Is rape really a culture war issue? Yes.

When Missouri Rep. Todd Akin hoisted himself on the petard of his theories about the biology and social context of rape this week, he raised some big questions.

The biggest?  Where do these theories come from?

Let’s revisit first what Rep. Akins — who is currently in the fight for a US Senate seat — had to say.

First, he raised a question about the validity of rape claims, suggesting that “if it’s a legitimate rape” the female body has certain natural defenses that will protect a woman from pregnancy.

The logic is pretty straight forward:  If a woman gets pregnant, then in at least some cases she must have been engaged in an act that doesn’t qualify as “legitimate” rape.

He then lays out a theory that the female anatomy does, in fact, possess some mechanism that “will shut that whole thing down” and prevent conception in most cases of violent rape.

Akin acknowledges that there are some cases where the defense mechanism “didn’t work or something” and where a woman will become pregnant as the result of sexual violence.

Here’s what he says about that eventuality:  “I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist, not on the child.”

On MSNBC’s Morning Joe program, Joe Scarborough asked a good question about Akins’ statements:  “Who thinks that way?  What doctors?”

Unfortunately, the media quickly pivoted away from this line of inquiry, settling instead on the idea that Akins had committed another gaffe or bumble.  In a photo spread, Politico equated Akins with other “clumsy” politicians and campaigners.

But the simple fact is that rape is one of the most anguishing and troubling pivot points in our national culture war.

A growing number of conservatives see the concept of rape as a feminist manipulation, a legal standard which has been expanded well beyond its “legitimate” meaning.

This isn’t fringe stuff.

Last year, House Republicans pushed a measure that would have limited federal funding for abortions only to women who have experienced “forcible” rape, suggesting that another kind of rape might be possible.  The term was eventually dropped from the bill.

Conservatives have also questioned whether the concept of “marital” rape might weaken the institution of marriage.  In 2003, one of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees was held up because of writings about rape and criminal justice:

[Jude James Leon] Holmes argued in a 1997 article co-written with his wife for a Catholic publication that “the wife is to subordinate herself to her husband.” In another article, he incorrectly claimed that “concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.”

In the 1990s, a state lawmaker in North Carolina argued before a state House Appropriations Committee that women don’t get pregnant when raped, because “the juices don’t flow, the body functions don’t work.”  This from the AP:

Republican Representative Henry Aldridge made the remarks to the House Appropriations Committee as it debated a proposal to eliminate a state abortion fund for poor women.

“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,” said Aldridge, a 71-year-old periodontist. “Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever.”

A similar view was offered in the late 1980s by then state Rep. Stephen Freind from Pennsylvania, often described as a leading opponent of abortion in that state.  This from the Philadelphia Daily News.
The reason [victims of rape don’t become pregnant] Freind said, is that the traumatic experience of rape causes a woman to “secrete a certain secretion” that tends to kill sperm.
If 1988 seems like ancient history, wind the clock forward to this year when state Senator Chuck Winder in Idaho suggested that rape might be an excuseused by women hoping to avoid restrictions on abortions.

“Rape and incest was used as a reason to oppose this,” Winder said on the Senate floor. “I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape. I assume that’s part of the counseling that goes on.”

This concept, that rape might be a red herring, used inappropriately by wives, was shared by Rep. Akin himself, who voted reluctantly for a marital rape bill in Missouri after fretting that the law might be used “in a real messy divorce as a tool and a legal weapon to beat up on the husband.”

Some parts of the conservative argument about rape can, of course, be dismissed out of hand.

Rape does often lead to pregnancy and there is no scientific merit to the claim that the female reproductive system possesses some sort of defense mechanism that stops pregnancy in certain instances.

(The CDC reports that some 32,000 pregnancies a year occur because of rape.)

It is also a demonstrable fact that many sexual assaults and rapes occur within relationships and marriage.

But it’s important for journalists to tell this story accurately and in context.

What Rep. Akin said fits into a broad concern within the conservative movement that the concept of rape has been misapplied as part of an effort to weaken the institution of marriage and as a strategy to maintain legal abortions.

