About This Blog
Indiana GOP Senate candidate, Richard Mourdock....“I struggled with it myself for a long time,” he said, “but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
Missouri GOP Senate candidate, Todd Akin...."First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. 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 on the rapist and not attacking the child."
These two men are both running for seats in the U.S. Senate....not some church board seat. Both of these men actually believe that a woman who is impregnated by a rapist should have no right to an abortion. These two men seeking U.S. Senate seats firmly believe that a woman impregnated by a rapist should be compelled by law to carry her rapist's child to delivery.
This comes as no surprise, or at least it shouldn't....because this is the 2012 GOP platform position on fertilized human eggs....
“We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”
That statement is known as the "personhood amendment"....a proposal of law stating that a fertilized human egg has all the same constitutional protections as any fully formed, outside the womb, living, breathing human being. The GOP presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, "absolutely" supports a "personhood amendment"....
Question from Mike Huckabee..."Would you have supported a constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?"
Answer from Mitt Romney...."Absolutely."
"Absolutely"? Mr. Romney responds "absolutely" to a question about whether he would support a constitutional amendment which would, in effect, outlaw all abortions...including those as a result of rape or incest. If a fertilized human egg is a "person" upon conception, entitled to all the same rights as fully formed, outside the womb, humans.....then, aborting that "person", even if that "person" was a product of rape or incest, would be a violation of that "person's" constitutional right to life.
A couple of days later, Mr Etch-A-Sketch said this...
“My position has been clear throughout this campaign; I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother.”
So which is it? If Romney allows for abortion exceptions in the cases of rape or incest or the health and life of the mother....but would also support a "personhood amendment" in effect declaring all abortions illegal acts of murder....how do those two opposite positions get resolved?
The answer is that they don't. Mitt Romney has made himself crystal clear on abortion.....and for Mitt being crystal clear ain't easy. If handed the presidency, Mr. Romney would work to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe...
"I hope to appoint justices for the Supreme Court that will follow the law and the constitution. And it would be my preference that they reverse Roe V. Wade..."
All women should be paying attention to what Mr. Who-Knows-What-I-Really-Stand-For, as well as what GOP Senate candidates and the Republican Party are telling you. What they are telegraphing to all American women is that their choices, their lives, their rights, their freedom....Do. Not. Matter.
Now, back to Richard Mourdock's god. Mr. Mourdock, et.al., believes that human conception is a "gift from god." That, at least to this Reverend, suggests that god is actively involved at the moment of conception....how else could god's "gift" be delivered at conception if god was not actively involved?
However.....somehow....according to Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, the same god who is actively involved delivering his "gift" at conception is entirely passive when it comes to how that "gift" is delivered. A god so powerful and mighty, a god so omnipresent and omniscient that he can intervene in human activity to deliver his "gift of life", even during the violent rape of a woman....is totally powerless to control the means of delivery....the violent rape, itself.
Or, as Digby puts it...
I'm sorry, if it's God's will (conception) and he doesn't make mistakes then he must have intended the rape as well as the pregnancy. You can't have it both ways and say he is omnipotent and all powerful and let him off the hook on that half of the equation while you insist that the pregnancy is inviolable because God intended it.
While the pious Richard Mourdock stands before microphones and denounces any suggestions that he defends rape.....his theology supports just the opposite. That is not only the policy position of a couple of GOP senate candidates.....it is the policy position of the entire Republican Party.
For women, at least, the choice could not be any clearer. Republicans voted to include no exceptions for rape or incest in their national policy position on abortion. If given the power, Republicans would force women impregnated by an act of violent rape to not only carry her rapist's "gift of god" to term....but also, in many situations, be forced to deal with her rapist for 18 years of paternal visitation rights. A monstrous and wicked proposition.
What are Republicans saying to women? You. Don't. Matter.
Remember that when you cast your ballot.