Todd Akin Changes His Story to a More Convenient and Appealing Lie

Todd Akin has embarrassed the Republican party by saying all the same things the Republican Party says anyway.  He just did it more clumsily.

Now we have Todd Akin trying trying anything and everything to cover his ass politically. I disagree strongly with any assertion we should hate Akin or any other fascist and tyrannical conservative; but we should strongly oppose them. This is fascist, this is authoritarian, this is not freedom, all though it appears to promote free 'dumb', in the sense of appealing to the lowest possible denominator.



For those who believe that the Republicans do ensure that abortion will be a legal option for women who are the victims of rape or incest or for medical reasons to save the life of the mother, think again.  That is a lie.

This is the Republican platform of extremism, of intolerance, of forcing religious views on issues without a scientific or ethical justification OTHER than the more extreme variants of religion.  For women who need an abortion for medical reasons, they want to make pregnancy a death sentence, as it was recently in a third world country.

From the Progress Report:No Abortion. No Exceptions.

Aug 21, 2012 | By ThinkProgress War Room

GOP Doubles Down on Extreme Social Agenda

Even as Republicans attempt to distance themselves from the comments about “legitimate rape” made by Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), they once again reaffirmed that they agree with Akin and other extremists when it comes to women’s health issues.

Just today, the committee drafting the Republican Party’s official policy platform underscored the fact that Republicans believe we need a constitutional ban on abortion in all circumstances — no exceptions for victims of rape or incest or to protect the life of the woman, not to mention any of the numerous other reasons a woman may need an abortion.

No abortion. No exceptions.

Not coincidentally, the GOP’s platform committee is chaired by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, who received national condemnation for his support of a bill mandating that women seeking abortions receive costly transvaginal ultrasounds regardless of medical need.

Relying on Mike Huckabee to give him softball questions, Todd Akin went back on his radio show to clarify that he meant forcible rape when he used the word legitimate rape.  He is apparently trying to tie himself more closely to his bill-buddy on HR 3, Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan, grabbing on with both hands to those shirt tails even as Ryan and Romney and Reince Preibus try to distance themselves.

 

But then Todd Akin, in his pathetic attempt to pander to the anti-abortion extremists, played the 'women lie about rape' card, doubling down by invoking Roe v. Wade.  The reality is that while the woman identified as 'Roe' could not get a legal abortion except in cases of rape or incest in Texas, she considered lying about being raped.  She never claimed it. She never actually reported to any law enforcement that she was raped, she never got an abortion claiming she was raped, she never accused anyone falsely of rape. In her desperation, she considered lying, and she also tried to get an illegal abortion because of being unable to get a legal one.  Do we want women resorting to illegal abortions again in this country? NO, emphatically NO. The age of the coat hanger abortion or the knitting needle abortion or the lye abortion or the dirty butcher abortion should be over forever.  In the actual court case Roe v. Wade won by her attorney, there was never any issue raised of a false claim of rape.  Todd Akin is improperly raising that claim here. In point of fact, the woman had the child, but she was such a bad candidate for having children, her children were taken away from her as an unfit mother.  Roe v. Wade is a perfect example of why some women don't want to be pregant and should not be forced to be pregnant.  It is a perfect example of why we need legal abortions, not abortion that is criminalized.  Roe v. Wade is a perfect example of why government should not be intrusive in people's lives, but allow women and their doctors to make decisions about their reproductive health.

Rape is Rape.  The Obama administration has been correct to remove any legal distinction, and the fact that a legal definition existed was quite different from establishing a federal tier system making some forms of rape 'more rape' than others.  The real purpose of the tier system was to try to deny womne abortions for some types of rape, nothing more nor less, so the Republicans could still claim they would allow abortion for rape.  Just not if you are a raped girl, or a drugged or unconscious woman, or otherwise have been incapactitated by your rapist.  Ryan and Akin are trying to deny those women and girls - yes GIRLS - access to an abortion.

But it gets worse. YES, it CAN get worse.

Worse, are the efforts by Paul Ryan to make it possible for a woman's rapist to go into court to prevent a woman from having an abortion after a rape.

 

The anti-abortion Right wingers have NO scientific evidence that a cluster of undifferentiated cells which have not yet formed a human being are a separate and full existing person.  I have argued here, repeatedly, that all cells have DNA, some human beings like identical twins have identical DNA, and so are no different than cloned human beings would be, and that a skin cell from a hangnail can, under the right circumstances, develop into a fetus in the same way that a zygote develops into a fetus.

We don't recognize might be, or eventually after changes, as the same. We don't distinguish between separate human beings on the basis of different or same DNA either.  We don't relegate children born from scientific intervention through in vitro fertilization as less human or more human because of that scientific assistance.  NONE of those things should be the basis for determining anything about abortion or about legality for being born either.  The GOP wants to interfere with all of those.

