Rape is a big issue this election season. Not what we were expecting, but, these days, American voters are prepared to deal with pretty much anything.
This week, all eyes turned to a United States Senate debate in Indiana — also something we were not really planning on doing. Richard Mourdock, the Republican candidate, caused a national stir when he defended his across-the-board opposition to abortion by saying that a pregnancy caused by rape "is something that God intended to happen."
When it comes to abortion, both Mourdock and his Democratic opponent, Representative Joe Donnelly, are anti-choice. But, unlike Mourdock, Donnelly makes an exception in the case of rape or incest. One of the truly disturbing parts of our current politics is that we have begun to identify people who want to impose their religious beliefs on millions of women who don't share them as moderates as long as they're O.K. with the rape exemption.
There are plenty of reasons that a sensible Hoosier would not want to have Mourdock as a senator. He's a Tea Party favorite who toppled the longtime incumbent, Senator Richard Lugar, in a primary, during which he said that his definition of bipartisanship was "Democrats coming to the Republican point of view." As state treasurer, he sued to stop the Obama administration's rescue of Chrysler, a company that is directly or indirectly responsible for about 100,000 jobs in Indiana.
But let's just talk today about his comment on abortion. Mourdock was basically saying that everything that happens is part of God's plan. Did that mean God's plan included evil things like sexual assault? Or just pregnancies as a result of sexual assault? Theologians have been arguing these kinds of questions for more than a thousand years. I don't think we can expect to work them out in the Indiana Senate debate.
However, Mourdock's words reminded everyone of Representative Todd Akin, the United States Senate candidate in Missouri. He defended his opposition to abortion under any circumstance by claiming that it was virtually impossible to become pregnant from a "legitimate" rape. (Many Missourians were disturbed by the remark. Recently, Akin skillfully attempted to change the subject by comparing his opponent, Senator Claire McCaskill, to a dog.)
Big-name Republicans who had distanced themselves from Akin were once again shocked — shocked! — by the appearance of another anti-choice candidate whose use of language was so clumsy as to make it clear how really radical the entire party's position on women's reproductive rights has become. Senator Kelly Ayotte canceled a visit to Indiana. John McCain said he'd withdraw his support unless Mourdock apologized, then withdrew the withdrawal when Mourdock said despicable media minds had misinterpreted his words.
What about Mitt Romney? Mourdock is the only Senate candidate for whom Romney has appeared in a TV ad, although there are lots of beleaguered Republicans who could use his help: the guy in Montana who had a fire on his property and then sued the local fire department that worked to put it out; the guy in Florida who used to do promotional work for "Hooters"; the woman who's running against Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in New York. She's against abortion even in cases of rape and incest, but, so far, very few New Yorkers know it because they have yet to learn more basic information, such as her name.
If Republicans lose Lugar's seat, it will totally quash their hopes of winning control of the Senate. So a Romney spokesman simply said Mitt "disagrees" with Mourdock's statement and let it go at that.
The real moral of the Mourdock flap isn't about giving rape victims special dispensation, or whether it's offensive to say that you believe even sexual assaults are part of God's plan. It's the one President Obama came up with: "This is exactly why you don't want a bunch of politicians, mostly male, making decisions about women's health care." (It's amazing, at this stage, that the president can say something this pointed, given the way he's been run ragged through the swing states. Have you looked at the man lately? He resembles a losing contestant in "The Hunger Games.")
The idea of banning abortion except for rape and incest cases makes anti-choice politicians sound more evenhanded, but it doesn't actually make much sense. If you believe life begins at conception, then that's a life, and you should try to convince women not to terminate any pregnancy, no matter what the cause. Our difference of opinion is over whether you can impose your beliefs with the threat of cops and penitentiaries.
And if rape victims deserve exemptions because their situation is dire, what about other women with unwanted pregnancies and terrible stories? The real crime of people like Mourdock and Akin is that their inartful language throws a sudden stark light on a stance that sounds so unthreatening when a candidate simply says: "I'm pro-life."
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Op-Ed Columnist: Talk About a Way With Words
Dengan url
http://opinimasyarakota.blogspot.com/2012/10/op-ed-columnist-talk-about-way-with.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Op-Ed Columnist: Talk About a Way With Words
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Op-Ed Columnist: Talk About a Way With Words
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar