August 22, 2012--"She's Uptight"

Even Republicans know that what Missouri congressman Todd Akin said about "legitimate rape" is stupid.

Not the concept that there is legitimate as opposed to illegitimate rape--about that there is general GOP agreement--but they know that his comments are politically stupid and that's why they are belatedly trying to get him to drop out of the race.

Not only might this distinction of his (and theirs) cause Missouri voters to hold their noses and vote to reelect Senator Claire McCaskill (and thereby make it easier for Democrats to cling to their majority in the Senate), but woman nationally might see the true nature of the Republican war on women--especially with Akin ally Paul Ryan on the GOP ticket--that enough of them will hold their noses and vote to reelect Barack Obama.

Politically the two giddiest people in America right now are Senator McCaskill and President Obama. Rep. Akin's aberrations--and the attention they bring to Ryan who cosponsored "personhood" legislation with Akin that would make all abortions, even of one-cell fetuses, the equivalent of murder--these extremist views will help both Obama's and McCaskill's campaigns.

In case you have been in a media-free location for the last few days, Akin, who was asked about his opposition to abortion even in the case where pregnancies are caused by incest and rape, spoke about how in the instances when rape was "legitimate" (in contrast, I suppose, to those times when women bring rape upon themselves) it would not be necessary for those "legitimately" raped women to need abortions because, when one is raped that way hormonal things happen that make rape victims impervious to becoming pregnant. Therefore, Q.E.D., no need for any abortions.

As crazy as this sounds, let's turn to the science to see if maybe, somehow Akin is right about this.

In fact, over a number of decades this "contraceptive" assertion about what happens during "forcible rape" (what Akin-Ryan call "legitimate rape") has been bandied about by anti-abortion activists.

From a careful article in Tuesday's New York Times, here is the scientific controversy in a nutshell (pun intended). 

Note--since some of what follows is quite explicit, keep it away from young children and non-consenting adults:

Dr. John C. Willke, a general practitioner with obstetric training and a former president of the National Right to Life Committee, was an early proponent of this view, articulating it in a book originally published in 1985 and again in a 1999 article. He reiterated it in an interview Monday.“This is a traumatic thing—she’s, shall we say, she’s uptight,” 

Dr. Willke said of a woman being raped, adding, “She is frightened, tight, and so on. And sperm, if deposited in her vagina, are less likely to be able to fertilize. The tubes are spastic.” 

Leading experts on reproductive health, however, dismissed this logic. 

“There are no words for this—it is just nuts,” said Dr. Michael Greene, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School. 

Dr. David Grimes, a clinical professor in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina, said, that “to suggest that there’s some biological reason why women couldn’t get pregnant during a rape is absurd.” 

Mr. Akin’s statement did have supporters. Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis for the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group, defended Mr. Akin on his program “Focal Point,” citing “John Willke, who is an M.D. by the way—a lot of these ignoramuses on Twitter are not.” 

He read from Dr. Willke's 1999 article, which described what is “certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that’s physical trauma.”He continued with the article: “To get and stay pregnant a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy.” 

Mr. Fischer concluded: “In other words, ladies and gentleman, Todd Akin was exactly right.” 

Representative Ron Paul, an obstetrician who ran unsuccessfully for the Republican presidential nomination, was asked about the issue Monday. “Rep. Paul has no comment,” a spokeswoman said by e-mail. 

Dr. Willke, who is 87, asserted Monday that “way under 1 percent” of rape victims become pregnant, not just because of female biology but because about half of rapists “do not deposit sperm in the vagina.” That, Dr. Willke said, is because many rapists have “a preference for rectal intercourse over vaginal”; experience “premature ejaculation," which is a major factor”; or “some of these guys just plain aren’t fertile.” 

But several experts said there is no solid data on such issues. A 1996 study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, generally considered one of the few peer-reviewed research efforts on this subject, estimated that 5 percent of rapes result in pregnancy. “Yeah, there are all sorts of hormones, including ones that cause your heart to beat fast when you’re frightened,” said Dr. Greene. But he added, “I’m not aware of any data that says that reduces a woman’s risk of getting pregnant.” 

As for the contention that a rape victim’s fallopian tubes tighten, Dr. Grimes, formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said, “That’s nonsense. Everything is working. The tube is very small anyway and sperm are very tiny—they’re excellent swimmers.”

So there you have it--the science and the pseudoscience.

A few questions remain--what about incest? Does the female body prevent pregnancies when father's have sex with their daughters? And even if "only" one percent of "legitimate" rapes cause pregnancy, does that mean that Republicans still would not allow abortions in those circumstances?

I ask because Republicans have just added a plank to their upcoming presidential campaign platform that calls for a constitutional amendment that would ban all abortions, even for pregnancies caused by incest and rape.

I know faux-libertarian Ron Paul would again have no comment, but what about V.P. candidate Paul Ryan? I think we know his views. And as for Mitt Romney? We know what he used to say a mere few years ago when he held various moderate views. But what would he say now that he is pandering to the Tea Party? Sadly, I think we know.