Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Richard Mourdock Believes A Child Born From Rape Is ‘God-Intended,’ As Does Much Of The GOP

On Tuesday, Tea Party Senate candidate Rick Mourdock echoed what many Republicans feel about abortion, but in language so direct and striking that it’s drawing national attention:

“I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God,” Mourdock said. “And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

Mourdock defeated Indiana’s incumbent Senator Richard Lugar in the primary and is facing a tight race—and is the only Senate candidate in the country for whom Mitt Romney has filmed a commercial, a fact the Democratic National Committee has pointed out in this new web ad:

Mourdock’s belief that there should be no exception that allows a woman to end a pregnancy is shared by the GOP platform and at least 40 Republican candidates for the House and Senate including Rep. Paul Ryan, the GOP nominee for vice-president, and Rep. Todd Akin. Akin tried to justify this belief earlier this year by claiming that in cases of “legitimate rape” women do not get pregnant.

Former Senator and candidate for the Republican presidential nomination Rick Santorum suggested that women should “make the best of a bad situation”:

…I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you. As you know, we have to, in lots of different aspects of our life we have horrible things happen. I can’t think of anything more horrible, but nevertheless, we have to make the best out of a bad situation and I would make the argument that that is making the best.

Former Republican nominee for the Senate in Nevada, Sharron Angle, had a folksier way of putting it:

And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade.

Mourdock is countering the attacks by saying his opponents are charging that he said rape was God-intended.

“Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock’s comments, and they do not reflect his views,” Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said Tuesday evening in an email to The Associated Press.

  • old_blu

    Typical republican, anymore that’s acceptable talk from them, and it’s too bad they don’t have more respect fot other people and how they feel.

    The nice thing about freedom is.

    If you don’t believe in abortion don’t have one.
    If you don’t believe in gay marraige don’t have one.

    • I could not agree more.

    • Divertissement

      I agree 100%
      what’s with all these people who believe in freedom, as long as it applies only to their own biases.
      Good post – and the idea is profound in its simplicity.

    • You just outlined what is meant by “Choice”

  • The bottom line is that the RNC’s fanatic, anti-rationalist, sexist, elitist puppeteers want followers. Not thinkers, not doers, not planners.

    And that includes propping up the ludicrous notion that a man has the sacred right and responsibility to keep women voting Republican and pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen the rest of the time!

    They haven’t started shooting people that tow the line in the head–yet. But it’s coming.

  • neece00

    I really like the comment that Joe Biden made during his debate with regards to religion and abortion. The connection between God and abortion is something that people have a hard time with but we have to remember, in the freedom part of our country that freedom includes freedom of religion. And in this case, their religion dictates to them whether abortion is acceptable or not and it not up to any of us to judge that decision. That is where the freedom of choice comes in. I also think that any women who has had to make that choice is the only who can live with the decision and she needs support more than anything.

  • bcarreiro

    ABOLISH THE REPUBLICAN PARTY …anarchy without the violence. sign the petition @care2.org

  • elw

    They do not believe in Government interference with personal choices except in the case of rape, abortion, sex and who you marry. In other words the government should stay out of your business but is welcomed in your bedroom.

  • “….life is that gift from God,” Mourdock said. “And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
    ——————-

    These fetus-obsessed explain away stillbirths (a fetus born dead) as “God’s will”. Isn’t it weird that they don’t call it a “gift”, or more accurately, a gift taken away? Doesn’t that whole mindset lead to feelings of guilt and shame from the griefstricken parent(s)?

    Those feelings seem to be the end result for folks whose only reading matter is the Christian bible — which is honestly, a work of historical fiction ( and yes, I think other tomes revered by other organized religions are works of historical fiction, too).

    No, pregnancy — or a ravaging STD, or injury or even death of the victim — is NOT something “God intended to happen” — it’s a result of man’s free will, and free will sometimes leads to evil attempts to take power and victimize others. THAT’S what rape is, and that’s what the products of rape are.

