Akin clarifies: meant "forcible rape" as Paul Ryan said

Todd Akin, GOP candidate for Senate from Missouri, clarifies that he meant "forcible rape", not "legitimate rape." Akin is saying his views are exactly those of Paul Ryan, and that happens to be true:

Paul Ryan also co-sponsored HR 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion" bill in which Republicans tried to redefine rape so that it only applied to "forcible" rape so those fake rape victims would stop exploiting loopholes to cash in on fabulous gifts and prizes.

This is the real story - Todd Akin's views on this are mainstream Republican - which is to say extreme and radical.

< Lance Armstrong Suit Against USADA Dismissed | Erickson: Akin Out >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    That point by Akin... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by magster on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:34:02 PM EST
    ...really makes this story awkward for Romney/Ryan. Romney was smart enough to try to envelop Ryan in his "condemnation" statement, and Akin was smart enough to shine a light on Ryan's prior positions on this issue to help himself stay in the senate race.

    The "war on women" is back, front and center.

    The "war on women" (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Zorba on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:42:27 PM EST
    has never really left, unfortunately.  It may be back "front and center" (i.e., getting more news coverage), but it has always been there.   :-(

    Romney official admits Ryan doesn't agree with Rom (none / 0) (#17)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:50:55 PM EST
    neys's official position on abortion in cases of rape:

    "A Romney campaign official said that the House Budget chairman's personal view remain unchanged, but that the position of the ticket reflected Romney's stance - that abortion should be legal in cases of rape."


    It's been clarified allright... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:37:23 PM EST
    Clarified crazy.  Certified even.

    Well, I guess whatever's wrong with Kansas (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:44:26 PM EST
    has infected Missouri...I mean, Akin's leading in the polls there, for heaven's sake.  Leading.

    And this man is on the House Science Committee? I think if someone doesn't believe in science, he or she shouldn't be allowed near that committee; don't they have a more appropriate committee for people like Akin?  I don't know, isn't there - shouldn't there be - a House Pseudoscience Committee?  Seems more appropriate.

    Un-freakin'- believable.

    And, what if he wins?  What then?

    It would be nice if progressives could have ... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by magster on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:46:14 PM EST
    ... someone besides Claire McCaskill to rally around.

    It sure would... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 02:06:10 PM EST
    as it is - and maybe this is the most we can expect from a state like Missouri - Claire's probably the equivalent of a Rockefeller Republican; given the choice between one of those and Todd Akin (N)...?  argh, I'm getting so tired of writing sentences like that.

    He'll probably drop out tomorrow (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:45:28 PM EST
    I hope not... (none / 0) (#15)
    by magster on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:47:58 PM EST
    I thought that too earlier today, but he is getting a lot of support from his fellow uber-right whackos. Maybe enough to stay in there.

    For the most part, (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:46:44 PM EST
    and up until now, Congressman Ryan's record has focused on his radical budget, or as Paul Krugman characterizes it "a con game."  But, there is more extremism to Ryan's record as his partnership with House colleague Todd Akin on bills for personhood and forcible rape demonstrate.  Once again, I must differ with the Honorable John Boehner who claims that while Paul Ryan is very conservative, he is not a knuckle dragger.

    Wonder Who (none / 0) (#57)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 03:59:10 PM EST
    ...Boehner considers a knuckle dragger ?

    it's fine in Safari too. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by fishcamp on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:54:52 PM EST

    Seems to be fine (none / 0) (#40)
    by Zorba on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 02:16:09 PM EST
    in Mozilla Firefox, as well.  I never use Internet Explorer.  
    And as far as I'm concerned, IE is "spawn of the devil."   ;-)

    I'm using IE8. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Gandydancer on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 02:36:55 PM EST
    Each paragraph is a single line overwriting the right column, then (if long enough) truncated.

    So when I'm too frightened to move (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 02:08:51 PM EST
    I wanted it?

    How about when I realize that I (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 02:10:28 PM EST
    can't fight my way out, it is hopeless?   Been to that one.  Other than someone killing you, that has to be ugliest one, but when I stop fighting does that mean I want it then?

    the Only thing I Can Think of... (none / 0) (#61)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 04:09:20 PM EST
    ...is the date rape drugs or being passed out.  Or maybe when the girl is underage ?

    It's really hard to image what they define as forceable, seems like that's part the definition.  What they probably mean is a lot of physical force.  If you don't need medical treatment then it wasn't rape to them ?


