Political Animal

Blog

November 01, 2012 2:37 PM Rape On Their Minds

By Ed Kilgore

With yet another Republican candidate for high office—Washington congressional candidate John Koster—offering us his pithy thoughts on how it was fine by him to force rape victims to bear the children of their rapists—the reaction of Zerlina (a rape survivor) at Feministing is elegantly simple:

I don’t have any interest in hearing the opinion of a man who has never been the victim of sexual assault. And I don’t have any interest in hearing what he thinks about my choices. None. I don’t even know why these anti-choice Republicans think they are entitled to speak about the topic. This is about the power of women as independent actors to make choices about their own bodies. A rape survivor has already lost power and control over her bodily autonomy and now Republican men want to let us know what they think we should be allowed to do after the rape?

But note this tweet in response from Amanda Marcotte:

It is hard to take, but I do prefer them being themselves rather than trying to pretend they aren’t misogynists.

Amanda makes a good point, and not just because of the horror inspired by these kind of blithe paternalistic remarks from men shedding crocodile tears over the poor rape victim they’d protect (as Koster put it) from “more violence” by forcing her to carry the pregnancy to term.

More broadly, the antichoice movement has spent much of the last decade or so shrewdly guiding the policy debate to topics involving possible exceptions to a general regime of legalized abortion: so-called “partial-birth abortions,” sex-selection abortions, abortions “of [sic!] convenience, denials of public funding for abortions, and most recently, second-trimester abortions at a stage where antichoice “scientists” claim the fetus can feel pain. This is why the percentage of Americans self-identifying as “pro-life” has gone up gradually over time.

But now, with state legislatures busily enacting anti-abortion legislation and the prospect of a Supreme Court majority overturning Roe v. Wade tantalizingly close, the debate over abortion, at least on the Right, is suddenly about exceptions to a regime where abortion is illegal. And so you get arguments between the “personhood” supporters and the “no-exceptions” supporters on the one hand, and those who while generally favoring an abolition of the right to choose, might consider, in their enormous compassion, exceptions for rape and incest victims, or perhaps the use of contraceptives the serious antichoice activists consider “abortifacients” (basically, all of them other than barrier methods or coitus interruptus).

I agree with Marcotte that it’s useful to expose the extremism of the antichoice agenda—not just among the kind of people who march around clinics carrying bloody fetus posters, but among regular Republican politicians; Koster and Mourdock and Akin, after all, are just reflecting every Republican national platform since 1980, not to mention the official position of the GOP vice presidential nominee until a few weeks ago.

The only problem with this publicity, however, is that it perversely helps make those who are willing to make tiny exceptions to an abortion ban stake a claim to being “moderate.” That is precisely what Mitt Romney is up to in that infamous ad where a woman expresses relief at discovering that he accepts (today, at least) a rape-incest exception and doesn’t want to ban all contraceptives (just affordable access to them!).

In that sense, Zerlina’s “just shut up” perspective is exactly right: women shouldn’t have to rely on Mitt Romney’s “compassion” or his political needs in order to maintain a very small—very small—measure of control over their own reproductive systems. It’s a shame that key elements of the MSM are buying the “moderate” label for antichoice extremists like Mitt or worse yet, buying the idea that he and other conservatives are just nice business technocrats who don’t care about “cultural issues” and are running a scam on the Bishops and the Bible-thumping rubes.

Ed Kilgore is a contributing writer to the Washington Monthly. He is managing editor for The Democratic Strategist and a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute. Find him on Twitter: @ed_kilgore.

Comments

  • c u n d gulag on November 01, 2012 2:56 PM:

    I don't know how we accomplish this, but here an idea I have:
    For these men to understand at least the pregnancy part, I'd like to have a pumpkin seed shoved up their asses using a screwdriver handle, and then, somehow, over 9 months, grow a 7 - 10lb pumpkin - at which point, they have to sh*t the feckin'thing out of their sphincter.
    Epidural's will be optional.
    And, if they can't sh*t the feckin' thing out, they do a C-section on them.

    And then, as for raising the child, the have to have a series of lifelike dolls, like the ones they use to show teenage girls what caring for a baby is like if they have unprotected sex, that they have to care for, that mirror a child's growth, for at least 3 years - and PAY the amount of money that it costs a child for three years.

    If, after they have to sh*t out a 9lb pumpkin after 9 months, they don't get the point, then I think having to care for a lifelike dollie for 3 years, will.
    And if that dollie shows any abuse - off to prison with them.

    These "Forced Labor" @$$holes need to STFU.
    YOUR women accept that philosophy - fine.
    It's their lives.
    Stay the feck out of other women's!

  • Ron Byers on November 01, 2012 3:16 PM:

    Ed mentions that the most important aspect of all this is the assumption that Roe v. Wade will be overturned and that abortion will be illegal maybe with exceptions. I bet a lot of women don't realize just how close we are to returning to the days of coathangers and public shame.

  • schtick on November 01, 2012 3:54 PM:

    For a party that has voted for bills against Sharia laws, they sure do want what Sharia law represents, suppression of women and only recognizing christian religion.

  • boatboy_srq on November 01, 2012 4:18 PM:

    @schtick: one person's Scripture is another's heresy. Yet somehow, all the Faiths of The Book seem to advocate the same repressions in their Literalist camps.

  • Sgt. Gym Bunny on November 01, 2012 4:25 PM:

    "...these kind of blithe paternalistic remarks from men shedding crocodile tears over the poor rape victim they’d protect (as Koster put it) from “more violence” by forcing her to carry the pregnancy to term."

    I hope by protecting rape victims from "more violence" he means the character assassination that victims typically suffer for being slutty hussies who were just asking for it.

    Or perhaps the economic violence of being pregnant and working because her employer isn't required to accommodate her physical limitations because being pregnant is a CHOICE and not a disability (remember that one, boys?). Or worse when they send her pregnant ass waddlin' because next thing you know, she'll try to weasle out of work by taking exorbitant time off, heaven forbid.

    Or the economic violence the Right-tards are sure to inflict if they limit access to food stamps, or Medicaid, and various other making-work-pay programs that benefit working families.

    Please tell me that this was the "more violence" whats-his-face was trying to protect rape victims from.

    And, FWIW, as the owner of hoo-hoo, I have to say that birthing a 7-lb. person seems a lot more violent than aborting a zygote or preventing a fertilized egg from implanting. I dare this ass hat to do what gulag recommends and follow up with his opinion on the relativity of bodily violence endured...

  • Werewolf on November 01, 2012 4:57 PM:

    These idiots remind me of the guy being interviewed for a job in "Blazing Saddles"-

    Hedley Lamarr: "You said rape twice."
    Interviewee: "I *like* rape."

  • Kathryn on November 01, 2012 5:04 PM:

    @ Sgt. Gym Bunny.....Your are correct and as a fellow owner of a hoo hoo and a Mother, birthing an 8 lb. baby, in my case, was plenty violent and has required many, many years of involvement, both emotional and monetary in said person's life. I was happy to do so but then that was my choice, which is the point.

  • judith Martinez on November 01, 2012 5:37 PM:

    I have a term for what these men are doing. I call it "RE-RAPE".