    Bible study groups should stop the stupidity. EDUCATE your Bible readers.

    • F R

      What I cannot understand is , why so many young women follow Romney( I can understand those past the child bearing years)? Do they enjoy that type of pillow talk? Do they enjoy that kind of abuse? Do they enjoy been dominated or do the envy the women of other parts of the world who for centuries have no saying in their personal lives? Educate me Karen…..

      • I asked myself the same question when I watched Romney yesterday in one of his rallies surrounded by white women. I relize that abortion is a difficult and highly controversial issue, and that those who oppose it on moral grounds deserve respect, but it baffles me when I see women supporting a party that has denigrated them time and again. What is even more puzzling is that many women are in favor of repealing Lilly Ledbetter!

  • Religion is the attempt to dictate the definition of the Greater Good by persons with woefully unenlightened minds.

  • ski3938

    Why we are running.

    Well now we know what ROMNEY/RYAN mean by big government. They are in
    favor of a class of leaders who want the ultimate control of woman’s
    bodies. They say not letting woman drive or forcing them to wear full
    body clothing with only slits for your eyes is not acceptable. But they
    are in favor and their supporters agree that woman should be banned from
    making their own decisions on their own lifestyle and bodies. So this
    is an example of the role of the panel Sarah Palin fears.

  • manuelvillarreal

    If any woman is not convinced that her virgina is going to be owned by the State or the Federal Government if these Republican, Congressmen, and Senators, and Romney are elected into office it will be to their own undoing .All that women have fought for from the vote to control of their reproduction rights will be wiped away in one vote for the uber conservative religious zealot party ! They are the reason Religion has no place in our politics.

    • F R

      I am in agreement with you.If Romney wins there will be great repercussions for the women movement in our Country. They will be set backs once again close to Colonial times. Republicans have discovered that Pillow talk and propaganda seems to work well with some women. By the amount of young women I see at Romney’s rallies it seems that their analogy does hold water.Chastity belts anyone…

  • Well, then I guess God ‘blesses us’ with storms, earthquakes, floods, and wildfires also then.

  • johninPCFL

    And where does Romney stand in all this? As a Bishop he visited a woman hospitalized for blod clots that was having an abortion because her doctors advised it. Romney tried to talk the four-time mother out of it asking “what about the baby?” She replied “what about my responsibility to my other LIVING children?”

    The Bishop of his flock hasn’t spoken to her since.

    • HajjaRomi

      She should be grateful to God for that! Clearly, he is insane. (I think this is the incident where the father of the pregnant woman threw Romney out of the house for his ugly behavior.)

  • Unfortunately, the trouble with freedom is it can also be taken away from you if you stand by and let it happen!

    That is exactly what Romney and the Republicans will take from you if he is elected. You think the “Patriot Act” was extreme? That was a Republican idea that Romney strongly supports!

    Whoever wins the presidency will more than likely have the opportunity to appoint at least 1, and possibly 2 Supreme Court judges. Romney has promised he will appoint judges who will overturn Roe v Wade, and will support a federal ban on gay marriage.

    Going further, other Republicans and Tea-baggers have stated their goal is to create a Supreme Court that will limit legal appeals, give the government more power to take property through eminent domain, strengthen the Patriot Act, give blanket search permits, give the government more search-and-seizure power, limit internet freedoms power, …etc.

    They already have a Supreme Court that has allowed corporations and big money a major say in politics. “We the People of the United States…” has now become “We The People With the most Money…”

    Also, you would think Romney, a right-winger, would strongly support the 2nd amendment, which he SAYS he does. But remember that when he was Gov of Massachusetts, he helped create and happily signed into law what was then, the most gun-ownership limiting anti 2nd amendment state law in the nation.

    And if you fall for Romney and the Republicans constant proclamations that they are workers for God should remember the quote:

    “I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.”

    Then remember that is a quote from Adolf Hitler

    • ObozoMustGo

      FT… you wouldn’t know freedom if was sledge hammer pounding your head into mush… I’m just sayin…

      Have a nice day!

