Video: “Legitimate” rape? Update: Steelman blasts Akin
posted at 8:41 am on August 20, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Until yesterday, Todd Akin had a comfortable polling lead in Missouri over incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill in what had been the most vulnerable seat for Democrats this cycle. Suddenly, one has to ask whether Akin has a, er, legitimate chance of beating McCaskill, or even a legitimate chance of avoiding a Torricelli maneuver:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdisTOKom5I&feature=player_embedded
In the clip, Charles Jaco, of St. Louis Fox affiliate KTVI’s “Jaco Report,” asks Akin whether he thinks abortions ought to permissible in a situation where a woman is raped. While explaining his position, Akin claimed that pregnancy only rarely results from “legitimate rape.”
“Well you know, people always want to make it as one of those things where how do you slice this particularly tough, sort of ethical question,” he replied. “It seems to me first of all, from what I understand from doctors — that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But, let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work, or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”
Good grief. First, pregnancy from rape isn’t all that uncommon, as Twitchy discovered with just a little research; it’s around 5%. At least one researcher has found that conception rates for rape actually exceeds that of single instances of consensual sex. Second, what in Akin’s mind constitutes legitimate rape? Was he trying to distinguish between forcible rape and statutory rape? If so, that’s a pretty fine distinction, and one that’s really nonsensical even in the argument Akin was trying to make. And if he wanted to suggest that some women would lie about being raped in order to secure an abortion, then he’s really setting up an argument that any woman who is pregnant couldn’t really have been raped … which as noted above is simply not the case.
Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan distanced themselves from Akin’s argument at light speed:
A spokeswoman for Mitt Romney wrote late Sunday that the presumptive GOP presidential nominee and his running mate, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, did not share Rep. Todd Akin’s sentiments on rape.
“Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape,” Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg wrote.
Even Akin himself repudiated his earlier remarks:
“As a member of Congress, I believe that working to protect the most vulnerable in our society is one of my most important responsibilities, and that includes protecting both the unborn and victims of sexual assault. In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year. Those who perpetrate these crimes are the lowest of the low in our society and their victims will have no stronger advocate in the Senate to help ensure they have the justice they deserve.
“I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue. But I believe deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action. I also recognize that there are those who, like my opponent, support abortion and I understand I may not have their support in this election.
“But I also believe that this election is about a wide-range of very important issues, starting with the economy and the type of country we will be leaving our children and grandchildren. We’ve had 42 straight months of unacceptably high unemployment, trillion dollar deficits, and Democratic leaders in Washington who are focused on growing government, instead of jobs. That is my primary focus in this campaign and while there are those who want to distract from that, knowing they cannot defend the Democrats’ failed economic record of the last four years, that will continue to be my focus in the months ahead.”
“Those who want to distract from that” got a big boost from Akin himself.
Can Republicans replace Akin, if they so choose? Apparently they can — but the deadline is tomorrow. Of course, deadlines didn’t matter when Robert Torricelli became a political pariah in New Jersey, but there are a couple of differences. First, it involved actual corruption, not a case of foot-in-mouth disease, and second, Torricelli was a Democrat. If Republicans want Akin off the ticket, they’d have to act quickly, which means it won’t happen at all.
That means that Missouri will probably see a lot of debate over “legitimate,” and Republicans had better hope that Akin can legitimately change the subject soon.
Update: Chuck Todd hints that there may be more time than we think if Akin withdraws:
There is a SECOND deadline for Akin to withdraw, 9/25, but it’s complicated. Will explain on @dailyrundown.
— Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) August 20, 2012
Well, the whole thing’s getting pretty complicated now, isn’t it?
Update II: Sarah Steelman, one of two challengers against Akin in the primary and Sarah Palin’s endorsed choice, blasted Akin this morning on Twitter:
Todd Akin’s remarks about “legitimate rape” were inexcusable, insulting and embarrassing to the GOP. #mosen
— Sarah Steelman (@sarah_steelman) August 20, 2012
On the other hand, poll analyst Sean Trende reminds us that politicians who say stupid things often don’t pay as much of a price as we’d think:
Perspective on Akin: After basically dropping an n-bomb, in a horrible R year, George Allen very nearly won his Senate race.
