ProPublica

Journalism in the Public Interest

Cancel

Akin Controversy Stirs GOP: Where Do Republicans Stand on Abortion Exemption?

Akin clings to Senate nomination, as his party scrambles to limit damage.

Rep. Todd Akin, seen above celebrating his win in the Missouri GOP senate primary race on Aug. 7, 2012, is under pressure to withdraw after making startling remarks on "legitimate rape" and pregnancy. (Christian Gooden, St. Louis Post-Dispatch/AP Photo)

A Missouri congressman's startling remarks about "legitimate rape" and pregnancy have set off a torrent of criticism from his fellow Republicans as well as from Democrats. And the episode has made the abortion issue an unwelcome focus for GOP candidates nationwide.

Key leaders in the Republican Party, including presidential candidate Mitt Romney, are urging Rep. Todd Akin to surrender the Republican nomination for the Missouri Senate seat now held by Claire McCaskill, a Democrat who until now has been looking very vulnerable. As of Tuesday afternoon, Akin was holding fast to the nomination, despite backlash from party members and the irritating distraction for the top of the ticket.

Some political and religious spokespeople were expressing support for Akin. The Washington Post also pointed out that others in the past have embraced Akin's assertion that the trauma of rape can block pregnancy.

By now, Akin's words — since disavowed — are etched in the public consciousness: "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," Akin, who opposes abortion in all cases, said Sunday while interviewed on a St. Louis television station. The congressman later apologized, saying he "misspoke" and that "rape is never legitimate."

The GOP party platform, which is staunchly pro-life, has not come out in favor of an abortion exemption in cases of rape or incest. Neither the 2004 nor 2008 platforms included such exceptions. News reports state that language of the 2012 platform, heading to a vote next week at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, will similarly stay silent on these circumstances.

What these platforms do include is support for a "human life amendment" to the Constitution that would bestow variously defined legal rights on human embryos.

(In contrast, the Democratic Party has expressed a firmer pro-choice stance in recent years, stating in 2008 that it "strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion" while in 2004, it stated that abortion "should be safe, legal, and rare.")

Across the board, Republicans are divided over abortion exemptions for rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, with most remaining either unconditionally opposed or supporting an exception only when the mother's life is threatened.

Broader GOP support for the no-exception rule, in any case, is not unusual: the Texas Tribune reports that state officials from Gov. Rick Perry to Attorney General Greg Abbott only support abortion when it endangers the health of the mother. However, 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain had long supported such exceptions, according to the New York Times.

Romney has a more complex history with such exceptions — and abortion in general. Pro-choice in the early days of his political career, Romney switched his position to pro-life in late 2004, while still governor of Massachusetts.

In July 2005, then-Gov. Romney vetoed a bill to make emergency contraception — including the so-called morning-after pill — available over the counter and require that hospitals offer it to rape victims. In an op-ed in the Boston Globe, Romney explained that he believed the drug could terminate life after conception and reaffirmed his anti-abortion position. He also said, however, "I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother." In any case, his veto was overturned by the Massachusetts Legislature.

By December 2005, shortly before the contraception law was to take effect, Romney ordered even Catholic hospitals to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. In remarks to the Globe, he said, "My personal view, in my heart of hearts, is that people who are subject to rape should have the option of having emergency contraception or emergency contraception information."

Despite a 2012 Obama ad that claims Romney favors legislation banning abortion in all cases, Romney has publicly restated his support for abortion exemptions as recently as last year.

Following Rep. Akin's controversial remarks, a Romney spokeswoman released a statement Sunday night affirming that "a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape." By Monday morning, candidate Romney issued a personal rebuke, telling National Review Online that Akin's comments were "insulting, inexcusable, and, frankly, wrong."

While Romney's own views on abortion have been consistent for the last seven years, his selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate could muddle the picture. Ryan's views on abortion are much narrower, as news outlets have documented. While running for his congressional seat in Wisconsin, Ryan said he opposed abortions in all cases except to save the life of the mother, according to a 1998 profile by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

"I'm as pro-life as a person gets," Ryan told the Weekly Standard in July 2010.

Last year, Ryan, with Akin, was one of 64 co-sponsors of the "Sanctity of Human Life Act," also known as the Personhood Amendment, which designates the start of human life at fertilization and includes no explicit exemptions for abortion, even for health of the mother. He was also a co-sponsor, along with Akin, of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," which once included a controversial measure limiting Medicaid funding for abortions to "forcible rape," that narrowed the definition to exclude statutory rape and other circumstances.

Catherine Tripp

Aug. 21, 2012, 11:54 p.m.

