Todd Akin’s “junk science” hurts the abortion debate for all pro-life Americans

by Sara J.

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

Last night on Real News, the panel started with a topic that has been making waves in the news lately: Todd Akin’s ridiculously inaccurate comments on rape, pregnancy and abortion. GBTV’s Will Cain took this moment to have the honest debate about the issue and discussed the disservice the media is doing to the American people by the way it’s being framed.

“What are the appropriate exceptions when someone is pro-life?”

That was the question Will Cain addressed to the Real News panel last night.

“When someone says they are opposed to abortion are exceptions for rape and incest or life of the mother – how do those exceptions play into the abortion debate? And, can we please separate that debate from the nonsense that Todd Akin sputtered?”

Right now, the left and the media are using Rep. Todd Akin’s ridiculous comments about “legitimate abortion,” to frame the debate of exceptions for abortion crazy and unworthy of discussion.

An issue as important and emotionally charged as abortion is worthy of a public debate. Unfortunately, Rep. Todd Akin’s comments have given the left an opportunity to completely shift the focus of that debate, and once again make those who are pro-life, especially those who believe the life of an unborn child is valuable, that no matter how it is conceived.

S.E. noted that she doesn’t take issue with Akin’s stance on abortion. However, the thought of Akin making policy decisions with ‘junk science,’ is a problem.

“The abortion issue is completely separate. And that has been the most offensive part of this, that the media has decided that this is about abortion and this is about all Republicans.” she commented.

Amy Holmes added that this is a pattern seen over and over by the media, and then, of course, by the Democratic Party: guilt by association. If you simply look at the politics of the last year, it’s easy to see not only that Amy is 100% right, but that these instances have shaped most of the more important debates across the country.

For example, look at the Sandra Fluke controversy that took place just a few months ago. A radio host, not even a politician, used one foul word about Ms. Fluke following her public statement on free contraception and women’s health, and the entire Republican base had to condemn the comments. This led to policy debates on everything from women’s healthcare to religious freedoms defined by our First Amendment rights. People are still debating this issue and the Democrats are now using Sandra Fluke in the Obama re-election campaign.

Sandra Fluke has become Barack Obama’s version of “Joe the Plumber”.

It’s no mystery that media loves social issues. They can use them to evoke an passionate response from their viewers and sway public discourse through personal stories that hit on peoples emotions. That’s exactly what is being done with Todd Akin’s comments. A pretty much unknown congressman has helped the left make abortion a key issue in an election that should be about rising unemployment, the national debt, and a struggling economy.

Because Mitt Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan, shares the stance that there shouldn’t be exceptions in the case of abortion, unless the life of the mother is at risk, he is now being tied to Akin’s comment.

“Ryan’s stance on abortion is somehow being tied to Todd Akins, not stance, but statement on abortion,” Will Cain said.

The stance is what deserves an honest debate, and that is what Will Cain proposed they have last night on Real News.

“I am pro-life. I’m opposed to abortion. I’m opposed to abortion in all instances except to save the life of the mother,” Cain explained. “My position is that life begins at conception. I arrive at this position not from a religious orientation, but from a logical one. I don’t see how you can distinguish, essentially, a one minute old child from an eight month old child, and then on down the line. Conception is the only bright line in the process.”

Will also pointed out that this puts him in the minority. However, if you are a pro-life person, you believe life begins at conception. It’s hard to comprehend how one can value one child’s life over another, regardless of the circumstances.

Life is the first thing mentioned in the freedoms America will protect in the Declaration of Independence: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

According to recent Gallup polls, the country is moving towards being more pro-life.

An honestly shocking poll considering the way the left and the media views and covers abortion.

However, when you take Will’s position, the stats change.

While Will’s is a controversial stance, it’s not crazy. But Akin’s comments have allowed the left and the media to take this controversial stance and turn it into a crazy one.

Amy, who is pro-choice, agreed with Will. The left already paints pro-lifers as “neanderthals.” Now, Todd Akin’s apparently neanderthal view of conception has been assigned to them as well.