      “Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville

  • ObozoMustGo

    Jason Sattler is just another useful idiot at The Memo writing yet another disjointed and meandering attempt to attack Republicans. Jason, based on your writing skills, you should consider taking up waiting tables or picking up trash for a living.

    Here’s a well thought out and reasoned article on the phony contraception issue.

    Contraception and the English Language
    By Sheldon Richman
    Thursday, October 25, 2012

    The English language, George Orwell wrote in 1946, “becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”

    Orwell called his classic essay “Politics and the English Language,” having recognized politics as a cesspool of foolish thoughts and slovenly language. I submit that things have only gotten worse since his time.

    Take the debate over contraception coverage under Obamacare. Has there ever been an issue so absurdly framed? The fierce determination to call things by inappropriate names is simply breathtaking! It may well be that the abuse of language is entirely intentional, a calculated attempt to confuse people, most of whom are too busy making a living (or looking for a job) and raising their kids to pay close attention. But perhaps what looks like demagoguery is merely the result of mental fog.

    The two abused words I have in mind are access and insurance.

    Writing on The Huffington Post blog, Cristina Page says, “This election year is the first in which American’s [sic] access to contraception will be dramatically increased or dramatically scaled back depending on who wins the Oval Office” (emphasis added).

    My intention here is not to tout any candidate (I have no desire to do that), but to protest this abuse of language. Page is saying that women’s access to contraception rides on what happens to the Obamacare mandate that requires employers to include free coverage for contraceptives in their workers’ health insurance policies. Other pundits go further and say that if that mandate were rescinded, women would be denied access to birth control.

    Is that so? It doesn’t seem to be. Rather, women whose employers don’t provide such coverage would have to pay out of pocket (or find someone else to pay) for their contraceptives. That is hardly a denial of access. Employers don’t include groceries in their health plans—though without food you’ll surely become unhealthy—but no one regards that as denial of access to food—and for good reason: Abstaining from paying for something is not a denial of access.

    From the public discussion, you’d think someone has advocated outlawing contraception. (Perhaps Rick Santorum did at one point, but he’s not running for anything.) No one running for president has.

    The advocates of the Obamacare mandate occasionally acknowledge the point when they lament that women without free employer coverage would have to shoulder the burden of paying for their own contraception. Obviously, if they are free to buy contraceptives (whatever the financial burden), their access is not denied.

    So we’re talking not about access, but about who should pay. That’s quite a different conversation.

    Let’s dispose of one thing at the outset: There ain’t no such thing as free contraception. Contraceptive drugs and devices are not found in nature. They are produced by a mixture of labor and raw materials. Producers of those things quite understandably want to be paid for their trouble. So will the drug store personnel want to be paid. So when people demand free contraceptives (or anything else), they mean that the products should be free to them and that someone else—anyone—should pick up the tab.

    Demanding that someone else pay for what one wants is not the most attractive pose to strike. Why should someone else pay? Here’s an even better question: Why should someone else be forced to pay? (Government is force, after all.)

    Those who try to answer this question, say in effect: Because if I have to pay for it myself, I will have to make tradeoffs and do without something else? That’s a lousy answer. Most of us face such tradeoffs all the time. That’s how it is in a world of scarcity. (It would be nice if government policies wouldn’t create scarcities, but that’s an issue for another day.)

    I have to laugh when I’m told that polls show that over 90 percent of women favor the mandate. That’s a surprise? Who doesn’t want free stuff? But it’s hardly relevant to public policy, which—let us not forget—is about using the government’s power to threaten violence against peaceful people.

    “Free” contraception may not really be free even to the beneficiaries. Employer-provided medical insurance is part of the employee’s compensation package provided tax-free in lieu of cash wages. (It’s the product of World War II wage and price controls.) It stands to reason that if employers are required to pay for this “free” coverage, employees will probably receive lower cash wages or do without other job benefits. The money has to come from somewhere, and employers are not into charity. Politicians treat us like children when they promise us free things. Somebody pays, and that somebody may well be the person who thinks she’s getting a freebie. Better the price be open than hidden.

