“First of all, from what I understand from doctors, (pregnancy from rape) is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in a clip posted to YouTube by the Democratic super PAC American Bridge. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
Akin added: “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.” -- (Akin on KTVI)
Congressman Todd Akin’s controversial statement about abortion is a candid declaration by a candidate. The Democratic party in Missouri, including embattled incumbent Claire McCaskill, is taking one sentence and explicating a host of execrable assumptions out of it just to cover up for years of profligate taxation, spending, waste, debts and deficits which are bankrupting Missouri and the country.
The real shame is that media pundits and political activists are jumping up and down about this one comment for the wrong reasons, and that the Republican Party is pressuring Akin to step down. I for one commend Congressman Akin for apologizing for sharing this view, but I hope that he chooses not to step down.
The viewing public in this country must choose to be enlightened and informed voters. Hollow attacks and misquotes do not deserve to dominate the public discourse.
Akin said a stupid thing – that does not make him a stupid man or an
unacceptable candidate. Claire McCaskill’s liberal agenda of expanding the
state at the expense of the voters today and the unborn children of future
generations, all of whom will be burdened with the immoral debts and deficits weighing on this country, deserves greater scrutiny. This woman brazenly supported “ObamaCare,” a crushing entitlement which has robbed Medicare by $700 billion while issuing burdensome regulations which have forced hospitals to close, while forcing health insurance premiums way up and considerably diminishing access.
Refering to the real issues with Akin’s comments, I do not agree with Akin’s phrasing of “legitimate rape,” nor do I accept the notion that the human body will “shut down” in order to prevent the pregnancy. I do not agree, either, that abortion should be outlawed completely, even in extreme cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother is in jeopardy. However, I do agree that our communities should spend more time punishing individuals who have raped others, rather than focusing first and foremost on terminating the life of the baby born as a result of such a traumatic crime, although the option must remain available.
One of the most progressive movements in the country, Feminists for Life, has a number of liberal advocates, yet they have also advanced a number of arguments which point out the potential dangers of abortion. The group has provided numerous accounts of victimized women who chose to have the child, despite suffering rape. The point is that the issue of abortion is too fraught to be decided one way or another by constitutional fiat, either by amendment or by judicial ruling, nor should this issue be reduced to inane sound-bites.
I am unapologetically pro-life, and I am unapologetically pro-freedom. Even Boalt Hall School of Law Distinguished professor Sanford Kadish pointed out that life is the chief right from which all other rights descend: see Blame and Punishment: Essays in the Criminal Law (1987).
The real problem with abortion, then, is about the decision-making process. However, the Republican Party would be warring against its limited-government principles in making a black-and-white decision regarding the full criminalization of abortion. Because abortion involves the life of an unborn person, this issue must be decided with respect to life, not law.
Personally, I believe that every state should be permitted to enact legislation which outlines the limited exceptions when abortion is tolerable, with full
understanding that it is a life that is at stake, both the mother as well as
the child. Neither the Supreme Court nor the federal government has any right to dictate into the lives of others, nor can a blunt instrument like federal law protect our unborn children the way that individuals and local communities can.
Mr. Akin made a poor remark, one which should engage the Republican and Democratic parties, as well as the voters and the institutions in this country, to respect life, but also to respect the fact that life is tragic in many cases, and that the federal government has no business attempting to prevent this reality.
Having shared my thoughts on this issue, I fully support a more aware, more discerning Mr. Akin, or any other Republican who runs against Ms. Claire McCaskill. Because the embattled Missouri incumbent supported ObamaCare, the outrageous encroachment of the state into our daily lives, the embattled incumbent has demonstrated unequivocally that she is neither “pro-choice” nor “pro-life," but “pro-tax,” “pro-spend,” “pro-government,” and therefore “anti-Missouri.”