A lot of conservatives also still point nervously back to the 1960s and 1970s when feminist theorists were, in fact, pushing to broaden the definitions of rape, sexual assault and date rape.

This political and intellectual framework matters.

Fortunately, one of the most important underlying principles of Akins’ statement is beginning to draw scrutiny, namely the concept that abortion should be illegal even in cases where rape caused the pregnancy.

CNN is reporting that this “value” has moved to the mainstream of the Republican movement.  Indeed, the GOP’s platform for next week’s convention includes language banning abortion in all cases, with no exception for incest, rape or the health of the woman.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Lawmaker-Says-Rape-Can-t-Cause-Pregnancy-3036411.php#ixzz1plYb6Vjh

Tags: , , , , , ,

89 Comments on “Is rape really a culture war issue? Yes.”

Leave a Comment
  1. Really this front of the far right’s culture war is much broader than “mere” rape. It’s about CONTROL, the control of anyone who isn’t a heterosexual male married to a woman. If you’re a woman, they want to control you. If you’re a gay man, they want to control you. If you’re a man having sex outside marriage, they want to control you. Puritanism never left this country.

  2. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    So here is what happened: Akins said out loud what a group of people on the Right have been talking about for some time within their own group. Within that group it isn’t thought to be crazy talk but it took everyone else by surprise to find out that there are people who not only believe this sort of idiocy but that these despicable people were willing to try to manipulate issues of rape in order to gain political leverage.

    Then the guy says he misspoke, as if it was just a simple mistake of using the wrong word when it was really a whole paragraph that was mind-bogglingly wrong.

    So now we are starting to find out the ugly depths that these people who are sanctimonious moralists will plumb and the Republicans want to run away from this guy as fast as they can – but they can’t because he is part of the lock-step machine that the GOP has been.

    And the Democrats want to keep talking about it because the more we find out about how weird these people think the more the Dems believe the American people will reject them.

    And then you have people on this site trying to change the issue and doing it so well that they throw Brian Mann off arguing side issues about whether Bill Clinton was or wasn’t a rapist when the issue isn’t about rape, the issue is about how some evil people will try to use rape as an issue to gain political leverage. And to compound it even more they start to attack the journalists as liberal propagandists – when the issue is that AN EVIL-MINDED MAN is a powerful figure in the Republican party and can use his position of authority to take away people’s rights.

  3. Peter Hahn says:

    Ryan and Akin used the words forcible rape which is probably what Akin meant to say.

  4. Snowflake says:

    All of you stop forcing your personal ideology on me. It is a matter of personal belief of when the fetus is a viable human being and no one but me has the right to determine that. It is between me and my God what choices I make. Certainly not any of you have the right to dictate whether or not I have an abortion or not. It is my body and no one can tell me what to do with it. Right to Life is a bunch of men who feel emasculated by women being in control of their own lives. That being said, I personally would not be able to have an abortion but that does not give me the right to force others to not be able to make that decision for themselves.

  5. PNElba says:

    Akin and Ryan both sponsored a personhood bill. Akin and Ryan both believe there should be no abortion in the case of rape or incest, a stance held by the Republican party since 1976. And, it looks like will hear the RNC stance on the issue on Monday.

  6. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    Yes Peter, I believe that substituting legitimate for forcible is what he perceived as mis-speaking.

    But there is no doubt he has had long legalistic discussions about how a distinction between forcible rape and statutory rape could be made and therefor any girl who was a victim of rape would not be eligible for an abortion (if they could change laws, which they have attempted and are attempting) because rape of a child would be statutory by definition, not forcible.

    But now it is in the open just what kind of a thing this man is:

    “Therefore pride is their necklace; they clothe themselves with violence.”

  7. Paul says:

    The RNC has a clear “pro life” stance for sure. This guy is just a nut. I don’t know if the two things are related, I expect not. I disagree with this part of the GOP platform but that is just one issue.

  8. mervel says:

    PNE,

    Oh OK, yeah I would with Ryan then. Being against abortion should not change because of rape, it is logically inconsistent. If you believe a human is created at conception, than that human should not be killed due to how that conception happened, you would be killing an innocent human being because of an evil act, rape in this case.