There are two, and only two criteria which logically and scientifically should have any consideration for abortion.  The first is that we do not require, ever, one human being to make their body, or parts of it, available to another for that other person to live. 

We don't require someone with a universal donor blood type to donate their blood, on the assumption they have enough and can produce more.  We don't require a person to donate a lung or kidney, on the presumption they can function with one, so that another person can live.  We don't force a person who is an ideal match to donate bone marrow, even though they can replace that normally in their body over a quite short of time.  We in fact have a law in place making it illegal to even compensate them for their expenses, much less force them to donate, so as not to offer even positive inducement to do so, never mind coerce them to donate a body part.  It should be no different for women, that within a reasonable period of time, they should have the option NOT to be forced to subordinate and supply their body to what is not a separate human being but is only the potential cells that could become a human being - OR NOT.  We cannot identify one human being as having an inviolate body, but then say ------ except NOT for slightly more than half the human race, on the basis of gender, under this one circumstance. 

We either recognize the right of one person NOT to make their body forcibly available to another to save the other person's life, or we do not, period.  We don't force sterilization on people any longer; we recognize that was a mistake.  Why would we then force pregnancy on an unwilling woman? It is as wrong to coerce the other extreme as it was to coerce sterilization, for the same reasons. 

We emphatically do not require one person to give up their life for another - as in coercing them to donate their heart or any other party of themselves without which they could live. So why would we require a woman to be pregnant if it kills her?  Or in some cases, the GOP would require it even if it kills the woman AND the fetus or embryo -- WHERE is the sanctity of life, or any sanity or reason in that?  This right wing pseudo-thinking is emotion it is not rational, it is not factual, it is based on belief without facts.  It is based on bad morality which devalues women as human beings.

The second criteria should be the exact same one, for consistency sake, and because it has been thoroughly critiqued and evaluated both legally and ethically for validity -- we determine death as an absence of a certain level of brain function and activity.  That same standard should be the criteria for when we provide a legal recognition status to an embryo.  We should be consistent; we have a good functional criteria for life, neurological activity, which works for existing human beings, so why not use if for those who are not but might become human beings?  That should be the same criteria for dealing with frozen IVF conceptuses, frozen semen, and frozen ova.  Might be, might or might not become but ISN'T YET -- one consistent, logical, scientific, ETHICAL criteria for determining what is or is not a human being as distinct from the potential to become a human being.

THAT is the kind of thinking we need - actual thinking, not blind ideology or blind theology in making law and in governing lives and in funding health care decisions. Or in electing anyone to public office.

If the GOP stays in any kind of power anywhere at any level - local, state, or federal - women will die who could live.  Women will become ill who could be healthy.  Women will lose their autonomy and their equality.  All progress will be lost if these neanderthals win; (and that is probably insulting neanderthals as a group).

As noted at Time Magazine by Erika Christakis in her article:

Health & Science

Todd Akin Fallout: Rape, Abortion and the Dark History of Qualifying Violence Against Women

The "forcible rape" canard has been around for a while. The problem is in trying to police the kind of trauma that merits the right to an abortion

 

...More recently, vice-presidential candidate Ryan drew fire for language in the co-sponsored No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act that initially distinguished between “forcible rape” and statutory rape of minors or nonviolent rapes that could affect mentally impaired, retarded or drugged women.

The victim blaming harkens back to the days when it was accepted wisdom that “good” women were incapable of being raped and some people thought conception could only occur if a woman achieved orgasm. It’s not a great distance from such obtuseness to practices in countries like Pakistan, where marital rape is not recognized legally and women are treated as criminals, not victims, unless they can produce multiple male witnesses to their rape.
But it’s a mistake to get mired in pregnancy rates. The problem is in trying to police the kind of pregnancy trauma that merits the right to an abortion. Incest is culturally noxious, of course, but is it always worse than other traumatic conception stories? And just how much incest are we willing to tolerate, anyway, before making abortion an exception? Incest between siblings? Parent and adult child? Second cousins? Are we really certain that a 13-year-old girl who has sex with a 35-year-old neighbor is in less need of an abortion exception than an “assaultive” rape victim (whatever that means)? What about a couple with Down syndrome whose parents forgot to explain birth control? Or a schizophrenic patient who was found in bed with a hospital employee? What about a woman facing financial catastrophe or crushing depression?

There will always be nuance and ambiguity as far as pregnancy is concerned. That’s why many Americans have long preferred to stay out of first-trimester-abortion decisions, leaving them to a woman and her doctor, partner and conscience. People on all sides of the abortion debate should instead unite to prevent as many abortions as possible through comprehensive sex education; better access to family planning; improved support for adoption; and greater compassion for living, breathing parents and not only their unborn children. To this list, we might also add better science education for legislators.
-----------------

We need to repudiate right wing politicians and right wing policies that would take us back to the legal traditions of the 12th and 13th century, of ignorance, and of misogyny.  And we should not be rewarding liars and ignorant old men with power.