    Drugging is forcing (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Towanda on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 05:38:48 PM EST
    and if the girl is underage, it's all forcible, as THERE CAN BE NO CONSENT.  Sorry for all caps, folks, but it seems this point still must be, well, forcibly made.

    That is, as the only alternative to "forcible" is "consensual," a person so drugged or drunk on other substances as to be incapable of consent has been forced, period.  

    You're safer sticking with it being hard to imagine what is in their minds.


    Exactly, Towanda (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Zorba on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 05:45:51 PM EST
    If a person is drugged, drunk, or too young (or frightened or intimidated out of their minds, for that matter), there absolutely is no consent.
    It is really hard to imagine, indeed, "what is in their minds."    :-(

    Let Me Clarrify... (none / 0) (#90)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:16:56 AM EST
    ...I agree 100%, just trying to think what they could possibly be thinking.

    It never occurred to me that a rape could happen, at any level, without force.  


    Statuatory rape... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:30:43 AM EST
    can occur without force...the 16 year old girl who consents to or initiates sex with her 19 year old boyfriend.  We've all read the conviction horror stories in cases like that...

    According to the law it is rape, but I fail to see how you could call it rape by force.  


    Legally, a minor cannot consent to (none / 0) (#92)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:53:56 AM EST
    sex, so there is an element of coercion, even if no actual force is present.

    Hormonally, that's a different story.


    Yep (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:28:03 PM EST
    It's the same standard as if an adult female was drunk or high - there is no consent.

    Not the same... (none / 0) (#94)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:10:02 PM EST
    I understand a minor cannot "legally" consent, but a minor can consent.  Consent and legal consent are two different things.  

    A sober minor a week shy of there legal consent birthday is not the same thing as an adult impaired by alcohol or drugs to the point where they can't consent.  


    I think (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 03:20:17 PM EST
    a lot of them come from the mindset that there's really not such a thing as rape.

    Kinda like (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 03:27:24 PM EST
    Clayton Williams and his run for governor of Texas.

    Utter BS, as usual (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 03:53:32 PM EST
    No, the majority of PP's work is abortion-related.

    The numbers are easily found for anyone who wants to find them.  Moreover, the statistics provided by PP aren't "bogus".  They indicate that about 3% of all services provided by PP are abortions.  Of course, given the fact that abortion patients also have other services provided as part of that process, the number of "abortion related" services would be higher ... PP never claimed otherwise.

    OTOH - using the same statistics, only about 1 in 10 of the @ 3 million women who come to PP receive abortions.

    Not even close to "a majority of PP's work".

    Actually, no (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 03:54:22 PM EST
    Rape is defined as "non-consensual sex that is forced, through physical means, threat of injury, or duress".

    Rape is welcomed????

    I deleted Gandy Dancer's comment (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 06:57:47 PM EST
    and I'm reading his others posted today and may delete more.

    I wish you'd let GD's comments stay (none / 0) (#87)
    by ZtoA on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 07:46:38 PM EST
    Its breathtaking that someone would actually think in such an idiotic way. He really will GOTV for democrats.

    "Rape" actually is or has been defined (none / 0) (#88)
    by Peter G on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 08:08:01 PM EST
    in many different ways, in different legal jurisdictions, for different purposes.  When used in ordinary speech, it means what the speaker and listener jointly understand themselves to be talking about.  When used in a legal context (as in an actual or proposed abortion regulation) it has to be defined.  Not too many decades ago, "rape" only included, for example, an act committed by a man against a woman who was not his wife.  It also included all sex, even if fully consensual in fact, with a female below some specified age (except within marriage). This is known as "statutory rape," as contrasted (in law) with "forcible rape." In many jurisdictions, the only "force" that is required -- when the other criteria are met, such as lack of voluntary consent -- is the amount of force necessary to achieve penetration, however slight. You can't just assert a definition without specifying a time and place and purpose as context.  

    Really???? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Zorba on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 03:59:08 PM EST
    You really think this?  That "rape" can be consensual, and even welcomed?  I feel sorry for anyone who has sex with you, if you truly feel this way, Gandydancer.  
    Speaking of "looking silly," you look way more than "silly," you look way beyond the pale.

    Akin wasn't talking about ... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 04:14:15 PM EST
    .... false accusations of rape.  He's indicated that by "legitimate rape" he meant to say "forcible rape", as opposed to other types of rape.

    What types of rape are "consensual, even welcomed"?  Are you talking about statutory rape?  You do realize that statutory rape is nonconsentual, given that minors under a certain age (depends upon the state) are legally incapable of consent ...

    ... don't you?