    Which is why the Akin arguments are essentially illogical but I think deeply political. He feels that if I can just convince myself that rape and conception do not really occur than I can be opposed to abortion in cases of rape. Which makes no sense and as others have pointed out has no basis in modern medicine or science but I think he believes plays better politically than simply saying the truth.

    But that is not the same as saying that Ryan agrees with these comments about what is rape and what is not rape. Being against abortion for any reason is not the same as agreeing with Akin about rape.

  9. mervel says:

    Knucklehead, abortion and rape are both violence.

  10. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    So is male rape but I don’t see anyone addressing that issue. I wonder if men could become pregnant, would this be a completely different discussion?

  11. mervel says:

    I agree knuckle.

  12. Larry says:

    Peter Hahn,
    If you are referring to HR 212, the Sanctity of Life Act, no, he did not. That Act, which I have just read, says nothing about abortion or rape….nothing. If there’s other legislation, please let me know the reference.

  13. Peter Hahn says:

    Larry – the first version that they wrote had the “forcible rape” clause in it. They had to take it out to get enough votes for the house to pass it. (The senate didnt). But the fact is, they were on the exact same page about abortion and rape.

  14. JDM says:

    Snowflake: “It is a matter of personal belief of when the fetus is a viable human being”

    No. Society will help that make determination. Currently, it’s not where I would like it.

    But if it were truly up to the individual to decide who is and who isn’t a human being, well, that has not worked out so well, historically.

  15. Kathy says:

    There shouldn’t be an issue with whether the fetus is a viable human being.

    When we plant a seed, there is potential life in that seed. We have expectations of that seed producing an end result. If that seedling is uprooted, the life is terminated.

    How much more value should be placed on potential human life? Yet, in order to justify our positions for the sake of convenience, we make up our own rules.

    We give our gardens more care than we do human life.

    More and more our society is embracing secular humanism as defined by the Council of Secular Humanism:

    Secular humanism denies that meaning, values, and ethics are imposed from above. In that it echoes simple atheism. But secular humanism goes further, challenging humans to develop their own values.

    If I hadn’t personally heard adults who were children of rape share their stories of forgiveness and living successful lives (perhaps because their mother chose to not punish the child?), I would have instantly agreed to abort babies who are a result of rape.

    Just another side of the coin.

  16. Peter Hahn says:

    Kathy – maybe some people give their gardens more care than their children, but that isnt too common. Also, as a “born n’ raised” secular humanist , I had no idea there was a Council of Secular Humanism. sounds like an oxymoron to me.

  17. Peter Hahn says:

    Larry – “Asked about his co-sponsorship of legislation that tightened restrictions on abortion— and initially used the term “forcible rape” — Ryan told reporters, “That bill passed I think by 251 votes. It was bipartisan. . . .I’m proud of my pro-life record.”

    from the Washington Post

  18. Mervel says:

    Hmmm this may come back to bite Ryan even though the language was removed. All of these complex strategies and so forth in the fighting among the abortion warriors (both for and against), is out of touch with the average person. So now they may pay the price for forgetting the big picture and getting all tangled up in these issues.

    I am pro-life and I would like to see some of the more radical ideas dealing with children’s access to pretty heavy abortion drugs in particular found illegal, but come on abortion itself is here to stay, its way to popular and we spend way way too much energy fulminating about it.

  19. Larry says:

    Which bill? If you can’t name it then your comment has no basis in fact. There are two bills I’ve found that could possibly be what you’re talking about. One, HR 212, defines when life begins and that’s all it does. So, no rape or abortion language there at all. The other bill doesn’t restrict abortion, it prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions except in the case of rape (no qualification as to any”type” of rape), incest or to preserve the health of the mother. That’s it. All this business about offensive language, restrictions on abortion, types of rape, etc. is just liberal hysteria. By the way, are we now down to checking first drafts, proposals, notes and idle conversations in the never ending search for anti-conservative ammunition?

  20. mervel says:

    Yes.

