Representative Rick Brattin (r) [file photo]

It’s Missouri and a right wingnut republican opens his mouth in public. What could possibly happen?:

This Lawmaker Wants Women to Get Permission From the Father Before Having an Abortion

Unless it was “legitimate rape.”

-By Molly Redden

| Wed Dec. 17, 2014 6:15 AM EST

A Missouri Republican is pushing a bill that would allow a man who gets a woman pregnant to stop her from having an abortion. The measure would force a woman who wants an abortion to obtain written permission from the father first-unless she was the victim of “legitimate rape.”

Rick Brattin, a state representative from outside Kansas City, filed the bill on December 3 for next year’s legislative session. The proposed measure reads, “No abortion shall be performed or induced unless and until the father of the unborn child provides written, notarized consent to the abortion.”

[….]

….Not Brattin. The father of five says that his recent vasectomy was the inspiration for this bill.

“When a man goes in for that procedure-at least in the state of Missouri-you have to have a consent form from your spouse in order to have that procedure done,” he says. “Here I was getting a normal procedure that has nothing to do with another human being’s life, and I needed to get a signed form…But on ending a life, you don’t. I think that’s pretty twisted.”

A spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri, a group of clinics that perform vasectomies, says that there is no law in Missouri requiring a man to get another person’s permission for a vasectomy….

[….]

There’s that phrase again.

The bill, pre-filed on December 3rd:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 131 [pdf]

98TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE BRATTIN.

0411H.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 188.027, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to consent requirements for abortions.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Section 188.027, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 188.027, to read as follows:

[….]

13. No abortion shall be performed or induced unless and until the father of the unborn child provides written, notarized consent to the abortion, except in cases in which the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed or induced was the victim of rape or incest and the pregnancy resulted from the rape or incest. If the father of the unborn child is deceased, the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed or induced shall sign a notarized affidavit attesting to the fact. No physician shall perform or induce an abortion unless and until the physician has obtained the written consent required in this subsection. The physician shall retain a copy of the consent or affidavit in the patient’s medical record.

[emphasis in original]

Can we stop pretending that Todd Akin (r) is an anomaly in the republican party?

Previously:

HB 291: keping misooree stoopit (January 24, 2013)

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. “ (February 8, 2013)

Rep. Rick Brattin (r): cdesign proponentsists (February 9, 2014)

Rep. Todd Akin hasn’t changed. His recent “gaffes” are no different from scores of similar incidents during his decade in the House – and, in fairness, to call them gaffes is to mispeak since the congressman seems to be doing no more than expressing his essential self and deepest beliefs. If he’s generating lots more media noise right now, it’s because the level of attention accorded to an insignificant, mostly do-nothing, House member differs from the spotlight that is shone on a candidate for a significant state-wide office. The new situation in which he finds himself is also heightened by the struggle that is currently being waged for the control of the Senate. Akin can no longer fade into the woodwork of a House of Representatives that harbors numerous other GOP ideologues who are just as if not more bizarre than he (think Joe Walsh, Virginia Fox, etc.).

Given this context, I was certainly expecting the level of attention to become more intense. But, I have to admit, I was not expecting Akin to become a such a national byword that his new-found ignominy could be used as an overt weapon against other GOPers. Take, for instance, this ad, produced by New York Democratic Congressional candidate Dan Maffei in his campaign against Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-25), who co-sponsored a bill with Akin that would have redefined rape as “forcible” rape only:  

More power to Maffei I say, and I hope that the example of Todd Akin, who so aptly expresses the plain, unvarnished anti-women agenda of today’s Republican party,  helps to wake up complacent Americans who think that the status quo will hold with no effort from them. For those who think “legitimate rape” is a awkward fluke, back in January of 2011 I wrote about the Akin-Buerkle bill, HR3:

Abortion is, of course, still legal in the U.S., and would continue to be so if HR3 is passed since it only pertains to restrictions on public funding. Its provisions are far reaching enough, though, that, if passed, it could have a vastly more far-reaching impact, even for those of us who rely on private insurance. Since the 86% of insurance plans that offer abortion coverage would no longer be tax-deductible for employers, the number of those plans would almost inevitably dwindle along with affordable access to abortion for the middle classes as well as the poor, who, at first glance, would seem to be most likely to be seriously affected.

