I just want someone to tell me why extreme right wing Republican men continue to talk about their belief that women who are raped don’t get pregnant. SHUT UP already. Cause let me tell you, I know someone, someone close to me, that became pregnant after she was raped.
Right now, right now in this country, in the 21st century, once again, Republican men in congress, behaving like their religious belief system must be legislated, i.e. forced upon women (hmmm, sounds like Sharia law to me) are at it again. Their intent on outlawing ALL abortions beyond 20 weeks has begun. Now let me say here, once again, for the hard of hearing, no one WANTS an abortion, it isn’t an easy decision, nor it is an easy procedure. But this just in, women have sought abortions throughout the ages.
So here we go, a bunch of men, behind closed doors, deciding the most personal event of woman’s life. They control her body and her economic future in their hands……how frightening.
If that weren’t enough, the chief sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), had a Todd Akin moment as he attempted to argue that women aren’t likely to become pregnant from rape. Franks provided his variation of “legitimate rape” theory when he argued against the rape-and-incest exception because the amendment didn’t require women to report the crime.
“What difference does that make?” asked Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.).
“The point I was trying to make, Mr. Nadler, is that, you know, before my friends on the left side of the aisle here tried to make rape and incest the subject, because, you know, the incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low,” he said. “But when you make that exception, there’s usually a requirement to report the rape within 48 hours.”
Hold on. The incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low?
“I just find it astonishing to hear a phrase repeated that the incidence of pregnancy from rape is low,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (Calif.), one of five Democratic women on the panel. “There’s no scientific basis for that. The idea that the Republican men on this committee think they can tell the women of America that they have to carry to term the product of a rape is outrageous.”
I would argue that banning abortion after 20 weeks is NOT just an issue about allowing exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother, it is also an issue of giving families options when they face a WANTED child and discover the fetus has severe fetal anomalies.
I find it a horrible twist of fate that a women republican, anti choice, has found herself in this unthinkable situation. Many deadly fetal anomalies cannot be found until after 20 weeks. It isnt’ up to a bunch of politicians, sitting far removed from this life altering situation, to determine the outcome. This is the circumstance she found herself in at a 20 week sonogram.
The Washington Republican announced that her unborn child has been diagnosed with Potter’s Syndrome, a serious kidney abnormality that is often fatal.
“We have had a second opinion, and the medical diagnosis was consistent with the initial news: There is no medical solution available to us,” Herrera Beutler posted Monday on her Facebook page. “We are praying for a miracle.”
The congresswoman said Potter’s Syndrome occurs when there is “abnormally low amniotic fluid caused by impaired kidney function, which inhibits normal lung development.”
I feel so horrible for the congresswoman and her family. She is now in the public eye, pregnant and facing a simply unimaginable future of her first pregnancy. Now, put yourself in the minds of those other families that have faced a similar situation. Everyone knows they are pregnant, and now, now after 20 weeks, they find out they are carrying a baby that has little to no chance of living outside the womb. Now, imagine adding these self appointed holier than thou extremist fetus focused only people, the decision to terminate, already excruciating, must seem an impossible path to take, even if you believe it is in the best interest of your family.
There but for the grace of G-d go I.
Elena,
As a Republican man, I agree. “Rape” should only be discussed in the context of how the justice system handles rapists, how our various institutions such as colleges and the military work to prevent it, and how our mental health systems can assist the victims with dealing with the aftermath of it. Anything outside of this is a political minefield, littered with the corpses of those who wish to discuss this in the context of the life issue. Anytime pro-life politicos get into the debate of exclusions and carveouts for “rape and incest” in an attempt to limit these exceptions, they end up as fodder for Rachel Maddow, Chris Mathews, and end up angering a lot of women. “Zero-Sum Game” politics are rarely successful, regardless of how righteous the participants on both sides believe their positions to be.
Thank you Steve for your very thoughtful comment. You have brightened my rainy morning.
Elena,
The public debate on the abortion issue does need to continue, but for rational reasons. As medical science continually pushes back the viability of children born prematurely, and develops new methods to deal with birth-defects invitro, the definition of “Late Term” or “viability” is changing. The laws will always lag, and it is this debate that refines these laws to match. Let’s have this debate. However, “Rape” doesn’t evolve. It has existed during the entirety of man’s existance. If you are a Christian or Jewish believer, it began with the fall. If you are a secularist, or evolutionist, it has always existed, and was first defined on some clay tablet in acient times. Regardless, it is terribly dark side of human character.
Trying to parse and sub-divide the crime and ascribing words like “Legitimate” that do not apply in the criminal code invites folly. Politicians on both sides say dumb things all the time, but this is a subject (Rape) that has tripped up too many Republicans of late. Quit it. Leave it to discussions regarding the criminal code to define Rape, (Aggravated, Diminished Capacity, etc.), and in the context of abortion, keep it to “Rape and Incest” for the purposes of debate.
