As if it's not bad enough that Rep. Todd Akin believes that women who are legitimately raped (I cringe to put those two words together), he was also part of a House Republican effort to redefine rape. The point, http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/todd-akin-paul-ryan-redefining-rape">Mother Jones reports, was to keep federal funding for abortion away from teenagers, arguing that they might pretend they were raped by an older man (statutory rape, which is very common) in order to get the money because the right didn't want to "federally fund the abortion of tens of thousands of healthy babies of healthy moms, based solely on the age of their mothers."
More from that piece:
The implication of his position is that if you were raped and became pregnant, you must have actually wanted it—it wasn't really rape.
This isn't the first time Akin has expressed fringe views about rape in the context of the abortion debate. Last year, Akin, vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), and most of the House GOP co-sponsored a bill that would have narrowed the already-narrow exceptions to the laws banning federal funding for abortion—from all cases of rape to cases of "forcible rape."
Drugged, raped, and pregnant? Too bad, says the House GOP. After I reported on the "forcible rape" language in January 2011, a wave of outcry from abortion-rights, progressive, and women's groups led the Republicans to remove it. But a few months later, in a congressional committee report, Republicans wrote that they believed the bill would continue to have the same effect despite the absence of the "forcible" language.
So, what we have here, are a bunch of dudes in Congress once again trying to decide what happens to women and what to do about it. Anyone else OK with that?