WASHINGTON — Four months ago, when then-Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Missouri, claimed that abortion in cases of rape was unnecessary because “if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” the GOP renounced him. Republican leaders called him an outlier. The National Republican Senatorial Committee pledged not to lift a finger for him.

But the problem spread. A day after Akin’s gaffe, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, deflected a question about abortions for 12-year-old rape victims by saying, “I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way.” On Oct. 18, Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill., asserted that “with modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance” where abortion is necessary to protect a woman’s life or health. On Oct. 23, Richard Mourdock, the Indiana state treasurer and Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, opined that “even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” And five days before the election, as the Missouri GOP put up $380,000 for last-minute ads to boost Akin, the Republican Senatorial Committee sent the state party $760,000, apparently to cover the cost.

Now another Republican leader is speaking up. Rep. Phil Gingrey of Georgia, a 10-year congressman and co-chairman of the 21-member House Republican Doctors Caucus, is defending Akin’s remark. At a chamber of commerce breakfast Jan. 10, Gingrey argued:

"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 then 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.”

Really? That isn’t how Akin explained his remark. On Aug. 20, a day after the gaffe, Akin went on Mike Huckabee’s radio show. Huckabee asked Akin: “What did you mean by ‘legitimate rape’? Were you attempting to say forcible rape?” Akin replied: “Yeah, I was talking about forcible rape.” If that’s truly what Akin meant, then he was using the term legitimate to suggest that any woman impregnated by rape must have suffered statutory rape, not forcible rape.

Gingrey’s interpretation is different. He thinks that in speaking of “non-legitimate rape,” Akin was referring not to a 15-year-old who admits she had voluntary sex with an adult boyfriend (i.e., statutory rape) but to a 15-year-old who tells her parents, falsely, that her voluntary sex, with a male of whatever age, was forcible rape. On this view, Akin was using the term legitimate to suggest that a woman who claims to have gotten pregnant from rape wasn’t raped at all. She’s simply lying. And what does Gingrey think of that claim? “I don’t find anything so horrible about that.”

That’s Gingrey’s moral view. His medical view is more complex, but still ignorant. At the breakfast, he conceded that the stress of rape doesn’t preclude pregnancy, since the woman “may have already ovulated 12 hours before she is raped.” But he defended Akin’s reasoning:

“He went on and said that in a situation of rape, of a legitimate rape, a woman’s body has a way of shutting down so the pregnancy would not occur. He’s partly right on that. ... 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? ... And yet the media took that and tore it apart.”

If Gingrey is telling this to his patients — and prescribing alcohol for it — he’s a quack. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “While chronic stress, for example from extreme exposure to famine or war, may decrease a woman’s ability to conceive, there is no scientific evidence that adrenaline, experienced in an acute stress situation, has an impact on ovulation.” The American Society for Reproductive Medicine agrees: “There isn’t any proof that stress causes infertility.” Another infertility organization, Resolve, says “stress does not cause infertility.”

Gingrey might also benefit from reading this 2010 paper in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology: “Acute stress may induce ovulation in women.” Or this 1996 paper in the same journal:

“The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0 percent per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator.”

So much for the dogma about stress, shutdowns, and fabricated rapes. But Gingrey didn’t stop there. He also whitewashed Mourdock’s remarks: “Mourdock basically said ‘Look, if there is conception in the aftermath of a rape, that’s still a child, and it’s a child of God, essentially.’ Now, in Indiana, that cost him the election.”

Wrong again. Mourdock didn’t say a child of rape is a child of God. He said, “Even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” Children don’t happen. They aren’t events. Conceptions happen, and in the case of rape, there’s no conception without assault. You can spin whatever theological distinctions you like, but if you say God intended that conception, you’re implying that God intended the rape.

A day after the breakfast, Gingrey pretended his comments had been misinterpreted. “I do not defend, nor do I stand by, the remarks made by Rep. Akin and Mr. Mourdock,” he said. “In my attempt to provide context as to what I presumed they meant, my position was misconstrued.” Hogwash. Gingrey tried to rewrite Mourdock’s lunacy as a pro-life cliché. He said Akin “was partially right ... and yet the media took that and tore it apart.” That’s a defense.

