By now you’ve no doubt heard about the incredibly stupid comments made by Republican Rep. (and U.S. Senate candidate) Todd Akin of Missouri, who said during a television appearance that “legitimate rape” rarely produces pregnancy because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
In the aftermath of his incredibly insensitive and completely uninformed statements, Rep. Akin was forced to attempt to clarify his earlier statements, and during an appearance on Mike Huckabee’s radio show, Akin told Huckabee he meant to say “forcible rape” instead of “legitimate rape.” During that same appearance, Akin vowed to stay in the U.S. Senate race in Missouri, saying, “I’m not a quitter, and my belief is that we’re going to take this thing forward.”
What’s really important to keep in mind here is that although he may have used inflammatory and wildly inappropriate language to articulate his ideas, the underlying ideas espoused by Rep. Akin are not outside the mainstream of the Republican Party. In fact, Rep. Akin co-sponsored HR 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion” bill, along with none other than Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the vice presidential candidate hand-picked by Mitt Romney. The “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion” bill co-sponsored by Reps. Akin and Ryan was a blatant attempt by House Republicans to attempt to redefine rape so that it only applied to “forcible” rape, meaning that all those “fake” rape victims would stop exploiting loopholes to get themselves abortions. After a considerable amount of backlash over their attempt to redefine rape, House Republicans pulled that part out of the bill for a time, only to try to sneak it back in once public outcry had died down.
So when it comes to redefining rape, Rep. Todd Akin and Rep. Paul Ryan are not only on the same side – they co-sponsored the bill!
Excellent reporting, learned a lot.
Really well written, Zach.
That means a lot to me coming from you.
I think that’s a disingenuous claim that is not supported by the text of the bill. The text specifically exempts rape:
‘Sec. 308. Treatment of abortions related to rape, incest, or preserving the life of the mother
‘The limitations established in sections 301, 302, and 303 shall not apply to an abortion–
‘(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or
‘(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
If you actually read the text of the bill, you’ll note that rape is not defined at all (forcible or otherwise). So where is this coming from?
From a linguistic standpoint, the whole concept of “forcible rape” strikes me as odd because the definition of rape is “any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.” Thus, by definition, “rape” would equal “forcible rape.”
SId., so you agree with Ryan, Akin and the rest of the GOP. As soon as sperm and egg meet, the mother loses all her “personhood,” to the zygote.
I think that your reading of the comment is the opposite of what the commenter intended. That is, yes, all rapes are inherently forced — if the woman is drugged or drunk, she cannot consent; if the girl is under the age of consent, she cannot consent.
So when Ryan and others see need to qualify the term rape as “forcible,” they are implying that there is any other type of rape. I.e., they are implying that some rapes are consensual. And that is the outrage, the source of outrage among many feminists. Now do you see?
What would happen if right-wing women ruled the world? Imagine if Sarah Palin or religious fanatics took over. Imagine if they took a strict interpretation of the biblical law against the “spilling of seed,” and men were not allowed to touch themselves. Oh, then you’d hear a howl from men and a great upwelling of angst!
Well then, maybe you will have an inkling of the feeling women have when a bunch of angry old white men (i.e., the GOP) try to dictate to women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. To wit: Senate challenger Todd Akin and his remarks on “legitimate rape.”
Absolutely correct and you raise a big problem for the GOP.
“Life begins at conception,” is the “liberal” position in the GOP. Masturbation is a mortal sin in the Roman Catholic Church, because it’s considered mass abortion. It’s based on faulty science, that the woman is just a receptacle for the woman’s seed.
Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical “Humane Vitae,” http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html which prohibited artificial birth control addressed exactly this issue. Previous Catholic doctrine Casti Connubi http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html prohibited validly married Roman Catholics from engaging in any sex that was not “open” to conception. The rhythm method, trying to avoid sex when the woman is “fertile,” that’s a mortal sin for Roman Catholics before 1968. Once the wife is past the age of child-bearing, it’s celibacy time.
