Update, August 22, 2012: If you really want to demonize a party for Todd Akin’s comments, maybe you should refuse to vote Democrat:
Democrats funded Akin to help McCaskill
The Washington Examiner
by: Sean Higgins
Monday, August 20, 2012
Call it a wise investment in light of his recent comments: Democrats wanted Missouri Republican congressman Todd Akin to win his state’s hotly contested Senate GOP primary because they believed he gave incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill her best shot at retaining her seat. As the Washington Post reported earlier this month:
There’s a reason why Democrats spent over $1.5 million trying to help Akin win his three-way primary. He was the most conservative candidate in the field — and the most unpredictable one. …
While Democrats are now blasting Akin’s comments on “legitimate rape,” one person is resisting calls for Akin to step aside: Claire McCaskill.
It’s rather funny in a way that the left is trying to now demonize Mitt Romney over the remarks of a candidate that Democrats funded. Especially given the fact that Mitt Romney called for him to leave the race and Claire McCaskill refused to do so. [End update].
Todd Akin isn’t in trouble because he did something unethical or illegal. He’s in trouble because of ONE remark:
Asked in an interview on a St. Louis television station about his views on abortion, Mr. Akin, a six-term member of Congress who is backed by Tea Partyconservatives, made it clear that his opposition to the practice was nearly absolute, even in instances of rape.
“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” Mr. Akin said of pregnancies from rape. “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 of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”
Here’s the thing: had Akin simply said “forcible rape” instead of “legitimate rape,” the remark would have been entirely factually correct. Forcible rape distinguishes from things such as statuatory rape (when two people have consensual sex but one of them is underage) and situations that many feminists push such as a woman having consensual sex and then later deciding said consensual sex was a mistake and ergo sum amounted to a rape.
Pregnancy from forcible rape are incredibly rare. That is simply a documented fact.
Consider the following evidence. Let me first dismiss the liberal/feminist claim that “unreported rapes” somehow throw off the statistics that prove that forcible rapes hardly ever result in pregnancy with this: because the only way such a claim could be remotely true is if “reporting a rape” decreases fertility whereas not reporting a rape increases fertility. Otherwise, whether a victim reports a rape or not, she is obviously no more or less likely to get pregnant than if she doesn’t report a rape or not. So very simply the assertion that reported rapes almost never result in pregnancy but unreported ones somehow often result in pregnancy is complete nonsense.
Now the evidence:
How many forcible rapes result in a pregnancy? The numbers claimed have ranged the entire spectrum of possibilities. Some feminists have claimed as high as 5 to 10 percent, which is absurd. One problem has been the lack of available studies and accurate statistics. Often women do not admit to having been raped. On the other hand, it has been known that women, pregnant from consensual intercourse, have later claimed rape. Is it possible to know the actual facts?
There have been some studies. In the statistical abstract of the US in 1989, there were 90,000 rapes reported in the United States. (Bureau of Census Table #283)
Another study was from the U.S. Justice Department, which surveyed 49,000 households annually between the years 1973-1987. In 1973, it reported 95,934 completed rapes. In 1987, the figure was 82,505. The study stated that only 53% were reported to police. Factoring this in, the totals were 181,000 rapes in 1973 and 155,000 in 1987. In August 1995, the US Justice Department, using a different study with different questions, returned a result of 170,000 completed rapes plus 140,000 attempted rapes.
There are approximately 100,000,000 females old enough to be at risk for rape in the United States. If we calculate on the basis of 100,000 rapes, that means that one woman in 1,000 is raped each year. If we calculate on the basis of 200,000 rapes, that means that one woman in 500 is raped each year.
Now for the important question. How many rape pregnancies are there? The answer is that, according to statistical reporting, there are no more than one or two pregnancies resultant from every 1,000 forcible rapes.
But, does it make sense? Let’s look, using the figure of 200,000 rapes each year.
- Of the 200,000 women who were forcibly raped, one-third were either too old or too young to get pregnant. That leaves 133,000 at risk for pregnancy.
- A woman is capable of being fertilized only 3 days (perhaps 5) out of a 30-day month. Multiply our figure of 133,000 by three tenths. Three days out of 30 is one out of ten, divide 133 by ten and we have 13,300 women remaining. If we use five days out of 30 it is one out of six. Divide one hundred and thirty three thousand by six and we have 22,166 remaining.
- One-fourth of all women in the United States of childbearing age have been sterilized, so the remaining three-fourths come out to 10,000 (or 15,000).
- Only half of assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm in her vagina,1 so let’s cut the remaining figures in half. This gives us numbers of 5,000 (or 7,500).
