Team Rape returns

Sometimes when it is cold and dark, and I’m nostalgic for the crazy things the GOP says about rape, I think back to those many months ago. Then Paul Ryan does something that brings it all back.

Jezebel’s Laura Beck wrote about the HuffPo piece on Ryan’s Sanctity of Human Life Act Part Dos. We all remember the first time this came up and died in Congress in 2011. It said life started at fertilization and would allow states to ban abortions even in the case of rape, incest, life of the mother, anything but the hand of god.

But it is back and with more crazy. I know, you’re thinking “Kari, how can it be worse?” Well, son, let me tell you. What really sets this bill apart from its predecessor is the clause stating that if a woman is raped in a state that prohibits abortion, and she seeks an abortion in a different state that allows it, the woman can be sued by her rapist. Yes, read that again. So the rapist could sue her to prevent the abortion from happening and probably win. What do we expect in a county where 31 states have paternal rights for rapists? This bill could also make many forms of IVF illegal. Bring on the cray cray.

Breathe easy, this thing will probably die, and hopefully, so will Ryan’s career, and any other jackass who co-signs this monstrosity. These fools will have to realize that the majority of voters don’t want politicians making women’s health decisions for them.

Another fun piece of crazy from last week, Representative Phil Gingrey of Georgia mansplained how the GOP went wrong, but not because their views on women are ridiculous and scary wrong, but because they didn’t say it the right way. Prepare yourself.

“Part of the reason the Dems still control the Senate is because of comments made in Missouri by Todd Akin and Indiana by [Richard Mourdock] were considered a little bit over the top.” Oh, really? Do go on.

“Mourdock basically said ‘Look, if there is conception in the aftermath of rape, that’s still a child, and it’s a child of God, essentially.’ Not, in Indiana, that cost him the election.” Did this guy call God a rapist? As an atheist this doesn’t bother me at all.

“And in Missouri, Todd Akin was asked by a local news source about rape and he said, ‘Look, in a legitimate rape situation’—and what he meant by legitimate rape was just look, someone can say I was raped: a scared-to-death 15-year-old that becomes impregnated by her boyfriend and when has to tell her parents, that’s pretty tough and might on some occasion say, ‘Hey, I was raped.’ That’s what he meant when he said legitimate rape versus non-legitimate rape. I don’t find anything so horrible about that.” One day someone is going to use the phrase legitimate rape, and I’m going to be close enough to punch them in the face.

“But then he went on and said that in a situation of rape, of a legitimate rape, a woman’ body has a way of shutting down so the pregnancy would not occur. He’s partly right on that.” Gingrey is an OB-GYN since 1975 and is the only one I’ve ever heard of who agreed with that statement.

“And I’ve delivered lots of babies, and I know about these things. It is true. We tell infertile couples all the time that are having trouble conceiving because of the woman not ovulating, ‘Just relax. Drink a glass of wine. And don’t be so tense and uptight because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate.’ So he was partially right wasn’t he? But the fact that a woman may have already ovulated 12 hours before she is raped, you’re not going to prevent a pregnancy there by a woman’s body shutting anything down because the horse has already left the barn, so to speak. And yet the media took that and tore it apart.”

Please, some in Georgia strip this man of his license to practice medicine. I still think it is too soon, but we may have to thank “Team Rape” for the 2016 presidential election.

More women's health news from Indiana

More news from Indiana, but this time it is good.

RH Reality Check’s Senior Legal Analyst JessicaMason Pieklo wrote a brief article on the ruling that Indiana can’t eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood. 

“The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the core portion of a preliminary injunction and ruled that Indiana cannot cut off funding for Planned Parenthood or any qualified health care provider because the organization provides abortion.” Snap. 

The law, HEA 120 bans abortion providers from receiving Medicaid funds for any medical services. This was the first of many attempts to de-fund Planned Parenthood. So Indiana like so many other states has decided that women’s health is fair game in politics. 

This is victory comes the day after Mourdock’s statements. Friday a federal judge granted an injunction blocking a similar law in Arizona to de-fund the Planned Parenthood. In August, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Texas’ funding ban (which is going to be disastrous results for women particularly poor women). However, the seventh Circuit and the Fifth Circuit split on the legality of these laws, specifically the constitutionality of these “indirect funding” bans, which could result in the Supreme Court settling the matter.

Pregnancy from rape as God’s will?

I don’t know if Republicans are at the bottom of the barrel and just can’t find any candidates that aren’t idiots or if they actually believe the stupid things these representatives say. Richard Mourdock, the Indiana Republican Senate candidate and more importantly friend to women, is being ridiculed for his comments suggesting pregnancies which result from rape is God’s will.

Mourdock was asked about his position on abortion, and he responded by saying the only time abortion is ok is when it saves the life of the mother, “I know there are some who disagree, and I respect their point of view, but I believe that life beings at conception. The only exception I have to have an abortion is in the case of the life of the mother.” He added, “I struggle with it myself for a long time but I came to realize: Life is that gift from God that I think even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is it something that God intended to happen.”

The Indiana Democratic Party and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in Washington jumped on the comments as we did with Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin. Dan Parker, chairman of the Indiana Democratic Party said, “As a pro-life Catholic, I’m stunned and ashamed that Richard Mourdock believes God intended rape.”

Mourdock’s camp immediately put out a statement to clarify his original statement and reject the Democratic outcry. The statement reads, “God creates life, and that was my point. God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that He does. Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is absurd and sick.”

Mittens has distanced himself from Mourdock after all this, but he had just cut an ad with him last week, so sucks for you. Mitten’s spokeswoman Andrea Saul said, “Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock’s comments, and they do not reflect his views.”

The debate consisted of Mourdock, Democratic opponent Rep. Joe Donnelly, and Libertarian Andrew Hornnig. Mourdock and Donnelly are closer than they should be given Mourdock’s idiocy.

I originally read about this on Politico.

Oh, where to begin? Well, first let’s suspend belief and assume there is a God, a male god, who has a will. We’re making the same assumptions as Mourdock. Pregnancy as the result of rape is God’s will because otherwise God would have stopped the implanting of the fertilized egg. I think this is what Mourdock is going for. However, by Mourdock’s clarification fertilization is where God’s will starts. God had no will to whether the woman was raped in the first place. There seems to be a flaw in that logic, but we’re talking ‘God’s will” so I’m sure this will get crazier before it gets better. However, couldn’t the same be said for birth control and abortion? God had a plan for both to be developed, and thus ending a pregnancy resulting from rape would be God’s plan too. Essentially, devolving into a ‘I know what my fictitious God wants better than you do’ being discussed by a whole bunch of dudes.

Or we could use our reason and assume women are people and not just breeders and incubators. That pregnancy resulting from rape and incest like all pregnancy should be about what the woman pregnant wants and is best for her and her family. Moreover, women shouldn’t be forced to (and some could argue as a form of punishment) carry their rapists’ children.

I don’t understand why we are having these conversations. I’m at a complete loss except that there is no alternative for men. Yes, men can be raped and that is awful too, but outside of STIs, men can’t be forced to carry the visible burden that women are and then forced to be responsible for said burden. Well, I’ve struggled for a long time too, dealing with idiots that seem to be out breeding us, maybe views like Mourdock and Akin’s have something to do with that. Let's all agree Republicans should stop talking about issues that involve women.