One of the problems with Humane Vitae, rhythm, aka, natural family planning, is based on preventing the fertilized egg from planting to the uterine wall. Yeah, that’s exactly the same technology that “morning after pills,” use.
The comment was irresponsible and an insult to all intelligent life on earth. A cause to boot this guy has spread across Facebook.
http://www.youstand.com/cause/82112/remove-todd-akin-from-the-house-science-committee
Agree.
Unfortunately, imho the political calculus is more complicated. The responses from Priebus, Rove pulling his PAC money, Walker, RoJo, other national GOP leaders don’t leave any doubt about what the GOP’s pollsters are telling them. Obama/Biden has a better chance of winning Missouri if Akin stays. Another serious negative, every day the national media is talking about “rape,” hurts the entire GOP. Just as bad, every day the national media is talking about “rape,” is one less day Charlie Sykes (and other wingnut radio entertainers) can talk about the economy, God, guns, and that Obama is an angry B-L-A-C-K man.
Baldwin’s team probably figures her chances are better if Akin drops out. If Akin stays in, it’s more likely Rove’s PAC and others will spend less in Missouri. That means more money for Gov. Thompson.
Worth what you paid for it.
SId., from which iteration of the bill are you quoting? Please provide a url.
Also, what are the committee statements behind it? Please provide a url. When it’s litigated, that’s where justices will go to discover the “original intent,” of the authors. It’s Congress’ version of a Presidential “signing statement.” We know what the bill says, but here’s what we really meant.
The one that ZW linked to: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3/text.
SId., “disingenuous,” as always, you ignored this question: “so you agree with Ryan, Akin and the rest of the GOP. As soon as sperm and egg meet, the mother loses all her “personhood,” to the zygote.”
You also ignored my request for a link to the committee statements.
Nice Strawman.
ZW references a specific bill. I show that the text of the bill doesn’t support his position and then you take off and ask
“Do you agree with Ryan, Akin and the rest of the GOP. As soon as sperm and egg meet, the mother loses all her “personhood,” to the zygote.”.”
First, I’m not aware that “Akin and the rest of the GOP.” to use your words, have taken the position that
“As soon as sperm and egg meet”, the mother loses all her “personhood,” to the zygote.”
Have they offered a Constitutional Amendment that would overturn Roe v. wade? Because that’s the only way your statement can be true. (a constitutional right cannot be taken away without a subsequent constitutional amendment.)
As for your request for the committee statements, I haven’t seen them have you? But they are not relevant for interpretation unless you are contending that “rape” is an ambiguous term.
SId. you wrote: “First, I’m not aware that “Akin and the rest of the GOP.” to use your words, have taken the position that
“As soon as sperm and egg meet”, the mother loses all her “personhood,” to the zygote.”
Please, if you think I’ve misrepresented Akin, Ryan, and the GOP wrt using the POWER of government to FORCE women to bear children, they don’t want, by all means, correct me.
SId. What good would overturning Roe do?
Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey is much stronger legal footing for “choice.” It argues that blocking the right to abortion puts an “undue burden,” on the mother. See chapter 6 of Jan Crawford’s “SUPREME CONFLICT: The Inside Story Of The Struggle For Control Of The United States Supreme Court.
Since you reflexively call every argument you can’t handle a “strawman,” I also want to hear your position on contraception. For those of us who are really against abortion, contraception and age-appropriate sex education are among other strategies, crucial allies. Unfortunately, the GOP keeps defunding them. As far as I’m concerned, the GOP’s policies are the biggest promoter of the conditions which “reasonable people,” know lead to abortions.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/julyweb-only/bristolpalinabstinence.html
John, With all due respect, you tend to jump to absolutes very quickly. Examples? In just this thread: (1) You reflexively call every argument you can’t handle a “strawman” (For the record, I’ve labeled one argument of yours a strawman. And, it was) (2) disingenuous,” as always,” (3) and the rest of the GOP.
