Idaho Republican lawmaker wonders if women really know what rape is

Remember now…there’s absolutely NO war on women being waged by Republicans

Take, for instance, Idaho Republican Chuck Winder. Winder is the sponsor of that state’s “Double Ultrasound Bill,” which would require women to have an ultrasound before they can access any abortion services. These ultrasounds would be offered “free of charge,” but women would have to have them performed at an anti-choice crisis pregnancy center, where anti-choice operatives would do their best to talk women out of terminating their pregnancies. Then, if the woman decides to go through with the termination, she would have to fork over the cash for a second ultrasound, which would be performed by the abortion physician.

Now, Winder is wondering whether women, mindless, fragile women, are capable of knowing what rape even is. Addressing his detractors — women’s groups who claim his double ultrasound law traumatizes women who are the victims of rape and incest, and for whom there are no exceptions — Winder wondered as he wandered:

“Rape and incest was used as a reason to oppose this. I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a  rape. I assume that’s part of the counseling that goes on.” 


Related Articles

14 thoughts on “Idaho Republican lawmaker wonders if women really know what rape is

  1. This is absurd. What is this man thinking here? Does he think that men rape their wives and that is normal behavior? Does he think rape victims need marriage counseling? You know, this is just so ridiculous. These men are trying to defend rape and to imply that it is normal. I was not going to vote Republican anyway, but I had no idea that these people were so extreme.

      1. PJ, your comment has added nothing to the conversation. If anything, it draws more attention to the comment you disagree with. In retaliation, I have given the comment in question a ‘like’, and I am adding a comment to carry on its glory!

        1. Alex,

          I thank you for your input and suggest we agree to disagree. Grunge’s comment is a neanderthal response and adds nothing to the dialogue. Draw attention to it all you will, I haven’t any issue with you doing so. The comment will speak what it will to whom it may. I have articulated what I think the comment is – I think it is ill-considered. I think the comment detracts from the post and it is unnecessarily inflammatory. Tit for tat, though, eh? Your admonishment of me offers no substantive critique relating to the post at hand. I find the irony in that quite comical.

  2. Did anyone else throw up in their mouth a little after reading that? And people still vote for those yahoos…

  3. Hmm, this statement is ambiguous without context. I read it to mean: is the pregnancy a result or the rape or any consensual sex the victim had around the same time. There would be no way to know without a DNA test.

    It’s a stupid bill nevertheless.

  4. Hey cock fuck, why don’t you go to iran and live there because clearly you do not deserve to be an american.

  5. Could you Imagine if Akin had a daughter who gotten raped. Would he raise a bastard child as his own hmmmmm…. Would he tell his wife we’ll love the child as our own. Would he tell his wife “she must of wanted it, that’s why she gotten prego, remember girls cant get prego while being raped… the body does this thing… stress and stuff, it just wont work”


  6. Caramel: He’s thinking that women would lie about being raped in order to avoid having to go through the gauntlet of ultrasounds in his bill, if there were an exception in the bill for women who claimed to have been raped.

    PJ: It is the position of many in the religious right that sex within a marriage is a (literally) God-given right, and that a wife has no right to refuse her husband. Is it an exaggeration to say that rape is the ONLY way Republicans can get sex? Of course. That said, there’s a non-trivial minority whose ‘moral code’ grants them license to commit rape — and Chuck Winder’s bill and his comments would tend to suggest fairly strongly that he’s in that same group.

    1. JF
      Thank you for the insight, albeit disturbing. I hadn’t considered the perspective you raise. Now that you raise it I’m not at all sure how to consider it.

Comments are closed.