— Sean Trendē (@SeanTrende) August 20, 2012
Perspective on Akin: After lying about going to Vietnam, in a terrible Dem year, R Blumenthal handily won his Senate race.
— Sean Trendē (@SeanTrende) August 20, 2012
Persp on Akin:After saying “rape is like bad weather: If it’s inevitable, just relax and enjoy it,” Williams ~won 90 TX Gov. race
— Sean Trendē (@SeanTrende) August 20, 2012
These things matter.But they aren’t necessarily the game changers pundits make them out to be.
— Sean Trendē (@SeanTrende) August 20, 2012
I’m not sure that this is a comforting thought.
Update III: Even less comforting — Clayton Williams actually lost that election in 1990 to Ann Richards.
Related Posts:









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Have you read some of the people of who comment around here AP?
NotCoach on May 22, 2013 at 6:45 PM
“the babies”
That, right there, is all you need to know.
UnderstandingisPower on May 22, 2013 at 6:46 PM
Good point.
KCB on May 22, 2013 at 6:46 PM
Not even Gosnell’s attorney could sit in that courtroom, and see those images, and not come away unaffected. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: No wonder the MSM ran from this trial like it was the plague.
NotCoach on May 22, 2013 at 6:47 PM
This really is a disgusting and self serving comment, all living things are viable until they die, the only thing taking a babies viability away is the abortionist.
clearbluesky on May 22, 2013 at 6:53 PM
[NotCoach on May 22, 2013 at 6:45 PM]
It’s Mary Katharine.
Dusty on May 22, 2013 at 6:54 PM
DITTO, what “clearbluesky” wrote ^^.
Lourdes on May 22, 2013 at 6:55 PM
Understanding and lenient? To defend a guy who brutally murdered babies? How about without conscience and evil?
Understanding and lenient implies empathy and mercy are possible emotions to have toward those who are willing to either kill a child or have the child they are carrying be killed. The choice is between death and life for a baby.
Sorrow, grief, and anger for the unborn child are appropriate emotions to have. Empathy and mercy are for those who have repented and turned from this evil.
INC on May 22, 2013 at 6:55 PM
Oops. Sorry MKH.
NotCoach on May 22, 2013 at 6:56 PM
Gosnell didn’t have to keep his place so filthy, inspections or not. He didn’t have to re-use single-use instruments, or keep the parts of murdered babies in jars. He is simply a vile piece of human trash.
A sixteen week window is never going to be tolerated by the violent baby-killing Left who will do anything to stop it from becoming law. As MKH notes above, they’re not supportive of a twenty-week limit. I bet many in NARAL (which should be spelled ‘gnarl’ like the acronym sounds — twisted) think there should be no limit at all, even killing the infant just as he’s being born if the mother changes her mind about keeping him.
I don’t blame the lawyer for doing his job, and agree with the sixteen week limit as a first step. But if I were a defense attorney, I’d never have taken the case.
Liam on May 22, 2013 at 6:57 PM
Well, I can see why they’d go along with this, because you can still kill a LOT of babies in 16 weeks, but I’m not quite ready to call this progressjust yet.
Kensington on May 22, 2013 at 7:08 PM
“A person’s a person, no matter how small.”
INC on May 22, 2013 at 7:15 PM
That’s the excuse of a 5 year old child. It doesn’t take regulators for you to keep your place clean. But butcher Gosnell was simply interested in making more money for himself.
rbj on May 22, 2013 at 7:16 PM
Going to sixteen or seventeen weeks is definitely a step in the right direction. Know what would be a better step? Zero weeks. Just saying.
Shump on May 22, 2013 at 7:17 PM
I thought McMahon was a sleaze when he used the race card during the trial. Now I know hes slime because of his vociforous defending of this monster after he was convicted of murder. Meagan is wrong and we can tar him with the same brush as his client. He is as vile as Gosnell
neyney on May 22, 2013 at 7:18 PM
Oh we can’t have that. Dear Reaper, I mean Dear Leader wants it to be 39 weeks.
VorDaj on May 22, 2013 at 7:20 PM
In that, he is incorrect. It was the willful abandonment of existing regulation enforcement by the state, due to a political climate created by groups such as NARAL and PP that led directly to the situation at Gosnell’s clinic. It’s blood on their hands as much as his.