I get so tired of hearing these, more or less, old guys sitting around talking about something that would never happen to them. Cheeeze! Sigh!
Totally agree, Punchak.
The republican war on women continues.
Governor Walker says he’ll sign abortion bill
MILWAUKEE (AP) – Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker says he will sign a bill requiring physicians to perform or arrange ultrasounds for women seeking abortions if the Legislature passes it.
http://www.wbay.com/story/22563157/wisconsin-governor-says-hell-sign-abortion-bill
Another Governor ultra sound
So, there are no women in the pro-life movement? Only old guys?
only old guys talking about how you can’t get pregnant from being raped……..
Women wouldn’t make such a stupid statement.
Since the Bureau of Justice Statistics says that 9% of rapes are committed against men, I’ll take my 9% and ask another question. Pursuant to the statements by Zoe Lofgren, just what are the stats concerning incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy? Everybody makes a claim one way or another, but no one ever gives numbers. Franks never said you cannot get pregnant from rape. He said the frequency was low. Was he right or wrong?
Why would he even ask that? How does he know? Does it matter? If one person gets pregnant from rape, who wants to sentence that victim to carrying a pregancy arising from rape to term?
I would venture to say that zero % of men get pregnant from those rapes and that is not to diminish the violence of rape against men and women.
The probability of getting pregnant from rape is actually pretty high – http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12110-003-1014-0 – this report from 2003, indicates that the rate can be double that of non rape. But what difference does that make – if 1 person does not want to have a rape related pregnancy, isn’t she entitled to make her own decision to end it? Imagine a life time of interacting with the rapist – as the can sue for parental visitation and attend milestone events of the child. Unfortunately, this moron’s stupid comments distracted from his original amendment – which was to reduce the allowable abortion term from 24 weeks down to 20 weeks. One should have to make a decision before the fetus is viable. A baby born at 24 weeks has a 39% chance of survival – we should not be performing abortions at the same time.
Wolverine – if you were in an all male prison, I doubt very much if you would take the 9% of rapes that occur, although you might be asking questions about what just happened.
I would suggest that if cut off times are changed then there should be exceptions for all sorts of fetal abnormalities. Not all abnormalities show up before 20 weeks. Then there is the maternal life and health thing.
I would agree that 24 weeks is later for an abortion just because someone was lazy…but most aren’t for casual reasons.
I posed the question to the websites of two rape crisis centers which respond with personal help for victims of rape and incest. Pandora’s Project has stated that the studies they have seen on the subject range from 1% to 4.7% of rapes. They go with the latter and perhaps a bit higher because of some non-reporting. RAINN states that the medical reports they have seen indicate about 5% of rapes, although the total can be either higher or lower at times because of the prevalent details of rapes in a specific period. However, just because the level may be low does not mean that each case is not a heartbreaker and a psychological crisis.
I have no way of verifying these figures. If anyone has stats from other sources, let’s have them. My cursory search indicates that Franks may well be right in believing the level is low. But he was accused in this thread of saying something he never said and then he was twice accused of false statements by issue partisans(the article author and Zoe Lofgren) who appeared to have no statistical counterarguments themselves.
What difference does it really make? Talk of rape a distractor. Low and high are both artificial words that are relative to start with. Who is Trent Franks to even be talking about it in the first place. He won’t ever become pregant so he really needs to just not make stupid, paternalistic comments.
Franks is known for making foolish anti-choice remarks.
Make no mistake, the entire bill is about restricting access to abortion. Elena and I are concerned over the reality of pregnant women finding abortion to be a medical necessity. Many 2nd trimester abortions are performed because of fetal abnormality. Now some Republican legislators are trying to force women to continue with a pregancy when the fetus has severe abnormalities. That choice really should not be up to some stranger. That stranger will not be there to provide 24 hour care for a child with severe disabilities nor will they be there to help out with the extreme cost of the care of such a child. They won’t be there to watch it die a, awful painful death.
The GOP has not been all about jobs. It has spent entirely too much time on social issue like abortion and contraception. With a 10% approval rating, one would think they never want back in the White House.
What about those jobs? What about those VA benefits? What about all failing infrastructure/ What about high (speaking of high and low) suicide rates among our returning vets?
Here is the freaking reality: middle and upper class women will always be able to get abortions to handle these kinds of problems. If they don’t have the means they will borrow from their friends and relatives. It is the young and the poor who will not.
Do I have to spell out the rest of the story?
Pandora’s Project really is more of a healing center than a repository for criminal statistics. I doubt if anyone really knows for sure because so many rapes go unreported. There is stranger rape, date rape, spousal rape—how would we know in some cases.