    You sound (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 05:26:59 PM EST
    to use the vernacular of the streets, very fkd up.

    By definition, rape is the unlawful "compelling of a person through physical force or duress" to have sexual intercourse.

    It is something that is forced upon a person.
    It is done "against their will".

    For you to assert that something can be against a person's will but at the same time be consensual and welcomed is truly demented.

    You and your straw men (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Towanda on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 05:39:45 PM EST
    must share the attribute of badly scraped knuckles.

    Please do tell us more about primates (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Towanda on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 05:42:37 PM EST
    and all that male apes and male humans share.

    Other than the propensity for some of the latter, apparently, to have no understanding of their ignorance.

    The kind of rape doesn't matter... (4.00 / 1) (#1)
    by unitron on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:33:15 PM EST
    ...when the person talking about it doesn't understand anything about biology.

    Which I suppose is one way to avoid having to consider if there might be anything to that Theory of Evolution thing.

    (don't anyone tell them that the basic idea works outside of biology as well, their little heads will explode)

    Could GD be speaking of statutory rape? (1.00 / 2) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 05:11:36 PM EST

    Does it really matter? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Zorba on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 05:33:51 PM EST
    If the female is not of the "age of consent" (admittedly, differing ages depending upon the state), then she cannot legally "give consent."  Do you think that makes GD's comment acceptable?  Really?  What if it's your under-aged daughter?
    And, no, I don't think that Gandydancer was actually speaking about "statutory rape," for that matter.

    It may not matter, but what GD wrote (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 05:47:39 PM EST
    seems to fit "statutory rape" pretty well.
    E.g., actual but not legal consent may occur.
    But, hey, wev, it's no skin off my nose...

    Well, all I can say is (none / 0) (#80)
    by Zorba on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 06:04:13 PM EST
    that you apparently do not have an under-aged daughter, nor are you an under-aged female.
    Apparently, you have no feeling whatsoever for very young women who are taken advantage of, and, in fact, legally raped.  
    And mazel tov to you and your nose.  Sort of.  But not really.

    Apparently, you like to make things up (none / 0) (#89)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 10:31:12 PM EST
    out of whole cloth about other commenters. Knock yourself out.

    Keep in mind BTD (none / 0) (#4)
    by Slado on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:38:15 PM EST
    Your position (I assume) is out of the mainstream as well.


    Most Americans (75%) favor some limit or complete banning of abortion.

    I fall into the some limit category myself but who cares?  

    Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere thanks to the Supreme Court and each state is left to make it's own decision on how far they limit access.

    This is a read meat issue for the progressive base and while it was pretty stupid for that Republican to say anything I doubt it will cost him the election since the only people who really care are people that wouldn't vote for him anyway.

    Some limit (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:41:10 PM EST
    does not mean the point of conception.

    Interestingly, I do not know how you know what my view is on the subject that you can label it out of the mainstream.

    Why not ask me. I'll tell you.


    Point taken (none / 0) (#21)
    by Slado on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:56:30 PM EST
    So what is your position?

    As I read more about Akin I fall into the Romney camp that he should get out.   Even though he might win his election he could throw a monkey wrench into the national election for Romney by moving the topic off of the economy and onto what an idiot he is (Akin that is).

    I'd love to see the whole spot to see what lead him to make such a stupid comment.


    Wouldn't that make Ryan an idiot also (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:58:31 PM EST
    since they graduated from the same school of knuckle-dragging? And Romney for picking him?

    Yes and No (none / 0) (#31)
    by Slado on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 02:07:37 PM EST
    while they hold the same beliefs I doubt very seriously that Ryan would ever make a comment as stupid as the one Akin did.

    Have to be careful projecting stupidity onto a politician that didn't say it.

    If it was that easy Biden would be an even bigger gift to Republicans.


    Heh, give it time ;) (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 02:09:46 PM EST
    I doubt very seriously that Ryan would ever make a comment as stupid as the one Akin did.

    Knuckle-draggers bring high risk re: stupid comments.


    I believe that (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 02:12:07 PM EST
    the state's interest in the fetus arises at viability, after the 28th week of gestation.

    Before that time, no restrictions on a women's right to privacy are constitutional.

    After that time, the state's interest must be narrowly tailored to respect as much as possible women's rights while addressing the state's compelling interest as described by the particular legislature.

    I believe that women should always have an absolute right to protect their health. Thus all restrictions must provide an exception for women's health.

    I do not see a moral or legal distinction regarding pregnancies resulting from rape or incest on this calculus. Putting me outside of the mainstream on that point.