Buck Sexton pointed out that is the the President who has an extremist view on abortion. Like Will pointed out, pro-lifers are the majority, not that the left would ever allow you to believe that. But Barack Obama voted against a measure to allowed doctors to save babies that survive abortions.

“When it came up, it was 98 to 0 in the Senate,” Buck noted.

Barack Obama ended up voting against that piece of legislation – something that most Americans aren’t even aware of.

Will pointed out that there are two reason for that. One, the entire debate has been shifted to one of women’s health and reproductive rights. Two, it’s never conducted from the position of “is this a life.”

The extremes on this position define the current law on abortion. This is one example of why this issue needs to be sent back to the states. Allow the American people to define the exceptions and have an honest debate on the issue at hand, not the extremes or a ridiculous statement made by a Congressman.

  • Erdman West III

    Dear Glen, I have never fallen into a cesspool before now but having read many of the postings on your site I am hoping someone tosses me a life preserver before I go down for a third time.Can you help me out or are you too busy shoveling more sewage into this mental morass? God [Kosmos] save you and show you the way.

    • Anonymous

      Goodbye, and don’t let the door hit you on your way out.  Go to mediamatters where they make things up out of thin air.  We won’t miss your insults and sarcasm.

  • Anonymous

    I think the media used talk radio and the right to there advantage. They set the narrative and the right swallowed it hook line and sinker.  The one word the left used to start this was “ligament”. In the early 70’s Plan Parenthood talked heavily about ligament rape. I have not found it on the net, but I do remember them using that phrase as a selling point for the approval of abortion in there discussions.

    As to the act of killing the baby after the rape, to me it is still killing a baby. The baby had nothing to do with the rape, in fact it ( the baby) was not even conceived untill the rape occurred. Killing the baby makes for two wrongs, and two wrongs don’t make a wright.  

    But on to other things. You are all invited to a prayer session from 17 September 2012 to 6 November 2012, to pray for our nation and the election. Before you pray please read 2 Chronicles 7:14.  For those that are willing to go the extra mile for there nation, I ask you to fast one day a week out of those 7 weeks. Thank you.

    • Anonymous

      Another euphamism for abortion is “membrane” , or of course, a “little bit of tissue.”  They will never use the correct term: baby.

  • Paula Forester

    People talk about a woman’s choice on abortion. The choice, except for rape, was made when the baby was conceived. If that act wouldn’t have taken place there wouldn’t be a baby.

  • J G

    There is no such thing as “Pro Choice” if you are the baby being torn to pieces or chemically burned to death. I am a single woman and I vote.  Pro Choice really has the effect of anti-baby when the baby is inconvenient for you.  Planned Parenthood’s history began with a woman named Margaret Sanger who hated black babies and wanted to kill them through abortion. Unfortunately those that profit politically or monetarily do not want us to remember this information or consider that the baby is the one who is tortured to death during abortion.

    • Anonymous

      Sanger’s obsession with eugenics can be traced back to her own family. One of 11 children, she wrote in the autobiographical book, My Fight for Birth Control, that “I associated poverty, toil, unemployment, drunkenness, cruelty, quarreling, fighting, debts, jails with large families.” Just as important was the impression in her childhood of an inferior family status, exacerbated by the iconoclastic, “free-thinking” views of her father, whose “anti-Catholic attitudes did not make for his popularity” in a predominantly Irish community.

      The fact that the wealthy families in her hometown of Corning, N.Y., had relatively few children, Sanger took asprima facie evidence of the impoverishing effect of larger families. The personal impact of this belief was heightened 1899, at the age of 48. Sanger was convinced that the “ordeals of motherhood” had caused the death of her mother. The lingering consumption (tuberculosis) that took her mother’s life visited Sanger at the birth of her own first child on Nov. 18, 1905. The diagnosis forced her to seek refuge in the Adirondacks to strengthen her for the impending birth. Despite the precautions, the birth of baby Grant was “agonizing,” the mere memory of which Sanger described as “mental torture” more than 25 years later. She once described the experience as a factor “to be reckoned with” in her zealous campaign for birth control.