  21. Peter Hahn says:

    Larry – HR212 I think, but it could have been the other one. As I said, the language was in the original version that they sponsored. That particular language was taken out at the end in order to get enough votes to pass it. It is not in it now.

    The concept is “forcible rape” or provable rape. There is a logic to it, which I think I could explain if that makes a difference. They dont want people claiming to have been raped in order to get around the abortion ban if there is a rape exception.

  22. Peter Hahn says:

    Larry – you are the conservative here. I shouldnt be the one defending and explaining their language.

  23. Larry says:

    I’m not defending anything. What is written in those bills is a matter of fact and it is quite different from what liberals have been saying is there. Akin makes an ass out of himself and the next thing we know, the words are being put in Ryan’s mouth.

  24. Peter Hahn says:

    Larry – it is an established fact that the words “forcible-rape” came out of Ryan’s mouth. He, Ryan, is the one that put them there, not the liberals. Ryan did not say “legitimate rape”.

  25. Larry says:

    Enough already with the misinformation! Attached below is a link to a government site that has HR 212 in its entirety, from a US government site. NO mention of rape of any description, nor can I see any place it might have been mentioned. I don’t know what Ryan was thinking or discussing or doodling on his napkin but this is the legislation he proposed.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr212ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr212ih.pdf

  26. hermit thrush says:

    maybe this helps?

    Ryan backed more than one ‘forcible rape’ abortion bill

    While Ryan has flatly rejected Akin’s reference to “legitimate rape,” Ryan’s name and his vote are tied to instances in which the term “forcible rape” appeared in legislation.

    Three years ago, the then-39-year-old congressman co-sponsored an abortion-related amendment called “Limitations on Abortion Mandates.”

    [It] did specify limited exceptions, permitting abortion coverage including when the life of the mother is at stake and in line 16 of the proposed text “… unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of forcible rape or incest.”

    More recently and more widely covered, Ryan was among a much larger group of 186 co-sponsors that included Akin of H.R. 5939, “To prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections….”

    Again, the text of the 2010 bill, typically written by committee senior staff, included nearly the same wording as his July 2009 amendment with the term “forcible rape.” The language in lines 15 and 16 reads: “(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of forcible rape, or incest with a minor….”

    in an update to the link, it’s pointed out that ryan didn’t actually co-sponsor the 2009 amendment. he merely voted for it.

  27. Larry says:

    The word “forcible” appears once, in the first of four versions of HR 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and describes a situation (rape) in which federal money would be used to fund abortions. Who has a problem with that? “Forcible rape” is a redundancy and poor English but it is very different than “legitimate rape”. Yet liberals continue to attack Ryan on the same basis as Akin (who co-sponsored HR3, along with Ryan and many others).

  28. Dave says:

    There are 40+ current GOP members in congress who are on record as being against abortion in the case of rape… including Paul Ryan.

    Akin is just the guy who made this public by spouting off dangerously illiterate nonsense – but make no mistake about it, this general view about rape and pregnancy goes well beyond Akin.

  29. Larry says:

    Dave,
    I just wrote sveral posts about legislation Paul Ryan sponsored that concerned abortion and rape. Go back and read them, and moreover, read the legislation itself. You’ll find that the legislation he co-sponsored does not prohibit abortion, just federal funding for it, except in cases of rape, incest and to preserve the health of the mother. In those instances abortions could still be paid for with taxpayer/federal funds. Your statement “There are 40+ current GOP members in congress who are on record as being against abortion in the case of rape… including Paul Ryan.” is wrong and typical of thee liberal misinformation everyone likes to quote without doing their homowork. Everyone is syaing it so it must be true….

  30. mervel says:

    Being against abortion in all circumstances including rape, is not the same as re-defining rape. I don’t know if Ryan has done that or not, but him being against abortion in all circumstances would not prove anything about his agreement with the wacky akin comments.

    In fact people who are pro-life who agree that abortion is ok in the case of rape are logically inconsistent. Pro-life means in the case of abortion that you believe that after conception a human exists, a human being with feelings, a future, with everything that makes a human a human. Thus even in the case of rape you could not kill that human being, even given the horror of rape. You don’t have to downplay rape to still believe that an abortion should not happen.