Akin, King, Walsh, Mourdock. A plurality of Republican nominees for the U.S. Senate. The National Republican Senatorial Committee. Now, the chairman of the Republican Doctors Caucus. Every time the GOP claims to have purged rape mythology, rape theology and rape extremism, another congressman opens his mouth. What worries me isn’t how many Republicans have repeated this stuff in public, but how many more believe it.

William Saletan (@saletan) covers science, technology and politics for Slate, where this column appeared first.

You might also like

(7) comments

skippie
skippie

The party of murder speaks out.

RichardSRussell
RichardSRussell

I don't think that all national Republicans are looney-tunes, anti-science, misogynistic bozos like Todd Akin, Steve King, and Richard Mourdock, just as I don't think that all Wisconsin Republicans are out-of-it neanderthals like Roger Rivard and Glenn Grothman. But why is it apparently only Republicans who keep picking people like this to represent them? Why don't they shuttle these embarrassments off to a dark closet somewhere, where they can pretend they don't exist? Instead they put them in positions of authority, keep re-electing them, and spring to their defense when civilized people justifiably express how appalled they are at their public positions. Clearly these guys represent a strain of 21st Century longing for the good old days when men were men and the little ladies confined themselves to kinder, küche, kirche.* Equally clearly, a lot of other Republicans are perfectly fine with that.

––––––
*I mention this motto from WW2 in deference to WMBB, who seems to think that 1930s-era standards still apply in 2013; that's true only to the extent that the shoe still fits.

AllAmerican11B
AllAmerican11B

The Cap Times just keeps on stooping lower and lower with it's vile spewings of hatred towards their opposition. To judge and entire group of people (nearly half the voting population of the country) that share the same basic ideological ideas based on the ignorant spewings of one or two individuals; my God, what a hateful bunch of prejudice bigots progressives have become. This kind of bigotry based hate is the exact same kind of prejudice that festered with those that supported slavery. Maybe it's time to define Republicans as a race and The Cap Times as racists!

The Cap Times should be ashamed for putting this article to "print"; but they won't, they'll continue to justify anything to continue to try and brainwash their readers!

webmasterbigbrother
webmasterbigbrother

well democrats are the ones who supported slavery and lynchings so it's not really much of a surprise they are still so vile.

back then they used their venom to denigrate and keep black people down.

now they have a new enemy to denigrate.

webmasterbigbrother
webmasterbigbrother

what a truly vile piece. character assassination of half the population based on what a few nut jobs say when they should just keep their mouths shut.

just like all you leftist standing on the graves of the dead children yelling for gun control, now you heartlessly standing on every women who has been raped to slight the other side.

it's beyond disgusting and you should be ashamed.

it would be like saying every democrat supports rape because they 1) let criminals back onto streets to commit these crimes with their soft treatment of criminals, and 2) they want to take away a woman's right to defend themselves from these criminals.

they have no problem killing a living being in the womb regardless of the circumstances but are aghast at the idea of a women protecting herself from a criminal with a gun.

stcroixcarp
stcroixcarp

Rape has been used as a weapon of war since the beginning of time. Just read the Bible. And it is still wrong, evil and vile. Why are republican men trying to justify an act of evil by saying that a child of rape is a gift from God? The war republicans are waging against women, children, humanity and decency.

webmasterbigbrother
webmasterbigbrother

ah yes this war on women meme, still pedaling it i see. getting your moneys worth i guess.

fail to see obama's cabinet picks?

even other liberals have said he could some some binders of women....

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Exchange ideas and opinions on posted articles. Don't promote products or services, impersonate other site users, register multiple accounts, threaten or harass others, post vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language. Don't post content that defames or degrades anyone. Don't repost copyrighted material; link to it. In other words, stick to the topic and play nice. Report abuses by clicking the button. Users who break the rules will be banned from commenting. We no longer issue warnings. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.