      From the beginning, Sanger advocacy of sex education reflected her interest in population control and birth prevention among the “unfit.” Her first handbook, published for adolescents in 1915 and entitled, What Every Boy and Girl Should Know, featured a jarring afterword:

      It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.

  • Anonymous

    During one of my pregnancies, my doctors discovered a serious problem.  One of them advised me to abort because I had a 50/50 chance of surviving the pregnncy.  The second doctor (in the same practice) said he agreed with the 50/50 part, but that he could not advise me as to what to do. My husband said he would support me no matter which decision I made.  That night when I kissed my two little boys goodnight, I wondered how they would fare if I did not live.

    That was a long time ago, and I’m happy to tell you that my daughter, born from that high-risk pregnancy, was born healthy and happy, and now has two daughters of her own.

    When someone says they are pro-choice, pray that they make the “right” choice.

    • Paolina Garcia

       The Catholic Church has completely corrupted this issue. Believe me, I know as a former supporter of the Vatican. They condemn even contraception, and then condemn women who get pregnant because they can’t use contraception!

      It’s seemingly a calculated plan of the Vatican that since they lose converts to Protestants they can just “outbreed” them by banning contraception. It’s been working great in getting South America overpopulated and pouring across the border, in a decade America will be more Catholic than Protestant for the first time in history.

      There is a difference between sperm and a fetus. If the GOP continues to allow the Vatican to shift this debate to say a sperm is basically the same thing, we will ostracize all people who have logic.

      If you allow women contraception and the morning after pill we can virtually eradicate ALL abortions. There is a difference between fetus and sperm!  They are misquoting scripture (the spilling of seed thing is because the man did not want to impregnate the woman he was obligated to).

      • Stephanie

        excuse me, but I am catholic and, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
        1, yes we condemn contraception, but not women who get pregnant. That is just ludicrous. Prr-marital sex is a sin, but you are not “condemned” for doing it, I just had a baby outside of wedlock and I still go to church, I still am welcomed and my priest told me that, God does not make mistakes, people do, but He doesn’t. That is what he said when I told him I was pregnant. And as to why we ban contraception, it is because when you make the choice as to weather or not you are going to be pregnant, the idea is that you are likening yourself to God. Children are a blessing from God, and by using contraception you are telling God, “no, I do not want your blessing, I know better than you thank you very much.” NFP allows you to still limit your families size while still leaving yourself open to God’s plan.
        2, The whole thing about out breeding? I don’t even know what to say to that BS. Also, Protestants loose members to the Church all the time too. But the Church teaches that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and that we should pray and work towards common ends, not fight amongst ourselves. I do not know where you are coming up with this idea that the Vatican wants to over-populate Protestants out of popularity.
        3, I have NEVER heard that sperm is equal to an unborn baby. There is teachings against masturbation but not because sperm is holy life, that is just rediculous and saying things like that make me really wonder as to the legitimacy of your sources.

  • Anonymous

    No one has the “right” to choose for any woman.  This should not be a debate, nor should there be any law regarding this issue.

  • MikeMck

    I worked with Todd Aiken in a ministry called Missiongate in St. Louis. Todd Aiken has proven through the years to be a strong Christian gentleman, and I don’t believe that he meant to say what he said. But if that is what he really believed, then it was wrong, but in no way should disqualify him from running for the U.S. senate. He has a lifetime of work, both public and private, that has been characterized by integrity and concern for others. I think that it is reprehensible that GOP fatcats tried to force him off the ballot. The people of Missouri elected him to be their candidate, so let it be decided at the ballot box. Senator McCaskill I personally like, but her support of the President’s policies have shown that she is fundamentally out of step with the majority of Show-Me state residents.

The 411 From Glenn

Sign up for Glenn’s newsletter

In five minutes or less, keep track of the most important news of the day.