A new law, enforced as well as the old, will do exactly as well; meaning not at all. In the Navy we have a saying – you can expect what you inspect.
Jeff Weimer on May 22, 2013 at 7:30 PM
I don’t really care what this legal streetwalker has to say, aside from from a bemused curiosity regarding self-debasement. There was never any real question as to what the demon butcher Gosnell had been doing; this mercenary apologist as much acknowledges that he was comfortable with the practice in theory if not -belatedly- in actual gruesome reality.
So lawyer McMahon took the money, and defended the indefensible. And now he tries reassert his humanity by musing depressively about the macabre procession that has just come to a meat-grinding halt. But he willingly marched a leg in that procession; at least he didn’t portray his steps, in tired fashion, as necessary measures in assuring that “the system works for all.”
I hope that for the rest of his life, his last thought before tortured sleep is of scissors.
M240H on May 22, 2013 at 7:36 PM
And that right there is one of the big horrors of the abortion industry. That 83.5% of abortions are performed for no greater reason than the mother doesn’t want the baby or the hassel of giving birth and putting the baby up for adoption.
It is if you are a liberal who can’t think for yourself and insist on regulating every aspect of life.
hopeful on May 22, 2013 at 7:46 PM
Exactly. “Unwanted puppies and unwanted babies are the same thing.”~thujackass
davidk on May 22, 2013 at 7:49 PM
Never forget that the Allies once having liberated the concentration camps / death camps had to force march the local citizens through those camps to shock them into realization of the holocaust their pretending what was happening wasn’t happening had enabled.
— counting the seconds until psycho thuja spams us with his collaborationist prattle.
viking01 on May 22, 2013 at 7:50 PM
Maybe you should call your congressman/woman and demand they sponsor legislation to lock up every woman who does an abortion.
HotAirLib on May 22, 2013 at 8:02 PM
Interesting comment by the lawyer.
Quickest would be choosing to avoid actions that tend toward becoming pregnant.
AesopFan on May 22, 2013 at 8:21 PM
Well said, and worth repeating:
ITguy on May 22, 2013 at 8:29 PM
Stanek to testify for nationwide 20-week abortion ban
Jill Stanek is the IL former nurse who also testified in IL when Obama was in the IL State Senate. Does he ever know who she is.
http://www.jillstanek.com/2008/02/links-to-barack-obamas-votes-on-illinois-born-alive-infant-protection-act/
She’s got courage. She’s never let up. I haven’t heard if she’s been audited, but the FBI did show up at the door of her daughter and son-in-law last summer.
http://www.jillstanek.com/2012/07/obama-administrations-harassment-of-pro-lifers-gets-personal/
INC on May 22, 2013 at 10:02 PM
Or we could just lock up the Gosnell-esque ghouls and go from there. If doing that resulted in a de facto end to legal abortion, I wouldn’t feel bad at all.
gryphon202 on May 22, 2013 at 10:03 PM
I’m sorry I had to go sit shiva tonight and was unable to perform my usual duty. Maybe someone else could take up the slack?
thuja on May 22, 2013 at 11:18 PM
Gosnell gave the left exactly what they wanted;
A woman’s right to an abortion anytime, for any reason.
If they tell you different, they are lying. And the lawyer is basically negotiating price… With the level horror being the currency.
These baby killers are just that vile and there is a special place for them…
RalphyBoy on May 22, 2013 at 11:24 PM
I usually like Megyn Kelly, but not in this interview. They guy’s trying to be calm and reasonable, and Kelly’s just killing him. What did she want the guy to say? “You’re right Megyn. My client’s a sleazeball, and he’s horrible, and he’s despicable.” Clearly, that wasn’t going to happen. So what was the point?
asc85 on May 22, 2013 at 11:26 PM
They won’t go lower than 20 weeks unless they can test for Down’s Syndrome earlier than that.
/sad but true
cptacek on May 23, 2013 at 12:27 AM
At the absolute minimum the standard should be heartbeat and brainwave activity. You wanna define the lack of those as death, then the beginning of same must equal life. Oh wait…liberals and logic don’t mix.
MelonCollie on May 23, 2013 at 9:00 AM