WaPo: GOP congressman: Rate of pregnancies from rape is ‘very low’

[mistertim]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/12/gop-congressman-rate-of-pregnancies-from-rape-is-very-low/

 

Another Republican congressman ventured into the realm of rape and pregnancy Wednesday, saying at a committee hearing that incidences of pregnancy from rape are “very low.”

 

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), whose measure banning abortions after 20 weeks was being considered in the House Judiciary Committee, argued against a Democratic amendment to make exceptions for rape and incest by suggesting that pregnancy from rape is rare.

“Before, when my friends on the left side of the aisle here tried to make rape and incest the subject — because, you know, the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low,” Franks said.

 

 

As the Post’s Sarah Kliff noted at the time of Akin’s comments, a 2003 study from St. Lawrence University actually found that pregnancy results from rape significantly more often it does in other cases.

 

A 2011 study from San Francisco State University found that, in Colombia, “female youth who have experienced sexual violence report significantly higher levels of unintended pregnancy and unmet need for contraception and lower levels of current modern contraceptive use compared to those who have not experienced sexual violence.”

 

Franks’s office has yet to respond to a request for further comment on his claim.

 

Man...these guys just can't help themselves it seems.  

[Corcaigh]

Don't let facts and reality get in the way of your politics.

[SJValleySkinz]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/12/gop-congressman-rate-of-pregnancies-from-rape-is-very-low/

 

 

Another Republican congressman ventured into the realm of rape and pregnancy Wednesday, saying at a committee hearing that incidences of pregnancy from rape are “very low.”

 

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), whose measure banning abortions after 20 weeks was being considered in the House Judiciary Committee, argued against a Democratic amendment to make exceptions for rape and incest by suggesting that pregnancy from rape is rare.

“Before, when my friends on the left side of the aisle here tried to make rape and incest the subject — because, you know, the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low,” Franks said.

 

 

As the Post’s Sarah Kliff noted at the time of Akin’s comments, a 2003 study from St. Lawrence University actually found that pregnancy results from rape significantly more often it does in other cases.

 

A 2011 study from San Francisco State University found that, in Colombia, “female youth who have experienced sexual violence report significantly higher levels of unintended pregnancy and unmet need for contraception and lower levels of current modern contraceptive use compared to those who have not experienced sexual violence.”

 

Franks’s office has yet to respond to a request for further comment on his claim.

 

Man...these guys just can't help themselves it seems.  

 

I don't know if the Colombian example would get much of a reaction out of this guy. It'll be hard enough to get him to give a darn about white American woman. Baby steps...

[gbear]

I thought this article on Today's NYTimes page was a good one:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/magazine/study-women-denied-abortions.html?hp&_r=0

 

It's about what happens to the women who are denied abortion versus those who have them.  It looks at them over time which I'd never seen a study do.

 

In response to the original posting, I would have thought the party would have shut this guy up after his impact on the presidential election.

[ncr2h]

The problem is his statement could mean two different things:

 

(1) Out of all the pregnancies in the world, the ones resulting from rape are only a very small fraction; or

(2) When you get raped, the likelihood of you becoming pregnant from that rape will be very low.

 

One side will interpret it one way, the other will interpret it the other way.

[@DCGoldPants]

You'd think by now the GOP would have a workshop explaining to these men why they shouldn't even get near the subject.

[Stugein]

The problem is his statement could mean two different things:

 

(1) Out of all the pregnancies in the world, the ones resulting from rape are only a very small fraction; or

(2) When you get raped, the likelihood of you becoming pregnant from that rape will be very low.

 

One side will interpret it one way, the other will interpret it the other way.

 

I interpreted it as "(3) Of all the rapes that occur only a small percentage result in pregnancy". *shrug*

[Kilmer17]

Jeezus.

 

THIS IS NOT THAT DIFFICULT.

 

If you are a male GOPer, dont EVER use the word rape.  EVER.  Not for ANYTHING.  There is absolutely nothing good that can come out of it.  I dont care what your intentions are, or what the actual context is.

 

Just dont say it.    EVER!

[Corcaigh]

The problem is his statement could mean two different things:

 

(1) Out of all the pregnancies in the world, the ones resulting from rape are only a very small fraction; or

(2) When you get raped, the likelihood of you becoming pregnant from that rape will be very low.

 

One side will interpret it one way, the other will interpret it the other way.

 

Never mind how you interpret his statement, in the best possible interpretation he is attempting to make the argument that the issue of what to do in the case of rape is not important.

[China]

Jeezus.

 

THIS IS NOT THAT DIFFICULT.

 

If you are a male GOPer, dont EVER use the word rape.  EVER.  Not for ANYTHING.  There is absolutely nothing good that can come out of it.  I dont care what your intentions are, or what the actual context is.

 

Just dont say it.    EVER!

 

They just can't help themselves...

 

[Larry]

Jeezus.

 

THIS IS NOT THAT DIFFICULT.

 

If you are a male GOPer, dont EVER use the word rape.  EVER.  Not for ANYTHING.  There is absolutely nothing good that can come out of it.  I dont care what your intentions are, or what the actual context is.

 

Just dont say it.    EVER!

 

The first rule of the GOP club is:  Don't talk about rape. 