  31. Dave says:

    Larry, you seem to be somehow suggesting that Ryan’s views on this subject should only be taken from legislation he has actually co-sponsored.

    That is, of course, a shallow and silly argument. A politicians views are not confined to just the bits of legislation he gets his name on – indeed in many cases, that legislation is a poor representation of the person’s views.

    A good way of determining where someone stands on an issue is to see what they say, or have said, about the subject.

    Here, this is Paul Ryan 2 days ago – AFTER the Akin controversy.

    “I’m very proud of my pro-life record,” Ryan told WJHL-TV in Virginia Wednesday in an interview aired Thursday. “I’ve always adopted the idea, the position, that the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life.”

    Against ending an unborn life, and the method of the pregnancy does not change that.

    Keep trying to argue your point here, but the person you are really disagreeing with here is Paul Ryan, who has clearly, as little as two days ago, contradicted your points.

  32. Peter Hahn says:

    Ryan co-sponsored legislation with that language, but it didn’t pass that way.

  33. Larry says:

    Dave,
    Try reading the whole thread and you’ll see (maybe) that my comments were made specifically in response to misinformation about Ryan’s legislative record. People wrote a lot of incorrect nonsense about legislation Ryan co-sponsored, including that he proposed to ban abortion in cases of rape. My comments were focused on the two bills (HR 3 & HR 212) that seem to be at the center of this nonsensical controversy. Of course, the fact that the text of those two bills does not support any of the allegations made doesn’t seem to matter to many who are content to keep repeating things that “everyone knows are true”. “Shallow and silly”? I’ll leave it to responsible people to decide who should wear that tag.

  34. Larry says:

    Again, Peter Hahn, can you please name the bill you refer to? It’s wrong to make a statement like that without providing the proof. We’ve seen enough of that!

  35. Peter Hahn says:

    Larry – from your post above “The word “forcible” appears once, in the first of four versions of HR 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and describes a situation (rape) in which federal money would be used to fund abortions.”

    I totally agree with you that this is different from “legitimate” rape, and I would also suggest again that “forcible-rape” in the context of the bill above is what Akin meant to say.

    In the context of the present election, liberals are entitled to attack Ryan and Romney at will for any reason that flies. This is a “see what sticks” election.

  36. Larry says:

    “In the context of the present election, liberals are entitled to attack Ryan and Romney at will for any reason that flies. This is a “see what sticks” election.”

    Wow! It’s come to this, has it? Anyone familiar with the Big Lie theory? Look it up.

  37. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    Big Lie? You mean like the Swiftboat thing or the Birther thing or the Obama is a Muslim thing? Yeah, I think I’ve heard of it.

  38. Larry says:

    Well, I guess (and now I hope, since reading Peter Hahn’s comment) liberals aren’t the only ones with a sense of entitlement to dirty tricks. “See what sticks”? Not the kind of election I was looking forward to and not the kind we should want.

  39. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    No, it isn’t what an election should be like. But tell that to the Supreme Court and in particular to Justice Alito. It is funny that you should be chastising liberals when most liberals are advocates for federally funded elections as a means of making the system more fair and transparent.

    While there is nothing new or partisan about dirty tricks in elections the prime movers in the escalation or dirty campaigns in our lifetime have been Republicans like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. And, as an aside, why isn’t Karl Rove in jail for exposing the identity of an under-cover CIA operative? So if you want to start cleaning up elections start calling off the attack dogs on your side. When groups like Swift Boat Veterans start attacking the service record of a bona fide war hero you should gather all your Republican friends and publicly call for a stop to the mud slinging. When people start saying that Obama wasn’t born in this country or that he is a Muslim you should pipe up and say “NO! That isn’t correct. Obama is an American and a Christian – not that his religion should matter.”

    So let me show you how it is done: To everyone on the Left and in the Media, Mitt Romney is NOT a Birther. He was in his home state and he made a silly joke. Get over it!

Leave a Reply