victims deserve an abortion if they want.
If the mother's life is in serious danger, abortion.
If the child WILL die, abortion.

Yet the GOP endorses a Human Life Amendment (HLA) - and not just a relatively innocent one permitting States to ban abortion:

We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.

- Current Draft, Republican Party Platform (as of 8/21/2012)

The extension of 14th Amendment protection to fetuses will not just make it illegal for the victims of rape and/or incest to get an abortion; it will make all therapeutic abortions illegal. Even if carrying a fetus to term would result in the certain death of the mother, no action could be taken to remedy the situation unless a judge finds that the fetus is actually and genuinely dead.

And in that last case, note the time frame: A medical finding that the child cannot survive birth would not be enough; there would have to be a finding that the child was actually already dead before any abortion could be undertaken. If the fetal heartbeat continued (as usually happens in such cases), it would be exceedingly difficulty to prove that actual fetal death had already occurred.

The bottom line, then, is that the kind of HLA Republicans want would effectively sentence a great many women with problem pregnancies to death.

All in the name of "human life", of course.