    A word about religious freedom: It is certainly true that someone with moral objections to contraception should not be forced to pay for other people’s contraception—but that is only because no one should be forced to do so. The religious aspect has gotten too much attention. All people have the right to liberty.

    Those who equate access with coverage engage in a bit of demagoguery when they exaggerate the financial burden of contraception. Sandra Fluke, the now-famous Georgetown University law student, said, “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.” But Cathy Cleaver Ruse quickly countered that one can buy generic oral contraceptives for $9 without insurance at Target and Walmart.

    Nevertheless, even if Fluke were right, that would not justify coercing employers to pay for their female employees’ contraceptives. Civilized folks don’t force other people to do things they don’t want to do—or ask the government to do the dirty work instead.

    For women who would find even $9 a month a burden, there are sources of assistance, such as Planned Parenthood and other voluntary organizations. Medicaid, the health care program for low-income people, also pays for birth control pills. The “burden” argue has no merit.

    The upshot is that the lack of insurance does not equate to lack of access.

    Finally, there’s that word insurance. In any other context people understand that insurance is a way to deal with risk—that is, the small chance that something very costly will happen to you, like an auto accident or a house fire. Typically you can’t get insurance for an intentional act. If you call Travelers and ask how much fire insurance costs after mentioning that you’re planning to burn down your house, the agent will probably hang up on you.

    Thus there can be no insurance, strictly speaking, for the use of contraceptives. The decision to use birth control is a volitional act and not something that happens to a woman. It therefore does not belong in the category insurable things.

    Look at it this way: No woman would buy contraceptive coverage with her own money. Why not? Because the premium would include the cost of the contraceptives plus the company’s administrative overhead. No woman would think the coverage worth that price. Better to self-insure—pay out of earnings or savings—and save the administrative costs.

    The government of course can force employers or the taxpayers to pay for women’s contraceptives, but that doesn’t make it insurance. Out of respect for clear thought and clear language—if nothing else, then out of respect for George Orwell—we should call such “coverage” what it is: welfare.
    ———————————————————

    There you have it. It’s nice to read well thought out and logical thinking for a change around here. You are welcome. I am here to help.

    Have a nice day!

    “Society will develop a new kind of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate. It does not tyrannize but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”
    ― Alexis de Tocqueville

    • grammyjill

      I didn’t bother to read your whole stupid article. What I KNOW is that if R/R get in women will lose contriception. How do I know, cause Ryan is already trying to pass that bill. It bans all hormonal contriception, IUD’s and invetro fertilization.
      And I don’t see the big deal to have contriception covered by insurance, afterall your little blue pills have been covered since they were invented.

      • ObozoMustGo

        grammy… you are a sweet old woman, but you are dumb as a friggin rock!

        Have a nice day!

        “The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency…Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” – Czech Republic newspaper Prager Zeitung

        • grammyjill

          1. I ain’t that old! 2. I ain’t dumb either. I told you before, I watch the House and the Senate. I saw it live on tv.

          • ObozoMustGo

            sorry grams. You may not be too old, but you ARE exceptionally stupid, perhaps bordering on being a fool. I’m sure that you “see” lots of things others don’t see, either. Does this happen when you have your tin foil hat on, or when it’s off?

            Have a nice weekend, grammy!

            “Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?” – Joe Biden to Charles Woods, father of the slain former Navy SEAL while his son’s coffin was being unloaded from the plane.

  • emadis41

    What is new? They are hollier than thou!
    The Bible has no reference to ban abortion.. it actually advanced what is called “Bitter Water” that when it is given to a woman who fornicated, it will abort the baby. Beside clinically any fetus has no life of its own before 120 days from conception, and it is dead once separated from the mother.
    Rape is an awful thing to dance around or ignor as a factor in the raped well being, especially when many states give the rapist the right of parenthood with regard to the child of rape.
    I am prolife, but before imposing my belief on women, I think we should protect their rights to choose if they want to exercise abortion or not. We should not demonize any woman for chosing abortion or keeping a baby that resulted from abortion.
    My advice to all women to steer away from republicans, least they will be raped because God wanted that way?

