What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

Well, someone besides my crabby old man is watching it!
Unfortunately. It's pretty useless to me. Too biased and not a lot of content. Which is the same thing I'd say about certain heavily liberal-tilted media outlets.
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

This sums up the issue well. One wonders how some conservatives can live with themselves...

Todd Akin’s Rape Comment Was Bad, but His Abortion Views Are Much Worse

Aug 20, 2012 12:02 PM EDT The Missouri Senate candidate got in trouble for an outrageous claim about rape and pregnancy, but his extreme views on abortion are in line with those of many GOP legislators, including Paul Ryan, writes Michelle Goldberg.

According to a 1996 study in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 5 percent of rape victims of reproductive age will become pregnant, leading to a little more than 32,000 pregnancies in the United States each year. We have no way of knowing how many of these rapes would be considered by Rep. Todd Akin to be “legitimate.” We do know that the Missouri Senate candidate, like many high-profile Republicans, believes that in every case, the government should force the rape victims to carry their pregnancies to term.
Akin is currently in a lot of trouble for telling a local TV station on Sunday that women possess magical mechanisms for preventing conception when they’ve been attacked. “If it’s a legitimate rape,” he said, in words that have now echoed around the political world, “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” The implication, of course, is that women who do get pregnant probably haven’t been really raped–it’s a barely updated version of the medieval conviction that women had to orgasm in order to conceive.
By Sunday afternoon, Akin had walked his comments back, saying, “"In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it's clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year.” Even if we take him at his word that he did not mean to impugn pregnant rape victims, his outburst tells us a lot about the modern Republican party’s attitude toward women, and the difficulty conservative politicians have when forced to explain their absolutist anti-abortion politics to the general public.
After all, Akin’s willingness to voice ludicrous fantasies about female reproductive biology may be striking, but his policy position—that abortion should be banned even in cases of rape and incest—is quite common in today’s GOP. Indeed, it’s the position held by Paul Ryan, though the Mitt Romney campaign said on Sunday that a “Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.” Many of the speakers at next week’s Republican National Convention want to ban abortions for rape victims, including Rick Santorum, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, and Mike Huckabee. This spring, the Republican House blocked a bill that would allow female soldiers who’d been raped to use their insurance to pay for abortions. (Rape in the military isn’t an insignificant problem—according to the Defense Department, 875 rapes were reported in 2010, and the DOD estimates that 86 percent of sexual assaults went unreported.)

Akin didn’t pull his crazy idea about women’s inborn ability to fend off rape pregnancies out of thin air.
So while banning abortion for rape victims used to be an outré position among Republicans, now it’s become almost normative. Politicians who hold such views, however, haven’t come up with a good way to talk about them. Indeed, it’s not clear that they’re willing to grapple with the consequences of their beliefs themselves. The fiction that real victims don’t get pregnant—a notion whose absurdity should be obvious to anyone who has ever read about Serbian rape camps or the epidemic of sexual violence in Congo—allows them to elide the entire issue. Otherwise, they would have to say forthrightly that they believe that the state should subject women who’ve been raped to forced pregnancy.
Akin didn’t pull his crazy idea about women’s inborn ability to fend off rape pregnancies out of thin air. As Garance Franke-Ruta writes in The Atlantic, it’s a common anti-abortion canard, and one that Republicans have spouted before. If you Google “number of pregnancies annually resulting from rape,” one of the first results to come up is a 1999 article by John C. Willke, former president of the National Right to Life Committee, headlined, “Assault Rape Pregnancies Are Rare.” First, Willke argues that rape statistics are uncertain, because while some women don’t report rapes, others “pregnant from consensual intercourse, have later claimed rape.” Secondly, he continues, when women are actually raped, the trauma upsets their endocrine system in a way that prevents pregnancy. “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.”
Buzzfeed’s Anna North has found several examples of Republicans making this claim over the last few decades. In 1988, Pennsylvania state Rep. Stephen Friend, a leading anti-abortion legislator, got in trouble for claiming that the trauma of rape causes women to "secrete a certain secretion" that kills sperm. In 1995, North Carolina state Rep. Henry Aldridge told the House Appropriations Committee, “The facts show that people who are raped—who are truly raped—the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work, and they don't get pregnant. Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever.”
It’s in this context that one should understand efforts like the 2011 No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, which both Akin and Ryan cosponsored. Right now, there’s an exception to the ban on federal funding for abortion in case of rape, but that bill would have changed it to “forcible rape.” That’s language commonly used by those who deny that pregnancy results from “legitimate” rape. As Willke wrote, “When pro-lifers speak of rape pregnancies, we should commonly use the phrase ‘forcible rape’ or ‘assault rape,’ for that specifies what we're talking about.”
What’s outrageous about Akin’s words, then, isn’t so much his fantastical ideas about reproductive biology. It’s the laws he wants to enact. And when it comes to his policy positions, in today’s Republican Party, Akin isn’t considered outrageous at all.
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

That's fair. It was the equivalent of the frenzy Republican candidates create when they talk about Obama's religious "persecution" to fundamentalist crowds. You would agree with that, right?

