By
Sean Ewart
![]() |
| Congressman Todd Akin, of Missouri's 2nd District, opened up to the media, Sunday, about his Bible-based opinions on rape. |
Missouri Congressman Todd Akin is not
ending his pursuit of a Senate seat this fall. This news comes after
nearly two full days of his colleagues, Republican leaders from
across the nation, declaring their outrage at comments the
Congressman made Sunday. His only crime, in the eye's of most of his
Republican cohorts, is speaking too freely with the press.
“If it’s a legitimate rape, the
female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” said
Todd, speaking with all the certainty of a five year old who knows
why the world spins.
Todd, indeed, was honest – painfully,
but informatively so. Speaking on the Jaco
Report Todd affirmed his position in opposition to abortion in
all cases, rape included. The point he was attempting to make is one
commonly heard by members of the anti-choice community. If, as they
believe, a soul is created the moment a sperm and egg make contact,
abortion is murder.
This is the justification behind the
various state and federal personhood amendments (like the one
cosponsored by Congressman and Vice Presidential hopeful Paul
Ryan) that would criminalize abortion. It is also the line of
thinking that motivates terrorists, the likes of Paul Hill and the
Reverend Donald Spitz, to continue their murderous jihad against
abortion doctors. (For more on that, please read The Gadfly Press'
June interview
with Rev. Spitz).
Even as former Governor and current
Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney and his partner in
etch-a-sketch-ing, Paul Ryan, attempted, Monday, to distance
themselves from the big-mouthed Akin, the reality is glaringly
obvious: Akin just gave up the whole game.
Republicans agree entirely with what
Todd said, just not how he said it.
The Romney campaign was quick to assure
everyone that, “yes, rape is rape, and yes, we still believe
abortion is always murder.” Sure, they threw in a caveat saying a
Romney-Ryan regime would allow exceptions in the case of rape – but
in the Ryan dictionary, at least, that means only “forcible rape.”
And that, as it turns out, is what Todd
meant to say. Asked to clarify what, exactly, he meant by
“legitimate rape,” the fearless Akin said he meant “forcible
rape.” In other words, if a woman is forcibly raped, the
Congressman believes, “the female body has ways to try to shut that
whole thing down.” Conversely, if you get pregnant following rape,
you were not “legitimately raped.” You were asking for it.
This
article begs the question: does Akin believe the victims of
systematic rape in Bosnia were asking for it?
Terry O’Neill, president of the
National Organization for Women, said on National Public Radio's On
Point talk show that she
believes Akin's policy, the one criminalizing abortion, is
founded on “junk science.” That, in fact, has largely been the
response from members of the “correct wing” - the Left. It's the
classic, “science tells us that forcible rape can result in
pregnancy” argument. Yup! Todd
Akin is talking about really, really bad science.
But let's be clear. The “junk
science” is simply not the basis of Todd's policy. It is not the
basis of Ryan's policy either, nor that of the GOP, which recently
agreed on draft policy that would, again, see support for a
personhood amendment grafted onto their party platform.
Even O'Neill says she hasn't heard Ryan
use junk science to defend his policy. Really, Todd was bending over
backwards in an attempt to win people over for “science's sake.”
After all, you certainly don't need a rape exception if you can't get
pregnant from rape!
The truth is, for Akin, Ryan, and the
GOP in general, the “science” follows the policy. Even
though If the
science doesn't support them, it doesn't matter, they still think
abortion is always wrong. Why? Because the Bible tells them so.
The New York Times reported,
“Throughout his political career, Representative Todd Akin’s
agenda has been driven by a belief that his mission came from God.”
His mission did not come from science.
The science, junk or not, is irrelevant to the issues Todd speaks
about. Rather, his policy arrived several thousand years ago.
And, as it so happens, so did his
concept of “legitimate rape.” The Bible, not known for taking a
strong position in defense of women's rights, contains what could
sympathetically be characterized as the precursor of Todd's politics
(I say sympathetically because, actually, I think it's just exactly
the same thing).
Here we go:
“If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married
and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of
that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was
in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he
violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among
you.” – Deuteronomy
22:23-24.
The basic idea is, "you didn't scream loud enough, so you must have been asking for it." It's the stone age version of Akin's, "you got pregnant, so you must have been asking for it," policy.
The basic idea is, "you didn't scream loud enough, so you must have been asking for it." It's the stone age version of Akin's, "you got pregnant, so you must have been asking for it," policy.
At least it's tough on the rapist too,
right Todd? (Actually, the Bible
says that if the man happened to rape a virgin not pledged
to be married, he merely needed to pay her father 50 shekels and
promise not to divorce her in order to get off the hook. This still
is the penal code in some Muslim countries like Morocco).
You see, the idea that Todd or Ryan or
Romney or the GOP in general needs “science” to support their
claim that even forcible rape
(as if that is somehow more “legitimate” than other rape) is a
“woman's” problem, is absurd. Rape is a “woman's” problem the
way the Holocaust was a “Jewish” problem.
The
fact is rape is a male problem.
Just look at the number of men the world round who commit acts of
violent and “non-violent” (wtf?) rape. Line them all up in your
head. Now check out the line of female rapists. Exactly.
It's
just that the Bible blames women, and thus, so does Akin, Ryan, and
the GOP.
Remember
that when you walk to your polling place in November.

What is it that bothers you about the term "non-violent rape?"
ReplyDeleteAndrew Clifton,
ReplyDeleteThe term "non-violent rape," while I used it, strikes me to be as ridiculous as the term "non-violent murder." Rape seems, to me, an inherently violent act.
Sean,
DeleteThat makes sense. My understanding was that "non-violent" covers those situations where consent is not necessarily given or legitimate, but there is no struggle or force involved. For example, having sex with an intoxicated woman can be considered rape, even if she was, in her inebriated state, a willing participant in the act.
Absolutely, and that is what is typically meant (I believe the FBI actually distinguishes it). It just seems like a pointless difference when we are speaking about ethics.
Delete