28
   

Republican Senate Nominee: "Legitimate" rape victims don't get pregnant

 
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 06:04 am
@hawkeye10,
It not the senate race that matter so must as what it does to the president race as the GOP candidate for vic president had been in bed with this idiot when it came to paying for abortions of rape victims under medicare.
tsarstepan
 
  3  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 06:14 am
@BillRM,
That's ubernaive Bill. The Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to retain the US Senate. It WILL SAY A LOT if this pathetic loser Akin survives this scandal, wins this election, and helps Romney take the white house as well as give him both the US House and the Senate for Republican control.

Those people voting for this monster will (NOT MOST LIKELY BUT) WILL vote for Romney as well. There's a greater chance that those who vote for incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill have a greater chance for voting for Obama because of this enormous tumor of a gaffe/political belief of Akin's.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 06:26 am
The poll numbers cited above, given the standard margin of error in such polls, show a neck and neck race. What is interesting about those numbers is the percentage of Republicans who say they will vote for McCaskill. As it stands, those poll numbers say nothing about the likely outcome. Of the greatest interest, though, is how women as a group will react to this putz. Will his gaffe get out the vote among women? Will it keep conservative women at home? The extent to which this story stays before the public may well have a serious effect on this senate election.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 06:28 am
Quote:
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.





Update The Romney-Ryan campaign just released a statement distancing itself from the Akin-Ryan position on abortion in the case of rape: “Gov. Romney and Cong. Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.”


Links at the source
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 06:44 am
(I know these articles are not quite up to date, but I haven't seen much mention of the link between Ryan and Akins.)

Quote:
Yesterday, ThinkProgress reported that Rep. Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin (R-MO) and GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan both cosponsored the bill that introduced America to the despicable term “forcible rape.” As it turns out, this may only be the second most sweeping attack on reproductive freedom that both men partnered on. Ryan and Akin also cosponsored a federal personhood bill, the Sanctity of Human Life Act of 2009, which declares that a fertilized egg is entitled to the exact same legal rights as a human being:


(1) the Congress declares that–


(A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and

(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and

(2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.

Lest there be any doubt, this bill is unconstitutional. Congress does not have the power to overrule Roe v. Wade by an ordinary statue, only a constitutional amendment could serve that purpose. Moreover, even if Roe were overruled by the Supreme Court, Ryan and Akin’s bill still attempts to redefine who “the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution” applies to. Again, changing the meaning of the Constitution can only be done through an amendment, not through an ordinary Act of Congress.

Should Ryan and Akin’s personhood agenda take effect, however, it would drastically reduce women’s reproductive choice. The bill declares that a human egg obtains “all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood” the moment it merges with a human sperm. Thus, a Blastocyst-American would not only enjoy the same constitutional status as a fully grown adult, it would also enjoy any “legal” attributes enjoyed by adults. Because every states’ law makes it a crime to kill a human adult, the likely effect of Ryan and Akin’s personhood bill would be to treat killing a fertilized egg as the same thing as homicide.

Such an interpretation would not simply ban abortion, it could turn many forms of birth control into the legal equivalent of a murder weapon. Many forms of contraception, including many birth control pills, function in part by inhibiting a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman’s uterus. Thus, Ryan and Akin’s personhood bill could render the act of using many forms of oral contraception the equivalent of a homicide crime.




Update



Recent scientific studies have called into question whether birth control pills can act by preventing implantation, although this view is still held by many medical professionals.


Again, links embedded at the source

0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 06:51 am
@revelette,

Quote:
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.

This is actually a more coherent and consistent approach, assuming one buys into the notion that a fetus is a person.

BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 07:08 am
@maxdancona,
Come to think of it Akin is in the cat bird seat as if he does not step down today his name can not be removed and replaced so after today if the GOP wish to have a chance at that senate seat they are going to need to do a 180 degree turn about and begin to support him once more.

An we all had seems the amount of principles that the GOP have when it come to winning power or keeping it.
parados
 
  5  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 07:11 am
After learning that women can't turn off the pregnancy tap, some Republicans are considering legislation to require all rapists to wear a condom. No word on whether they are considering legislation to require all swimmers to wear clothing of some kind.
revelette
 
  4  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 07:15 am
@DrewDad,
Assuming one buys into the notion the fertilized egg is a person as well.

Ryan and Adkins cosponsored a bill with language which redefined rape with the term "forcible rape." It was later dropped after the response they got, but the fact that they had it in there says it all it my opinion.
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 07:40 am
@parados,
Quote:
Did Todd Akin just cost GOP a US Senate takeover? (+video)
With the uproar over his comment on 'legitimate rape,' Missouri Rep. Todd Akin has likely hurt his chances at beating Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) in November. Control of the Senate hangs in the balance – and Akin is resisting calls to exit the race.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0820/Did-Todd-Akin-just-cost-GOP-a-US-Senate-takeover-video
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 07:42 am
@revelette,
revelette wrote:

Assuming one buys into the notion the fertilized egg is a person as well.

Yes, you are correct.
parados
 
  9  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 07:44 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

revelette wrote:

Assuming one buys into the notion the fertilized egg is a person as well.

Yes, you are correct.

They're not if they don't have a picture ID.
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 07:50 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Come to think of it Akin is in the cat bird seat as if he does not step down today his name can not be removed and replaced so after today if the GOP wish to have a chance at that senate seat they are going to need to do a 180 degree turn about and begin to support him once more.

That is exactly correct. All these Republicans organizations that say they are pulling his funding will face a world tomorrow where they either quietly restore funding or concede the race to someone who is considered the most vunerable Senator running for reelection.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 07:52 am
@engineer,
I wonder if it might not work out to the Republicans's advantage for Akin to stay in the race. They can pull their money but groups like FRC could take over funding Akin and get him elected. The Republicans can use their money for another, less controversial candidate. It could turn out win-win that way.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 07:53 am
@parados,
funny but really sad state of reality as well.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 08:01 am
@parados,
so a woman carrying her baby's ultrasound could vote twice? that has potential

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/20/2961227/akin-rape-comment-doesnt-help.html
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 08:12 am
This guy is a total Moron! If "legitimate rape" doesn't end in pregnancy, then pregnancy is evidence of a consensual act, i.e. there was no rape. It's just another round of the utterly ludicrous from the party that wants to shrink government by giving it control of every woman's body.
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  5  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 08:19 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

revelette wrote:

Assuming one buys into the notion the fertilized egg is a person as well.

Yes, you are correct.

They're not if they don't have a picture ID.


The fetus only needs that for voting. Or to buy cigarettes. But not to buy a gun, of course.

Where's the NRA in this!??!!! Aren't fetus-Americans being denied their Second Amendment rights?!?!?!?
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  4  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 08:24 am
https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/8/20/-UT3h4yQXE-a04_J2C0png2.jpg
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 08:29 am
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/02/2021 at 03:16:21