Effort to Akin-ize pro-life Republicans continues apace


Pollster Kellyanne Conway told a group of Republican lawmakers to stop talking about rape, according to an article by Politico.

The advice comes in the wake of remarks about rape last year by pro-life candidates Todd Akin of Missouri and Richard Mourdock of Indiana, both of whom lost U.S. Senate races in November.

Last week, Rep. Phil Gingrey, a Republican from Georgia, said that Akin was “partly right” that women who are raped are unlikely to get pregnant.

We are unaware of any reputable scientific studies that support this claim.

Last Friday, in an attempt to diffuse the controversy, Gingrey’s office threw both Akin and Mourdock under the bus:

I do not defend, nor do I stand by, the remarks made by Rep. Akin and Mr. [Richard] Mourdock. In my attempt to provide context as to what I presumed they meant, my position was misconstrued.

Not surprisingly, liberal tweeters (who love seeing the word “rape” and “Republican” in the same sentence) are reveling in the story:






Akin’s comments, of course,were ignorant, garbled nonsense, and many conservatives said so at the time.

By contrast, Mourdock simply said that life is a gift from God, and he believes this to be true even in cases where life results from “that horrible situation of rape”:

The only exception I have to have an abortion is in the case of the life of the mother. I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.

Mourdock repeated the point:

God creates life, and that was my point. God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that He does. Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is absurd and sick.

This is an honorable man who spoke clearly and with conviction. He was wrongly portrayed as a lunatic and is now being thrown under the bus even by Republicans.

Moreover, it’s not as if Mourdock just blurted out his comments apropos of nothing. He spoke about rape only after being asked about his position on abortion during a debate. How would Kellyanne Conway have him respond? Refuse to answer the question?



Perhaps what Kellyanne Conway really wants to say (but won’t because she doesn’t want to alienate pro-lifers) is that pro-life Republicans should moderate their position on abortion. Talking less about rape has nothing to do with it.
  • Shawn Smith

    Howbout Democrats make rapist Bill Clinton persona non grata? Then I might start taking their anger seriously.

    • GoSellCrazySomeplaceElse

      I second that.

  • https://twitter.com/davidjkramer DavidKramer

    Are we talking Whoopi/Roman Polanski Rape-Rape or just Rape?

  • Jack Deth

    Why don’t these political hack Tweeters just lay back and enjoy it?

    That’s what liberals have peen preaching for years.

  • V the K

    The MFM/DNC have learned that the abortion-rape question is toxic to pro-life GOP candidates, and they are going to continue to push it for that reason. GOP candidates need to have a canned answer along the lines of, “I personally believe every life is precious, but I recognize that there must always be a rape exception in pro-life legislation. I also believe rapists should be aggressively prosecuted, and it’s wrong for organizations like Planned Parenthood to cover up rape.”

  • http://pinterest.com/j0s1395/ Josephine (D)

    Or how about pointing out that even when a baby is conceived in rape, it’s still murder and does nothing to help the mother? http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-pro-life-group-to-coach-politicians-on-answering-the-rape-exception-que

  • http://twitter.com/lazypadawan lazypadawan

    Yet another reason why Beltway jockeys, campaign consultants, and politicians aren’t going to save us. In fact they’ll abandon a constituency if it wins the votes of a bigger constituency. To them it’s only about winning elections, not standing up for a set of principles. I find it bizarre that Mourdock’s comments are controversial but there’s never anything controversial about a robotic, programmed spiel about “choice” whenever a Democrat tries to justify ramming scissors in a fully-formed baby’s skull just because somebody didn’t want a girl.

    • gensec

      You claim to be concerned about “ramming scissors in a fully-formed baby’s skull”, but you guarantee more of that by nominating extremists who want to force pregnant rape victims to endure another 9 months of nonconsensual occupation of their bodies. There are lots of Americans who want to, or are at least willing,to, vote for pro-life candidates; but you’ll never get anything approaching a majority without a rape exception. Which do you prefer, reducing abortions or being a purist about it?

      • Gary Rudick

        You are a very good Nazi, separating those who deserve life from those who do not. That argument was made and rejected at the Nuremberg trials.
        The poor Third Reich raped by the Jews!

        • gensec

          “Nazi” rhetoric didn’t take long. Brilliant! A rape victim who doesn’t want to wait another 9 months to get her body back is supposedly like the Third Reich. And then you wonder why pro-choicers win elections that a sane pro-lifer could have won.

          How many abortions have been prevented by such contemptious rhetoric about rape victims wanting their bodies back? But no, you don’t really care about stopping “ramming scissors in a fully-formed baby’s skull” – spewing self righteous “Nazi” accusations is much more fun for you.

  • BeyondPolls

    Kennedy vs Louisiana

  • sqeptiq

    It’s “defuse the controversy,” not “diffuse.”