These people are NOT pro-life.  They are anti-choice thugs, pro-oppressives.  Do not give them the vocabulary they wish to claim for immoral stands.

It is interesting that embryos need to be protected because all life is precious, but villages of foreigners or even Americans vaguely suspected of terrorist inclination, not so much.  Maybe morality works like baby seats, where you’re not supposed to be protected that way after you’re a certain height.

(You’ll also pardon my chuckle that a grown man in 2012 might think that a woman has some superpower that allows her to choose when she conceives.  Sort of reminds me of stories of incubi, demons in the form of a man, who impregnate women in their sleep, for surely she didn’t have sex with men or anything…)

However, one thing that I’m always surprised is missing from the “conversation” (well, screaming without listening) around abortion is the father.  I’m not against abortion in times of need at all, but one might think, in this enlightened age, that a non-absentee, non-violent father should at least be allowed to give his opinion before being excluded by “pro-Choice.”

I feel that it doesn’t do society much good to divide men into categories of “potential sperm donor” and “potential rapist.”  Y’know, it might be her body, but it’s their relationship and their baby.

Something else often ignored (including by the doctors, according to women I’m close to who have had abortions) is that the abortion process is pretty hard on the body and potentially damaging.  Having watched the after-effects a couple of times, I wouldn’t wish it on anybody, the same reason “it’s her body” wouldn’t stop me from trying to convince a woman to not slit her wrists.

Be clear that I think it’s wrong to ban abortions, but I do wish there were more education and inclusiveness around the decision.

Republican leadership does everything in its power to dissuade Akin from continuing to run because he, gasp, has publicly let the cat out of the bag.

When Paul Ryan co-sponsors abortion related bills with Akin and the Republican Party regularly pushes Akin’s/Ryan’s views legislatively, how can these people look themselves in the mirror?

My feeling is that abortion is a private, personal matter between me, my medical provider, and if I have a spiritual inclination, that. Not anybody’s business but my own

Abort Ryan, say i, which will happen, unfortunately to the benefit of the horriffic economically Republican Obama.

These very “choices” of two gawdoffal tickets are in themselves an act of treason perpetrated by the uno-party power structure, which together act as One, 100% for the 1%.

Slit your wrists, everything is just going to get horribly worse, fast.  Watch, as Obama adopts Ryan’s austerity plans safely after the election, continuing the willing rape of his braindead liberal.supporters.

My issue with these types that speak about being “pro-life” is that they aren’t.  If they were “pro-life” they would be more concerned about the lives of the people already here; no, they are only concerned when it comes to my uterus!  Mr. Akin did nothing except to expose the truth about how the GOP really feel.  Most of these “pro-life” hypocrites are throw backs to the 18th century, where “women” were home, barefoot & pregnant with NO opinions other than what their husband has said.

Abortion is a private matter between a woman, her family and her doctor.  Whatever her reasoning, it is her business - not that of the government, her neighbors or anyone else that isn’t walking in her shoes.  Rape by it’s very definition is based on a man’s power over a “helpless woman” - that the state should now choose to victimize her again by forcing her to bear a baby from that rape is unconscionable, wrong, and amoral.  If you don’t believe in abortion - then don’t have one; but you have no right to use the state to force your beliefs onto others!

Pepper Roberts

Aug. 22, 2012, 4:07 p.m.

Taxpayer contributed 447 million dollars to planned parenthood this last budget.  Planned parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America.  After 39 years women should wake up to the fact their choice has exploited them far worse than ever before and ‘privacy” has protected the providers who not only make a fortune but cover up deaths and permanent injuries.  Follow the dollars!Wonder why IVF is such business now?

The road to hell is paved with good intention! the abortion issue Griswold v Connecticut is rather clear in it’s intent “The right to Privacy” concerning a matter so personal we do not want a Politician screwing it up!

Abortions were done before they ever became legal, leaving many women sterile or dead.  Whether legal or not they will continue.  Mostly, at that time it was the woman’s decision, she is the decision maker whether or not the male agrees or not, women will still have an abortion if they want to and all the talk between candidates today, or in the future will not stop that.  That is between that person and GOD and if that person is forgiven by GOD moves on goes accepts GOD’s grace winds up in heaven when they die, the hell raiser, congress people that to judge and dictate and hate wonder where they wind up and they did not even have an abortion!  Think about it!!

This article is part of an ongoing investigation:
Buying Your Vote

Buying Your Vote: Dark Money and Big Data

ProPublica is following the money and exploring campaign issues in the 2012 election you won't read about elsewhere.

Get Updates

Stay on top of what we’re working on by subscribing to our email digest.

optional