[twa]

context helps

Update 3:06 p.m.: In a statement sent to CBS News,
Franks sought to clarify his comment, saying he meant to refer to women
seeking abortions in the sixth month. “Pregnancies from rape that
result in abortion after the beginning of the sixth month are very
rare,” he said. “This bill does not address unborn children in earlier
gestations. Indeed, the bill does nothing to restrict abortions
performed before the beginning of the 6th month.”

[Larry]

Never mind how you interpret his statement, in the best possible interpretation he is attempting to make the argument that the issue of what to do in the case of rape is not important.

And that's the big problem with his comment.

I don;t care if he's saying "rape victims don;t get pregnant" or "rape accounts for only a tiny percentage of abortions".

In either case, the response is "so what?"

If rape only accounts for 1% of pregnancies, then including an exemption for it will simply result in an exemption that is very rarely used.

I don't care if there's only one woman in America who's been raped, and wants an abortion. The reason why she shouldn't be allowed to have one, Congressman, is . . . ?

[twa]

the time of grace has expired?

[Larry]

context helps

Update 3:06 p.m.: In a statement sent to CBS News,

Franks sought to clarify his comment, saying he meant to refer to women

seeking abortions in the sixth month. “Pregnancies from rape that

result in abortion after the beginning of the sixth month are very

rare,” he said. “This bill does not address unborn children in earlier

gestations. Indeed, the bill does nothing to restrict abortions

performed before the beginning of the 6th month.”

 

Pointing out, Congressman, that abortions of all kinds after the sixth month are very rare.

(And his law seeks to outlaw all of them.)

 

But, glad to see that the GOP has issued their instructions on which deliberately deceptive "context" they want to try to shove the Congressman's comment into. 

[twa]

larry the bill does not seek to outlaw all of them

 

http://spectator.org/blog/2013/06/12/controversial-abortion-bill-cl

 

Franks pointed out that the bill
already offers that exception in Section 3 that if “by reasonable
medical judgment, the abortion is necessary to save the life of a
pregnant woman whose life is endangered by physical order, physical
illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical
condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.”

Gowdy re-focused the debate, reminding the committee of the
purpose of the bill – that unborn children can feel pain. He
brought up former execution methods such as burning, hanging,
firing squad, and electrocution, and how later these were changed
to lethal injection in order to be more humane.

“If it’s good enough for people who have committed some of the
most horrific acts in this country, surely could we not be
concerned a little bit about the pain of the most innocent victims
in society?” he said. “Is that too much to ask?”

 

add

why not just allow them to kill the child after birth as well?

 

if up to the 6th month is not long enough WHY stop at nine????

[Larry]

larry the bill does not seek to outlaw all of them

 

http://spectator.org/blog/2013/06/12/controversial-abortion-bill-cl

 

Thanks for the info.  I wonder why they allowed that.  Seems more reasonable that usual for most GOP attempts. 

 

I wonder if they included another exception. 

 

When Tiller (I think that was his name, that abortion doctor in Kansas) was murdered, they said that the few third-trimester abortions he performed (They mentioned that he was ons of only three doctors in the country who performed them.  And that, in his career, the total number he had performed was pretty small.  I'm thinking it was a two-digit number), most of them were for the mother's health (he had to have paperwork on file, from two doctors, swearing this), or there was one other case:  Where the fetus could not possibly live, once born. 

 

(They mentioned one example:  Apparantly there's this very rare medical condition, where the fetus doesn't grow any lungs.  The fetus can be perfectly healthy, it's heart will beat, and it will kick inside mommy and all that.  But it is guaranteed to die, within minutes of being born.) 

 

Wonder if they included language for that, too. 

[mjah]

why not just allow them to kill the child after birth as well?

 

if up to the 6th month is not long enough WHY stop at nine????

 

 

I enjoy laughing at that attempt at "logic" each and every time I read it.  Thanks for the chuckle.

 

Flip the argument around and see for yourself.  

[twa]

I agree logic has been abandoned

 

does logic even have a place in it?

[s0crates]

There are times in debate when the best strategy is to let your opponent keep talking.

[skinsmarydu]

There are times in debate when the best strategy is to let your opponent keep talking.

I couldn't just "like" that comment.  I have to say I love it.

It worked wonders for Governor Romney.

[twa]

There are times in debate when the best strategy is to let your opponent keep talking.

 

there are times when reality intrudes as well

[Henry]

The problem is his statement could mean two different things:

 

(1) Out of all the pregnancies in the world, the ones resulting from rape are only a very small fraction; or

(2) When you get raped, the likelihood of you becoming pregnant from that rape will be very low.

 

One side will interpret it one way, the other will interpret it the other way.

 

Never mind how you interpret his statement, in the best possible interpretation he is attempting to make the argument that the issue of what to do in the case of rape is not important.

 

This. I'm sure he didn't mean rape victims are less likely to get pregnant. What I did take him to mean was that pregnant rape victims are so rare they don't matter.

 

Not sure that's better though.

 

Kilmer got it in one. 

[twa]

is the justification used for aborting a fetus from a rape stronger or weaker after carrying it 6 months?

 

does it matter

[mcsluggo]

I hate to be in the position of agreeing with TWA ...

 

but...

 

6 months??

really??

 

my daughter was BORN at 28 weeks.