It is the rape and incest provisions, however, that offer the best picture of the sclerotic mindset behind this proposed legislation. HR3 would restrict abortion funding for individuals who find themselves pregnant as a result of coercion or intimidation, sexually abused children, and pregnant rape victims who were drugged, given alcohol, or who are mentally impaired. Since HR3 rejects current federal definitions of rape and does not define forcible rape explicitly, it is even possible that all cases of rape could be addressed in such a way as to fall outside the exemptions. As for incest, our GOP representatives evidently think it’s just fine if the victim is over 18.

If Missourians send Todd Akin to the Senate, they’ll only have themselves to blame for the consequences.  

If you take a listen at the video of “Women for Akin” rally (h/t the Turner Report), the most notable thing you’ll hear is that lots of women really were making their voicees heard – only the ones speaking up weren’t actually rallying for Akin. If you can’t manage to make it out, about 40 protesters are regaling the 100 or so attendees with the chant, “rape is rape”:

Otherwise, what you’ll hear if you take the time to listen to Akin’s remarks is his standard, rightwing Christian take on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For example, he unhesitatingly declared that if “you take a look at the Declaration of Independence, it is built on the brilliant idea that God intended you to have life, liberty and to pursuit happiness.” I’m sure that this would have come as a surprise to it’s author, the deist Thomas Jefferson, as well as to the other signatories, many of whom were not bible-believing Christians despite what Todd Akin and his revisionist Christian Nationalist pals would like us to believe. Of course, when you consider that when Akin talks about life, his biggest concern is abortion – he doesn’t approve – and, similarly, when he talks about liberty, he seems mainly concerned about taxes and government regulations – you know, the things that keep your food safe, and keep the banks from robbing us blind –  you begin to realize that it isn’t only history that he finds confusing.

Were his audience inclined to actually think about what he had to say, though, they might have been puzzled by the images he used to express his sense of American exceptionalism:

Let me just ask you a question. Do you like America? Let’s take a look about America and kinda see what it is we like about it. You remember we won two World Wars. We didn’t annex any territory, we didn’t crown any king or emperors, but what we did do is vote to tax ourselves to rebuild our enemies. How often has that happened in World history? We have the oldest written constitution, and the world over is blessed with the innovations and technology that have come from America and if you really think about, if you think about the times there’s a tsunami or earthquake or something like that and what do you remember? A gray hole with the Red, White and Blue behind it full of medical supplies and food to help people all over the world. And you know what? That’s who we are. That’s what America is – we give back; we help other people. …

This could almost be a bleeding heart liberal extolling Americans who taxed themselves to rebuild Europe and Japan, deliver disaster relief, and just generally help people. But this generous soul is also the same fool who says he would have refused to vote for the Farm Bill that would deliver disaster relief to American farmers devastated by this summer’s drought. The reason why? It also offers food aid to poor and working families who have been flattened by jobs lost during the Bush recession.

The contradictions are almost too painful: The women rallying for Akin were only concerned about doing away with reproductive choice for other women. At the same time the Todd Akin who stood on the Missouri Capitol steps and extolled the governmental decisions that resulted in the Marshall plan is the same fool who thinks that the only safety net Americans need is what they can beg from religious and private charities. It would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.

P.S. Akin’s also wrong about what country has the oldest written constitution. This guy can’t even get the easy stuff right.

