Akin Clarifies Clarification: Women Just Constantly Lie About Rape All The Time
Serial fact-raper Todd Akin (R-R'lyeh) has decided, what the hell, since he's clarifying things, he might as well just clarify a little more. After telling Mike Huckabee that he's definitely still running for the Senate, and after appearing to momentarily acknowledge biological facts, Akin has now doubled down on the crazy, insisting in an interview with Dana Loesch that, actually yeah, his original claim about ladies and rape was pretty much right, maybe, except he meant "forcible," not "legitimate" and that what he really meant to say is that ladies just plain lie about being raped so they can get them some sweet public abortion dollars. He also denies ever implying that he said that rapists were legitimate, which is good, because literally NOBODY thought he said that. Akin also appeared to backtrack on his earlier "apology," referring to the thoroughly discredited opinions of Dr. John C. Willke, who first popularized the notion that ladyparts magically prevent pregnancy in a rape:
AKIN: You know, Dr. Willke has just released a statement and part of his letter, I think he just stated it very clearly. He said, of course Akin never used the word legitimate to refer to the rapist, but to false claims like those made in Roe v. Wade and I think that simplifies it….. There isn’t any legitimate rapist…. [I was] making the point that there were people who use false claims, like those that basically created Roe v. Wade.
Here is a recording of Akin's forcible, illegitimate assault upon logic, reality, and the English language:
</p><p>[<a href="http: //thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/08/21/721791/akin-clarifies-legitimate-rape-comments-women-make-false-claims-about-being-raped/" target="_"blank"">ThinkProgress</a> / <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/us/politics/rape-assertions-are-dismissed-by-health-experts.html?" target="_blank">NYT</a>]</p>
So, the state-level effort to pass personhood amendments is of course an attempt to overturn <em>Roe</em>. At first thought, you&#039;d think it&#039;s doomed to failure - <em>Roe</em> explicitly dismisses fetal personhood, and for good reason, and so the first state amendment will be meaningless in the face of the Supremacy clause.
I&#039;m pretty sure the forced birthers know this though. The idea, most likely, is to get personhood passed in a large enough majority of states to make SCOTUS reconsider the concept, c.f. <em>Loving</em> in which standing precedent was overturned because of widespread movement in the states towards, in that case, the right outcome. I hasten to point out, I do not intend in any way to compare the merits of the cases.
i was thinking more &#039;show me&#039;.
but maybe that&#039;s just me.
(and yeah, claire&#039;s having a blast)