- Fifteen percent of men are sterile, that drops that figure to 4,250 (or 6,375).
- Fifteen percent of non-surgically sterilized women are naturally sterile. That reduces the number to 3,600 (or 5,400).
- Another fifteen percent are on the pill and/or already pregnant. That reduces the number to 3,070 (or 4,600).
- Now factor in the fact that it takes 5-10 months for the average couple to achieve a pregnancy. Use the smaller figure of 5 months to be conservative and divide the avove figures by 5. The number drops to 600 (or 920).
- In an average population, the miscarriage rate is about 15 percent. In this case we have incredible emotional trauma. Her body is upset. Even if she conceives, the miscarriage rate will be higher than in a more normal pregnancy. If 20 percent of raped women miscarry, the figure drops to 450 (or 740).
Finally, factor in what is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that’s physical trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get and stay pregnant a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy. So what further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one knows, but this factor certainly cuts this last figure by at least 50 percent and probably more. If we use the 50 percent figure, we have a final figure of 225 (or 370) women pregnant each year. These numbers closely match the 200 that have been documented in clinical studies.
So assault rape pregnancy is extremely rare. If we use the figure of 200, it is 4 per state per year. Even if we use a figure of 500, we’re talking about only ten per state, per year. In the United States in one year, there are more than 6 million pregnancies. Roughly 3 million eventuate in live birth, 1.5 million are aborted and 500,000 miscarry. And so while each assault rape pregnancy is a tragedy for the mother (not for the baby, though), we can with confidence say that such pregnancies amount to a minuscule fraction of the total annual pregnancies in the United States. Further, less than half of assault rape pregnancies are aborted, even though that course of action tends to be vigorously pushed by those around the woman. 2,3
One final thought, Sandra Mahkorn, in two excellent studies, has asked such women what was their chief complaint? One might fully assume it was the fact that she was pregnant, but that is incorrect. Her chief complaint was how other people treated her. Such treatment ranged from negative, to simply getting little support from those around her. Even in a culture that offers little support and aggressively pushes abortion as a solution, fewer that half of such babies are killed by abortion. Think of how many fewer yet there would be if each pregnant victim of a rape were given the support, aid and tender loving care that she and her baby deserve.
Our goal is to offer truly compassionate care to the woman. That is what is best for both mother and child.
1 New England Journal of Medicine, A.N. Groth, Sexual DyFORBESSunction [sic] During Rape, Oct. 6, 1977, p.764-6
2 Mahkorn & Dolan, “Sexual Assault & Pregnancy.” In New Perspectives on Human Abortion, University Publisher of Amer., 1981, pp.182-199
3 Mahkorn, “Pregnancy & Sexual Assault.” In Psychological Aspects of Abortion, University Publishers of Amer., 1979, pp. 53-72
By J. C. Willke, MD,
reprinted with permission from 4/99 Life Issues Connector
Four pregnancies caused by forcible rape per state per year. One in one thousand forcible rapes result in pregnancy. That pretty much proves what Todd Akin is saying if you simply remove the poorly chosen term “legitimate rape.”
Note that this conclusive evidence doesn’t attempt to claim that “women who don’t enjoy the rape can’t get pregnant” or any of the other crazy claims that the left is now saying that Akin somehow implied even though he never said anything of the sort. But for the reasons listed above and possibly certain other reasons, it is nevertheless a simple scientific, biological, statistically documented FACT that forcible rape rarely results in pregnancy.
Akin was trying to get at something important: what liberals invariably attempt to do is take an EXTREME situation that occurs once in a blue moon and then enact legislation that affects the entire population. To wit, what liberals have implicitly done is created a legal assumption that EVERY pregnancy of EVERY woman should be treated identically to a pregnancy caused by forcible rape, such that a “victim” of pregnancy ought to be able to abort her baby just as any victim of forcible rape ought to be allowed to do.
Roe v. Wade was enacted on a complete fabrication: the woman identified in the case as Roe (Norma McCorvey) was claimed to have been gang-raped and therefore ought to be able to get an abortion. But in fact she had NOT been raped at all. And so not only “forcible rape” but in fact GANG rape was the legal basis upon which all women suddenly became victims of pregnancy and had the right to kill their own children.
That actual woman, Norma McCorvey, is now a Christian crusading for the right to life and the end to the mass abortions that her case inflicted on society. She has asked the courts to reverse that decision the way one ought to reverse a guilty verdict of a person who has been proven to be innocent. But the liberals got what they wanted out of her – a fabricated case that allowed them to advance their agenda – and they’re done with her.
Even überliberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has stated that Roe v. Wade was based on terrible legal reasoning. But so what? Liberals lied and fabricated and abrogated the Constitution to get what they wanted. Screw the evidence and screw the truth. And most certainly screw the Constitution, which has been reduced to “penumbras and emanations” rather than anything that actually says or stands for anything meaningful.
The entire underlying case behind Roe v. Wade was that every single woman ought to be treated as if she had been gang raped if she gets pregnant. And since all pregnancies are the result of said implicit assumed gang rape, she should not have to carry that child against her will. All that was part of the background for what Todd Akin was – excuse me, but – LEGITIMATELY saying.
I am a staunch pro-life proponent. And my reasoning is clear: the child who is in the womb is an innocent human being. Therefore whether that pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, the child is still human. But that said, I would never push for legislation that would force a victim of forcible rape or incest to have a child against her will.
Why not? For two reasons: one is practical: BECAUSE so few pregnancies occur from such situations, I would rather see the rest of the millions of pregnancies viewed separately and distinctly from “forcible rape” or “gang rape” the way the liberals imposed on Roe v. Wade. To demand that women be forced to bear their rapists’ babies is simply something that will never be legislated by any politically elected body. Let us protect the 99.999 percent of babies as our first goal. And the second reason is simply that the fathers are such reprehensible human beings.
I am now digressing, but let me repeat a point I have made numerous times before: that abortion has destroyed fatherhood in America. And the higher the abortion rate in a population (e.g., the black abortion rate is stratospherically higher than any other population) the greater the fatherlessness in that population. And the reason this is true is self-evident:
When a man and woman have intercourse, can a child be conceived? Absolutely NOT, say liberals as a matter of rigid doctrine. No “baby” or “child” was conceived; the “fetus” is merely an inanimate lump of goop possessing no humanity, no personhood, no rights of any kind. It is a thing. It is NOT a baby. No “father” “fathered” ANYTHING.
And with that “reasoning,” no “father” should have any rights whatsoever over what happens to his “child” because he didn’t “father” any “child” did he???
Therefore, the “father” is merely a basically uninvolved contributor of some material that facilitated a lump of goop.
Therefore, no “father” ought to have any rights over what is clearly not a child or a baby or a human being no matter how much he might think otherwise. If the “mother” decides she doesn’t want to be a “mother” after all, that man is compelled by the force of law to stand by and do nothing while his BABY is murdered.
And thus fatherhood was murdered. And the doctrine of “wham, bam, thank you ma’am” was solidified into our culture.
Every father ought to have the duty to support and care for his child. Every mother ought to have the duty to birth her child and nourish that child. Abortion has turned both of these truths into lies.
Getting back to the political discussion, it is pathetic that Joe Biden can incite racial hatred –
– he said to an audience of mostly black people.
There is a crystal clear meaning that is utterly hateful: Republicans, the Party of Abraham Lincoln, the Party that fought a war to end slavery against the Democrats, will literally put black people back into slavery if Mitt Romney is elected president.
But that was just Joe being Joe, Democrats said. What he really meant to say was something different. How dare you try to hold him to what he actually said, they say.
And then poor Todd Akin blunders into a stupid choice of words and of course there is no possible way in hell that the mainstream media will treat that Republican with the same kid gloves they just treated Joe Biden with. No, it is the political buzz saw for him for no other reason than that he is a Republican.
And that massive hypocrite double-standard is simply the reality: Democrats are dishonest hypocrites as a matter of fact. We will never get fair treatment from them or from any industry such as the mainstream media that they dominate. Period.
To try to slander Akin by arguing that he was somehow stating that all forcible rape victims ought to be blamed for not “shutting that whole thing down” (i.e., a pregnancy) is simply idiotic. But that is what is being shrilly argued by the left.
Therefore, as a practical matter, I believe Todd Akin ought to leave the Senate race. What he said amounted to such poorly-chosen words that he will be haunted by those words throughout the campaign. The way he phrased what he was trying to say was simply politically inexcusable. And further, the Republican Party cannot support him or they will be branded with the same hot iron. Which means that there is simply no way Todd Akin can win – and therefore frankly if the man cares about his country or even about abortion, he ought to step aside and allow a better candidate to have a chance to win a very winnable election for the pro-life Republican Party.
If Todd Akin stays in the race (he has a short time remaining to bow out) I hope he wins, and I would cast my vote for him if I lived in Missouri. But I hope he does the best thing for the GOP and drops out of the race.