You would think that GOP congressmen would want to avoid being akinized and just not pring the subject up. It is insensitive and a good way to get booted out of office.
Pat.Herve — A good part of my career was spent putting people in prisons, mostly foreign prisons. You have no idea.
@Wolverine
You were on the outside of the bars, I assume.
The talk of men being the victims of rape in this context is a distractor. It is obviously a serious problem but not one for this thread since men cannot get pregnant.
If they could, I guarantee you that we wouldn’t be having this discussion either.
The subject is brought up because many view it from the additional perspective of lives being destroyed in the womb. About 50 million lives in this country since Roe v. Wade. You all are just going to have to accept that you have opponents with strong moral principles on this issue and that the opposition to abortion on demand is not going to go away. Nor is that opposition going to stop debating or stop trying to proselytize successfully — any more than the pro-choice side will.
My own prognosis is that abortion on demand will eventually be curtailed, but that there will be exceptions, including not only the usual ones of physical health of the mother, rape, and incest but also some of the other exceptions mentioned here, e.g. the one described by Elena in the thread. There will be some middle ground. Has to be with this kind of societal division. And there will always be a group on both sides that is dissatisfed because they didn’t get everything they desired.
Where might that be going? Well, I took a look at some recent polls on this issue, and this is what I found. Actually surprised me a bit, given all this “war on women” outcry.
NBCNEWS/WSJ 5-8 April 2013:
Abortion always legal: 26%
Legal most of the time: 19%
Illegal except rape, incest, mother’s life: 42%
Allways illegal: 10%
Unsure: 3%
CNN/ORC 17-18 May 2013:
Legal always: 25%
Legal in most circumstances: 11%
Legal in a few circumstances: 42%
Always illegal: 20%
Unsure: 2%
Gallup 2-7 May 2013:
Always legal: 26%
Sometimes legal: 52%
Always illegal: 20%
Unsure: 2%
Those recent polls appear to be very close in results. The figures suggest to me that we are already moving toward the middle ground and away from the absolutes at both ends.
I would seriously challenge the notion that the anti choice people have the high moral ground on this one. You obviously want the government to make deeply personal decisions for you. I do not and I feel strongly that women are capable of making their own morally appropriate choices. What we as women decide to do about our own reporduction is going to differ. Some of us come from a religious background that condemns abortion. Others come from a religious background that leaves this subject up to the individual as a matter of conscience. Still others come from no religious background and who still are capable of making morally appropriate decisions.
How dare some politician think he or she (and usually it is a he) can dictate what decisions we make about deeply personal issues like reproduction.
There is really no such thing as abortion on demand in the legal sense of the word. Legal abortion in America is outlined very carefully in Roe v Wade as to gestational ages of the fetus an what is permitted.
I fully understand that some people object to abortion at any stage of gestational development. Then those people should never consider abortion and should do everything in their power to avoid unwanted or unintended pregnancy. They also have to accept the fact that they have no control over other people’s morals, including who they sleep with. Having said that, there were about a million abortions a year before the Roe v Wade decision. That was a fairly consistent rate for many years. Of course, because of the illegality, we will never know exactly how many were performed other than when the woman needed medical treatment post-op.
Do those who want to make decisions for others think that abortion is just going to instantly go away? It will not. The only way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the risk of unintended pregnancy. That is done with education and available and affordable contraception which the same anti choice people fight tooth and nail, oftentimes. There is a serious cognitive dissonance here.
The polls are bogus because how the questions are framed determines the answer. You and I both know that polls from different polling companies are not going to ask the same questions. There is simply no reliable way to mesh answers together to match.
Probably there are 10% of people on either end of the spectrum to are absolutists. 10% of the people feel that abortion for any reason at any time is perfectly ok. Conversely, 10% of the people probably believe that abortion is wrong any time and that no reason justifies it. Then there are the 80% of the people who are in the murky middle, with some espousing few restrictions and others limiting the procedure with many restrictions.
When we come up for air, I think most women, and it is women who are, after all, the primary people affected since only they can get pregnant, want a safety net. For most of us, the closer to term a pregnancy gets, the more queasy one gets with abortion–the less acceptable it becomes, for very obvious reasons. In fact, I think most pro-choice people would be fairly comfortable with a cut off of 20 weeks under normal circumstances. Its those unusual circumstances that make the new bill in committee, whatever it is called, so unacceptable. Without the fetal anomoly, rape and incest exception, I simply could not support a bill such as this one.
Sorry, Moon. But we are going to stay on opposite sides on this. Where you see female reproductive issues, I see living human offspring often being virtually drawn and quartered in the uterus with a Sopher clamp and the little corpses tossed into trash bags and dumped like so much offal.