Today Mitt Romney tried to distance himself once again from crazy Todd Akin, the Missouri congressman running for Senate who spoke yesterday about "legitimate" rape and some other strange views about women's bodily functions.
Huffington Post Story
"Congressman’s Akin comments on rape are insulting, inexcusable, and, frankly, wrong," (Romney) told National Review Online. “Like millions of other Americans, we found them to be offensive."
He added that his view was "entirely different" and that Akin's statement was "entirely without merit and and he should correct it."
He did not call on Akin to bow out of the race.
Note from Me: Romney always uses a qualifier before any opinion. "Frankly wrong" is much weaker than saying "Just Plain Wrong" or simply "Wrong." To me, whenever he starts a sentence with "Honestly," "Frankly," "Truthfully," or "Seriously," it makes him less believable, and more like a con artist. He talks like a used care salesman and reminds me often of Mr. Lindegard from the movie "Fargo."
Akin was on Mike Huckabee's radio show today, and vowed that he isn't dropping out before tomorrow's deadline.
St. Louis Dispatch
"I'm not a quitter," Akin said. "We all make mistakes. . . The many people who supported me know that when you make a mistake what you need to do is say you're sorry."
Akin said no party leaders have called him and asked for him to drop out.
"This was a very very serious error," Akin said.
Akin, who is running for U.S. Senate against incumbent Claire McCaskill, has until Tuesday at 5 p.m. to withdraw, according to Missouri election law. That law allows candidates to leave the ballot 11 weeks before election day, otherwise he would need a court order. The Republican state committee would have two weeks to name a replacement, under the law.
Yeah, okay - Akins knows he is in hot water now, but we also know that plenty of Republicans share his belief in magical body fluids that protect against pregnancy during rape. The conservatives are split down the middle - half calling for him to quit, others supporting his views.
Comments from the Far-Right on Snark Amendment
Paul Ryan has worked with Akin on "redefining" rape, so that women who are victims of statutory rape won't be given the morning after pill or an abortion.
From The Liberal OC Blog:
In 2011, Congressmen Ryan and Akin co-sponsored the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, which would redefine a ban on federal funding for abortions to exempt only “forcible rape” and not “rape” generally. According to the Washington Post, the Act would make a version of the Hyde Amendment permanent. The Hyde Amendment, which had been renewed every year since 1976, prevented some federally-funded health care programs from covering abortions, with exceptions in cases of rape and incest, and when the life of the woman is threatened. However, under the language proposed by the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, rape becomes “forcible rape.” The Washington Post reported that the bill’s critics believed “the modifier could distinguish it from other kinds of sexual assault that are typically recognized as rape, including statutory rape and attacks that occur because of drugs or verbal threats.” [HR 3 Co-Sponsors, 112th Congress; Washington Post, 2/1/11]
We have come too far in this country to let men like Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and Todd Akin drag our country back to the stone-age. Their radical and extremist views are a recipe for disaster and the imposition of radical Christian-Biblical Law on our nation. These guys would have us believe that a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape, wanted it.
Ya know - statutory rape is
still rape. Underage children are not considered old enough to "give consent" because often they are too innocent to know what it is they are doing. People who make these distinctions probably don't believe in date or marital rape either, and they can use it as a rationalization for why Jerry Sandusky can go free. The only reason this didn't come up was because Jerry targeted underage boys who couldn't get pregnant.
Obama's Strategist David Axelrod
told Huffington Post today that Romney and Ryan are not really fooling anyone with their constantly shifting positions which contradict previously "firm" opinions on abortion or "personhood" of a fetus.
"When you look at who Akin's partner was on all the anti-choice legislation, it was Paul Ryan," said Axelrod. "When you look at the legislation that would limit a women's right to choose, even for victims of rape and incest, that is the Akin-Ryan position. And frankly, by endorsing personhood amendments ... Romney has gone there too. This is the prevailing position of the Republican Party."
"I think they find Todd Akin's comment terribly inconvenient," Axelrod said. "It is very inopportune. But they are certainly not inconsistent, when Ryan joined with him and tried to limit the definition of rape to forcible rape. What does that mean? They are trying to run away from what has been their own position and yet, while Akin's proposition was particularly egregious and outrageous, on the underlining principle of whether you are going to limit a woman's right to choose, and how rape victims are dealt with and how they would approach this issue, they are very much in line with him."
Romney's campaign said he and Ryan addressed the issue during an interview with WNUR in New Hampshire on Monday. . . . Romney briefly drew fire for seemingly endorsing a fetal personhood amendment in Mississippi, which would have established that a fertilized egg as a person under the law. But both he and his campaign have insisted that he never back the measure and was simply stating his belief that life began at the point of conception.
Romney has said that life begins at conception, and Ryan believes that the embryo has constitutional rights. I shudder to think what they would do to a young woman who had a miscarriage, which can happen to anyone for no apparent reason. And what about her doctor - does he or she have to report every late menstrual period? Where do we draw the line? One thing we know - the Republicans are really confused over women's rights when it comes to their own bodies. What about the "personhood" of women?