Step back, live in the grey. It’s more interesting. Now to burn your strawman.
I state:
“From a linguistic standpoint, the whole concept of “forcible rape” strikes me as odd because the definition of rape is “any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.” Thus, by definition, “rape” would equal “forcible rape.”
To which you interpret, my argument as:
SId., so you agree with Ryan, Akin and the rest of the GOP. As soon as sperm and egg meet, the mother loses all her “personhood,” to the zygote.
I don’t think my comment can be fairly read as an argument or even a suggestion relating to the issue you raised. And that is why your argument is properly labeled as a strawman.
Then you go further:
“Please, if you think I’ve misrepresented Akin, Ryan, and the GOP wrt using the POWER of government to FORCE women to bear children, they don’t want, by all means, correct me.”
I do think you’ve misrepresented their position. But aren’t you asking me to prove a negative? Isn’t that Tea Party logic. (e.g., ” Obama’s a Muslim unless you prove he’s not.”) As my evidence, I’m not aware of any proposed constitutional amendments to ban abortion. But since your making the claim that its the entire GOP’s position of using the power of government to force women to bear children. I would suggest that you bear the initial burden of proving that it is indeed their position.
Finally, I fail to see how a bill that would prevent taxpayers from funding abortions (the topic of ZW’s post) can remotely be construed as supporting the position that that GOP is forcing women to bear children. Have we really become that depend that we are now forced unless there is government funding? I hope not.
SId., you wrote this: “….But since your making….” Can’t the Koch brothers and WIGOP hire folk who know the difference between “your” and “you’re?”
Then you wrote this: “As my evidence, I’m not aware of any proposed constitutional amendments to ban abortion.”
“Republican Platform Panel Backs Blanket Ban on Abortion”
“Republican drafters of their party’s 2012 platform reaffirmed support for a constitutional amendment banning abortion that would allow no exception for terminating pregnancies caused by rape…… ”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-20/republican-platform-won-t-protect-mortgage-tax-deduction.html
“reaffirmed” = “to affirm (a claim, etc.) again; reassert”
You wrote: “Finally, I fail to see how a bill that would prevent taxpayers from funding abortions (the topic of ZW’s post) can remotely be construed as supporting the position that that GOP is forcing women to bear children.”
Well, it’s because rather than being “pro-life,” the GOP is the party of “forced-births.”
For the second time, why does the GOP insist on “abstinence only?” Why not invest in among a range of strategies, age-appropriate sex education and CONTRACEPTION?
As long as the GOP engages in policies which insure UNWANTED pregnancies by kids who are not equipped to be parents, it’s forcing people to consider abortion as an option. When on top of that, the GOP opposes abortion, it has earned the title of “forced birthers.”
I haven’t seen the committee statements. I do know in interpreting a statute, the plain ordinary meaning of words controls (i.e. the dictionary definition). The term must be held to be ambiguous before legislative intent may be consulted. United States v. Rodriguez, 460 F. Supp. 2d 902, 910 (S.D. Ind. 2006) “If the meaning of a statutory provision is ambiguous on its face or the plain and ordinary meaning would lead to patently absurd results, and either rejecting the absurd alternate interpretations or examining the statutory context and structure as a whole does not result in a clarified meaning, then legislative history and intent may be consulted to inform the meaning of statutory language.”
I don’t see “rape” as being “ambiguous”
I don’t see the “ambiguity,” in the 8th Amendment: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Unfortunately the GOP has led both parties to ignore waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation.”
These will be litigated and the committee statements will matter.
“These will be litigated and the committee statements will matter.” It doesn’t look there are committee statements related to the definition of rape. Stepping back to the 30,000 foot level, it’s kind of irrelevant because there will be no litigation on a bill that’s not law.
Finally, You want Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. The 8th amendment only applies to U.S. Citizens.
SId., do you have a link that says Bush and Obama haven’t renditioned, tortured, and assassinated U.S. citizens? I’d like to see it.