    • HajjaRomi

      I thought it was illegal to profit from a crime. Well, being able to have fatherhood rights is profiting from the crime of raping a woman. I wonder if anybody will ever take that to court…

      • emadis41

        HajjaRomi, yes they will and some did already. In one case a rapist won his case while in jail. no kidding

  • ayayaboy

    Why does romney have all these crooks, bullies and women banishers like Karl Rove, Donald Trump, Akin and Murdoch all around himself?

  • you are a male you do not know what women are going thru when being rape and you think that when a woman gets pergnant that is a give from god one thats stupis and two no women wanst to remeber what happen to her when being raped and endding up getting pregnant is a big reminder of what happen when women are trying to forget something so horrible like being raped is saying that i wanted to get raped in the frist place and that is a big fat lie no woman wants to go throught that unless you Mourdock want to go throught it yourself and behappy that it happen to you

  • 1bythebrooks2

    If only men could get pregnant!!

    This does make me wonder if Mourdock has had a hand in any rape that resulted in a pregnancy!

  • HajjaRomi

    No, I meant that some WOMAN would challenge giving her rapist fatherhood rights over her child, but in any case, you answered my question.

    It’s so unbelievably barbaric that it’s hard to fathom how anything like this could get so far, even the way this country has been going lately.

  • Rape is Rape.

  • While should a woman have to carry a biological mass that a rapist who is working for Satan has put into her womb to mix with her biological mass to make a protozoa that becomes a fetus then a baby. That is not a gift from God but from Satan and no woman should have to be reminded every day of the terror she went thou when she was raped. If she has to when she doesn’t want to that is like she is being raped every day for nine month until Satan’s gift is born. To me and a lot of other people a woman that gets pregnant after being raped is not carrying a gift from God but from Satan.

  • NO HE DIDN’T! No this jackass didn’t make that comment! Two things: One, I wandered if he would have that same attitude if that was his daughter and/or some other femeale relative of his? I wandered if he had to have a dozen security guards walk him to his car after that debate?! I know there had to be a crowd of women ready to beat him down for that statemnt! Those sounded like W.A.W.(Whooping Ass Words) to me! Making a commnt of that nature in these days and ime i as offensive as stating,”Women should be at home barefoot and pregnant”! Dud needed his ass whooped from one end of Indiana to the other!

  • dalnb

    Romney= Of the Wealthy for the Wealthy; Obama; Of the People for the People!

    • ObozoMustGo

      dalnb = dumb a$$ liberal no brain

      Have a nice day!

      “Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?” – Joe Biden to Charles Woods, father of the slain former Navy SEAL while his son’s coffin was being unloaded from the plane.

  • joyscarbo

    Funny that republicans keep complaining that government is too big. They say that they want smaller government that is less intrusive in peoples’ lives. That’s funny, because all their stances include NOT supporting a woman’s right to choose, not supporting insurance-covered birth control and no support for ensuring women are paid the same wages men are paid for the same work!!!
    Is it a coincident at the republican party is male dominated?! Or are female republicans just that submissive and complacent?

  • ski3938

    hear on tv that Romney is attracting more women. But I do not buy it,
    no matter how you want to live your life I do not understand how anyone
    would want to have a government in the United States that controls
    women’s bodies. I hear night and day all this negative talk about Muslim
    woman and how they have to follow whatever men want , like not driving
    not going out on their own and wearing clothing with only slits for
    eyes. In this country women should be trusted to take care of their own
    bodies and minds ,so much talk about controlling women this election
    season is very troubling, in fact it is no different basically than what
    is going on in the Muslim world. It seems we are all created equally as
    long as we are not women.

  • Cyndieaa

    If you do not have a uterus and ovaries, you should not even be allowed in this discussion