    So pretty close to mine (none / 0) (#43)
    by Slado on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 02:33:54 PM EST
    I believe life starts a little sooner but am not an expert.

    I believe only in the case of women's health should government money be used to pay for abortions and strict outlines should be written but that is up to each state.

    While I'm not a fan of planned parenthood using government money to pay for abortions I also know that the majority of their work, far and away actually is used to help poor women get healthcare.

    As a libertarian I also know that Government is lousy at parsing these types of deatials so I'm not a fan of laws restricting their funding.


    BTW (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:43:59 PM EST
    I could also describe the Gallup findings as supporting some rights to abortion by 75% of respondents.

    The GOP position is no abortion rights under any circumstances.

    So I think you have to admit the GOP position is extreme and radical.


    That is what Republicans must say (none / 0) (#23)
    by Slado on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:58:51 PM EST
    to get elected.

    Just like most democrats have to be the opposite to win their primaries.

    Take my awesome Gov. Daniels.   He is officialy pro-life but never talks about it and in fact makes a point to say that he'd rather discuss non social issues at this time of crisis.

    Most Americans fall in the middle and don't base their vote on abortion matters.


    That's the Definition of a Mainstream Policy (none / 0) (#66)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 04:28:40 PM EST
    A policy you must have to get elected by your party.

    There's quite a distinction... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by magster on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:44:51 PM EST
    ... between those who are uncomfortable with late term abortion, for example, and those who believe life begins at conception or those who believe that conception can only occur if the woman in a "no means yes" way consents or enjoys the rape.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#28)
    by Slado on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 02:06:04 PM EST
    I believe life begins at conception but a baby doesn't become a baby until it starts to develop a brain.   When does this happens?  Sometime after conception and way before birth.  

    As you can see even us Catholics have a hard time figuring this out.


    Cost Akin the election? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:44:52 PM EST
    No, that would be the GOP demanding he drop out of the race.

    I don't know if everyone is having this problem (none / 0) (#14)
    by sj on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:46:58 PM EST
    But for me the post is rendering without line wrap.

    "rendering without line wrap." (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by magster on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:52:19 PM EST
    We speak English in this country, so get on board or get out!

    Well, you could think of it as (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 02:00:53 PM EST
    mirroring Akin, who seems to have no mind wrap...

    [but yes, it's not wrapping for me, either, also in Explorer]


    It's fine in Explorer and Chrome (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:48:44 PM EST
    I closed Explorer and then (none / 0) (#19)
    by sj on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:52:24 PM EST
    re-opened.  Same problem.  It must be just me.

    Nope. (none / 0) (#25)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 02:02:43 PM EST
    I'm having the same problem in Explorer.  

    BTD broke my margins!


    I'm never inclined to address your concerns (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 02:04:02 PM EST
    because of your Big Ten inclinations, but in this case, even if I wanted to, I do not see the problem as I see it fine in Explorer and I have no coding issues.

    Typical EssEeeSee fan. (none / 0) (#60)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 04:03:15 PM EST
    Right up there with Ohio State and Nebraska fans and that's not a good thing.  

    You're probably just jealous that we're the #2 Party school and your beloved Gators come in at #6.  


    is it this post (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 07:00:36 PM EST
    you are having a problem with?

    Yes, just this one (none / 0) (#86)
    by sj on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 07:42:40 PM EST
    But I'm home now on my own laptop and I'm not having a problem.  So either the post was fixed or there was some kind of configuration thing?

    If you would have completely quoted him (none / 0) (#32)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 02:07:38 PM EST
    your question would be answered re:punishment.

    Brainf@rt, eh? Oy.

    That's the quote as I found it. (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Gandydancer on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 02:31:02 PM EST
    He seems to be saying that the punishment is somehow connected to the pregancy, which makes no sense.

    Doesn't mean it isn't better to have him in the Senate than his opponent. It's not as if he's running against anyone whose brain is actually working.


    Now you're being unkind to another female (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Towanda on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 05:43:28 PM EST
    -- not Claire, of course, but her daughter who does the thinking for her.

    I deleted the comment (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 07:07:02 PM EST
    using that word, it's inappropriate.

    Drudge Reporting Akin is out (none / 0) (#34)
    by Slado on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 02:09:45 PM EST

    I think they are trying to force him out (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 02:11:02 PM EST
    Yeah...heavy on the developing

    I think it is inevitable (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 02:13:50 PM EST
    The irony (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 02:20:48 PM EST
    is that Akin is not the only Republican to say this.
    Ezra Klein really did a good piece on this.