What Biden said was indefensible derp. What the various Republicans say when they talk about the "secular humanist agenda" or the "gay agenda" or the "evolutionist agenda" is indefensible derp. Hopefully after the elections both sides will stop yammering and start compromising.

An amazing amount of "derp" out there. Not surprisingly, the vast amount coming from the right. At least in the "unbiased" "balanced" view of Kepstain. His analysis leaves out any mention of Debbie Wasserman Test. An unintentional oversight, I'm sure.
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

Nice try (Rover) to smear an entire movement because of what one guy said. Thinking people see through such ploys.
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

This sums up the issue well. One wonders how some conservatives can live with themselves...

Todd Akin’s Rape Comment Was Bad, but His Abortion Views Are Much Worse

Aug 20, 2012 12:02 PM EDT The Missouri Senate candidate got in trouble for an outrageous claim about rape and pregnancy, but his extreme views on abortion are in line with those of many GOP legislators, including Paul Ryan, writes Michelle Goldberg.

According to a 1996 study in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 5 percent of rape victims of reproductive age will become pregnant, leading to a little more than 32,000 pregnancies in the United States each year. We have no way of knowing how many of these rapes would be considered by Rep. Todd Akin to be “legitimate.” We do know that the Missouri Senate candidate, like many high-profile Republicans, believes that in every case, the government should force the rape victims to carry their pregnancies to term.
Akin is currently in a lot of trouble for telling a local TV station on Sunday that women possess magical mechanisms for preventing conception when they’ve been attacked. “If it’s a legitimate rape,” he said, in words that have now echoed around the political world, “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” The implication, of course, is that women who do get pregnant probably haven’t been really raped–it’s a barely updated version of the medieval conviction that women had to orgasm in order to conceive.
By Sunday afternoon, Akin had walked his comments back, saying, “"In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it's clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year.” Even if we take him at his word that he did not mean to impugn pregnant rape victims, his outburst tells us a lot about the modern Republican party’s attitude toward women, and the difficulty conservative politicians have when forced to explain their absolutist anti-abortion politics to the general public.
After all, Akin’s willingness to voice ludicrous fantasies about female reproductive biology may be striking, but his policy position—that abortion should be banned even in cases of rape and incest—is quite common in today’s GOP. Indeed, it’s the position held by Paul Ryan, though the Mitt Romney campaign said on Sunday that a “Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.” Many of the speakers at next week’s Republican National Convention want to ban abortions for rape victims, including Rick Santorum, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, and Mike Huckabee. This spring, the Republican House blocked a bill that would allow female soldiers who’d been raped to use their insurance to pay for abortions. (Rape in the military isn’t an insignificant problem—according to the Defense Department, 875 rapes were reported in 2010, and the DOD estimates that 86 percent of sexual assaults went unreported.)

Akin didn’t pull his crazy idea about women’s inborn ability to fend off rape pregnancies out of thin air.
So while banning abortion for rape victims used to be an outré position among Republicans, now it’s become almost normative. Politicians who hold such views, however, haven’t come up with a good way to talk about them. Indeed, it’s not clear that they’re willing to grapple with the consequences of their beliefs themselves. The fiction that real victims don’t get pregnant—a notion whose absurdity should be obvious to anyone who has ever read about Serbian rape camps or the epidemic of sexual violence in Congo—allows them to elide the entire issue. Otherwise, they would have to say forthrightly that they believe that the state should subject women who’ve been raped to forced pregnancy.
Akin didn’t pull his crazy idea about women’s inborn ability to fend off rape pregnancies out of thin air. As Garance Franke-Ruta writes in The Atlantic, it’s a common anti-abortion canard, and one that Republicans have spouted before. If you Google “number of pregnancies annually resulting from rape,” one of the first results to come up is a 1999 article by John C. Willke, former president of the National Right to Life Committee, headlined, “Assault Rape Pregnancies Are Rare.” First, Willke argues that rape statistics are uncertain, because while some women don’t report rapes, others “pregnant from consensual intercourse, have later claimed rape.” Secondly, he continues, when women are actually raped, the trauma upsets their endocrine system in a way that prevents pregnancy. “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.”
Buzzfeed’s Anna North has found several examples of Republicans making this claim over the last few decades. In 1988, Pennsylvania state Rep. Stephen Friend, a leading anti-abortion legislator, got in trouble for claiming that the trauma of rape causes women to "secrete a certain secretion" that kills sperm. In 1995, North Carolina state Rep. Henry Aldridge told the House Appropriations Committee, “The facts show that people who are raped—who are truly raped—the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work, and they don't get pregnant. Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever.”
It’s in this context that one should understand efforts like the 2011 No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, which both Akin and Ryan cosponsored. Right now, there’s an exception to the ban on federal funding for abortion in case of rape, but that bill would have changed it to “forcible rape.” That’s language commonly used by those who deny that pregnancy results from “legitimate” rape. As Willke wrote, “When pro-lifers speak of rape pregnancies, we should commonly use the phrase ‘forcible rape’ or ‘assault rape,’ for that specifies what we're talking about.”
What’s outrageous about Akin’s words, then, isn’t so much his fantastical ideas about reproductive biology. It’s the laws he wants to enact. And when it comes to his policy positions, in today’s Republican Party, Akin isn’t considered outrageous at all.

