It must
really suck to be Todd Akin right now.
After
all, it’s not everyday that you practically kill your bid for the Senate in one
massive political snafu.
Yet the
fallout from the remarks he made about rape on Sunday continues to hurtle down
like meteors. He’s been condemned by both Obama as well as Romney and Ryan, not
to mention the fact that the story’s gone viral; give it a few more days and
most people with an internet connection will be associated the name ‘Akin’ with
‘sexist twat’.
If
somehow you’ve missed this merry little clusterfuck unfolding, here’s the
breakdown; Akin, Missouri nominee for the Senate and
Republican, appeared on a talk show and had his to say about abortion and rape:
“People always try to make that
one of those things, ‘Oh, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of
ethical question’… It seems to me, first of all, what I understand from doctors
is that’s really where—if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to
try to shut that whole thing down.”
Why yes,
that nice Republican nominee did indeed just state that women don’t usually get
pregnant from proper rapes; the particularly nasty subtext of this statement is
that he’s implying any woman who does get pregnant from rape somehow deserved
it. Let’s not get into what a horrible idea categorising rape is; Obama’s got me covered on that one, actually.
Let’s
instead return to those doctors Akin was talking about.
Turns it
it’s probably just one doctor; Dr. Fred Mecklenburg, to be precise. In 1972 he
wrote an article entitled ‘The Indications for Induced Abortion: A Physician's
Perspective’, which has since been the cornerstone of many an anti-abortionist’s
repertoire. It’s from this article that the belief that a woman exposed to the
trauma of rape “will not ovulate even if she is ‘scheduled’ to” comes from.
The article claims that a pregnancy resulting from rape is “extremely rare”, apparently
because the trauma a woman suffers during such an attack prevents it from occurring.
‘Quite
an extraordinary claim he has there’, I hear you understating, ‘what evidence
does the good doctor have to back it up?’
Not a
whole lot, you’ll be unsurprised to learn. Mecklenburg cites a couple of
statistical examples (got to love a good bit of statistic-ing) from the city of
Buffalo, NY, which at the time had apparently not had a pregnancy from a
confirmed rape in decades; such evidence can be dismissed because rape is one
of the most under-reported crimes out there, rendering many associated
statistics pretty unhelpful.
Even
more bizarrely he claims that rapists themselves are likely to be infertile
because of “frequent masturbation”, which is like arguing that faeries are
totally legit because this werewolf you met one time told you so.
Probably
the strangest, and easily the most controversial, evidence Mecklenburg gives would be evidence apparently
gathered by Nazi scientists in concentration camps. No, seriously. Nazi scientists working in death camps. To quote
from Raw Story:
“Nazis reportedly tested the
theory “by selecting women who were about to ovulate and sending them to the
gas chambers, only to bring them back after their realistic mock-killing, to
see what the effect this had on their ovulatory patterns. An extremely high
percentage of these women did not ovulate,” the article said.”
Admittedly
arguments stand or fall based on their merit alone, but you have to admit that
there’s something really unsettling and distasteful about citing evidence
garnered from death camps.
Mecklenburg’s article has been taken apart
by the wider scientific community. It’s pseudoscience and half-baked theory
that cites… well, pseudoscience and half-baked theory as evidence.
Akin quoting this as his source for his bizarre and unpleasant views just damages his case further.
Not that he really had one to begin with.
