Todd Akin's Horrible Rape Comments Are Part of A Pattern

In case you somehow missed it, Todd Akin made unbelievably ignorant and misogynistic comments on the Jaco Report, claiming that women who are the victims of "legitimate rape," won't get pregnant:

(crazy comments start around the 4 minute mark)


Akin's quote:

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

This isn't a simple one-time mistake based on talking to a couple nutty "doctors."  This is part of an incredibly disturbing pattern from Akin when it comes to rape.  Some of the lowlights from Talking Points Memo:

Akin is perhaps the boldest among a crop of conservative 2012 nominees who could hamperGOP efforts to take back the Senate in the fall. Akin has called for an end to the school-lunch program and a total ban on the morning-after pill [even in cases of rape].

His claim about “legitimate” types of rape is not completely foreign to the current Republican Congress, however. In 2011, the House GOP was forced to drop language from a bill that would have limited federal help to pay for an abortion to only victims of “forcible rape.” Akin was a co-sponsor on the bill.

Nor is this Akin’s first time suggesting some types of rape are more worthy of protections than others. As a state legislator, Akin voted in 1991 for an anti-marital-rape law, but only after questioning whether it might be misused “in a real messy divorce as a tool and a legal weapon to beat up on the husband,” according to a May 1 article that year in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Supreme Court to Cheerleader: You Should Have Cheered for Your Rapist

 Trigger Warning:  This post discusses rape and rape culture.


I just read about a horrible decision* by the U.S. Supreme Court, and I’m infuriated. Do you remember the Texas high school cheerleader who was kicked off the squad for refusing to cheer for her rapist? She just lost her court case against the school.

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

A federal appeals court ruled in September that the cheerleader was speaking for the school, not herself, and had no right to remain silent when called on to cheer the athlete by name.

The Supreme Court denied review of the case Monday without comment.

I am incredibly tired of a culture and legal system that blame and punish victims. Too many people in the legal system have very little understanding of trauma and how it affects the brain. Short statutes of limitation are one indication of this lack of understanding. The nature of trauma—especially human-induced trauma—makes it difficult, if not impossible, in many cases to pursue justice against a perpetrator in a timely fashion. But even when statutes can be tolled, they generally begin to run as soon as the victim realizes or “should have” realized that she has been harmed—not when she is psychologically capable of taking legal action.

This case is just another example of the iniquities that victims of violent crimes must face in a country that claims to be the land of the free, and the home of the brave. “Cowardly” does not begin to describe the officials at this young woman’s school and a Supreme Court that would not even hear her appeal. And she is hardly free when her First Amendment rights have been obstructed by a school that wanted to force her to cheer for her rapist.

High school graduates are not prepared to participate in a democracy when their rights have been trampled upon during an autocratic high school experience. Women and others who have been victimized are being sent a terrible message by the failure of the legal system to provide justice for this young rape victim. There needs to be a national protest of this reprehensible court decision.

“My Short Skirt” may in fact be part of a cheerleading uniform.


* Clarification 5/6/11:  It has been brought to my attention that my use of the word "decision" here may be misleading.  I am referring to the Supreme Court's decision to deny review of the case, not a decision to uphold the ruling of the federal appeals court.  I realize that the word "decision" in a legal context usually refers to the latter, and I apologize for any confusion.