My only critque of this hysterical piece is that you and Ms Goldberg left out the obligatory references to "back alleys" and "coat hangers." Please make sure any future excretions contain them. Okay?
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

Am I the only one to question this "story" when it appeared over the weekend? I asked myself: since when is skinny dipping a federal crime? Skinny dipping in a foreign country, no less. Politico up to its usual standards and tricks. If skinny dipping is a crime, we'd better build some new prisons to house the hundreds of thousands of high school and college kids who will soon be convicts. Think of all the arrests on spring break.

Another valuable lesson on the dangers of credulousness.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...g-drinking-in-israel-20120820,0,2223779.story
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

Perhaps we should expect more out of a sitting congressman representing the US overseas than we would out of high school or college kids, no?

Or, it is okay because the guy's a Republican. After all, prostitute soliciting Senator David Vitter still seems to be a member of the Senate.
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

Stand on what?

He clearly didn't misspeak, I think that's clearly been established here. And your comments on the Vice President indicate that you believe him to be a racist.

Let's get the libstain position stated clearly here: Anyone who disagrees with anything coming out of this administration (including anything said by that mental capon, the Vice President) is a racist. Next.
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

Perhaps we should expect more out of a sitting congressman representing the US overseas than we would out of high school or college kids, no?

Or, it is okay because the guy's a Republican. After all, prostitute soliciting Senator David Vitter still seems to be a member of the Senate.

Amazingly dim. And more than just a little stupid. Just for the novelty, next time why not try responding to what I actually said?
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

Amazingly dim. And more than just a little stupid. Just for the novelty, next time why not try responding to what I actually said?

You wrote:

If skinny dipping is a crime, we'd better build some new prisons to house the hundreds of thousands of high school and college kids who will soon be convicts. Think of all the arrests on spring break.

Seems like I did answer what you said. Look Old Pio, if you're too old to know what day it is, perhaps you should take yourself out of the voter pool before you cause any more damage. Its sad to see someone lose it while still in a position of influence as we saw with President Reagan's unfortunate decline while in office.
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

Nice try (Rover) to smear an entire movement because of what one guy said. Thinking people see through such ploys.

How are Akin and Ryan different Bob? Seems they're advocating the same thing, only Akin is being more clear about his reasoning behind the law he and Ryan co-sponsored.
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

You wrote:



Seems like I did answer what you said. Look Old Pio, if you're too old to know what day it is, perhaps you should take yourself out of the voter pool before you cause any more damage. Its sad to see someone lose it while still in a position of influence as we saw with President Reagan's unfortunate decline while in office.

*sigh* If anyone around here is suffering from mental insufficiency, it's you. And I realize you think it's a terrible oversight that the people of Louisiana get to select who represents them in the Senate, and not you. But Vitter's indiscretions are not only not relevant here, they are considerably worse than one guy getting a snootful and skinny dipping.

The point I was making, and will make again, hoping the second time around it may stick is: there was no "FBI investigation" of this non-crime. That's it. Try to focus, okay?
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

How are Akin and Ryan different Bob? Seems they're advocating the same thing, only Akin is being more clear about his reasoning behind the law he and Ryan co-sponsored.

Maybe this distraction will work. Gotta nationalize it, though.
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

How are Akin and Ryan different Bob? Seems they're advocating the same thing, only Akin is being more clear about his reasoning behind the law he and Ryan co-sponsored.

I'd like to know what the difference is cause I sure can't find any.
 
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial

I'd like to know what the difference is cause I sure can't find any.

Funny thing is, if its such a local thing, why have two GOP Senators asked the dude to resign and Mittens is running away from the guy faster than he can place money in an offshore tax shelter? Its cute how naive Bob is, but I'm guessing Repubicans are going to be answering for this one from now until election day. In fairness, and echoing a question asked to Dukakis in a debate long ago, I can see a VP debate playing out like this...

Congressman Ryan, you sponsored legislation that would make it a crime to abort a pregnancy as a result of rape. Say your wife is raped and beaten by an escaped criminal, and becomes pregnant as a result. Is it your position that she should be forced by the government to have her attacker's child?"

I mean, if you can ask questions like that of the hapless Duke, surely you can ask that of Ryan too, right? To not do so smacks of cowardice or bias.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top