Seems like Todd Akin isn’t the only member of his family who has problems understanding simple linguistic concepts. Just consider the following statement from Todd Akin’s wife (National Journal via Talking Points Memo):

Lulli Akin said that efforts to push her husband out of the race threaten to replace elections “by the people and for the people” with “tyranny, a top-down approach.” She added, “Party bosses dictating who is allowed to advance through the party and make all the decisions-it’s just like 1776 in that way.”

She cited colonists who “rose up and said, ‘Not in my home, you don’t come and rape my daughters and my … wife. But that is where we are again. There has been a freedom of elections, not tyranny of selections since way back. Why are we going to roll over and let them steamroll us, be it Democrats or Republicans or whomever?”

Perhaps, given that all actions, incuding Todd Akin’s, have consequences, his treatment by members of his party could be viewed as “legitimate” rape? I can see where the RNC might be inclined to say he was asking for it.

Tasteless jokes aside, though, it seems to me that what has happened is that the national party asked Akin to consider the good of his faction, he declined and they washed their hands of him. Actually, I’m sympathetic to the claim that that Akin is the legitimate candidate, but it doesn’t seem to me that anyone is contesting that fact. However, it also seems to me that withdrawing support for a damaged candidate is the prerogative of a national political organization that has to spend its dollars wisely. And now Akin’s wife is comparing the action to rape? She thinks that the GOP doesn’t have a right to be concerned about losing what is for them a crucial Senate seat?

Aside from the sheer joy of playing victim in such a grandiose way – even Brother Todd noted that comparisons to 1776 might be a little over the top – lots of this rhetoric seems to stem from nothing more than basic confusion about the actual meaning of words. Of course, this linguistic confusion may be the best thing that Akin has going for him since lots of Missourians seem to be equally unclear on many of the same concepts that cause Akin difficulty. It’s not just rape, but the way that Akin and his supporters use words like religion, socialism and freedom that reflect today’s strangely twisted right-wing logic. Do you think the explanation for the right-wing effort to revisit and reinterpret history, science and even language itself might be as simple as the exhausted and worn-out nature of conservative ideology itself?  

Todd Akin spoke truer than we knew at the time when, in response to questions about reputed intra-party negotiations to replace him with another GOP contender, he declared:

There may be some negotiations,” he added, “but they don’t include me.

The evidence, via Think Progress:

This morning on ABC News, however, Mary Matalin – a well-connected GOP operative – suggested that Republicans would run a write-in candidate to defeat Akin. Matlin said that, if necessary, Republicans would “transfer the money” to Ann Wagner – a former chairwoman of the Missouri GOP who is currently running for Congress – to run as a 3rd party or write-in candidate.

I would be tempted to say that this means that the GOP cares more about winning than about playing by the rules of a democracy – Akin won his primary fair and square after all – but it’s not clear that a GOP-sponsored challenger will do anything for anyone but Claire McCaskill.  Apart from the satisfaction some state GOP bigwigs may get from, metaphorically speaking, spitting in Akin’s face, splitting the GOP vote between the evangelicals and the big-business faction doesn’t seem like a really good idea. As far as the moral high road goes, Akin was right, for all the good it’ll probably do him, when he said that “This is an election, not a selection.”

There is, of course, a certain irony that comes into play when we hear Todd Akin defending the democratic process. He hasn’t always been so keen on majority rule according to some recent statements (h/t MinistryofTruth at DailyKos):

The money quote:

The Founders were really down on the idea of Democracy, they despised it, because they understood the danger of a rabble getting all excited about something and not knowing all the facts and going off half-cocked and doing the wrong thing.

Personally, I’m not sure that the fact that we have a representative rather than a direct democracy means that the founders despised democracy; nor do the checks and balances that are intended to prevent the dictatorship of the majority constitute a repudiation of democracy, but rather function as a mechanism that keeps our diverse democracy safe from religious theocrats like Rep. Akin. Nevertheless, if one is to take Matalin seriously, it does seem as if the members of the Missouri GOP political establishment might really believe that the hoi polloi in their rank-and-file need the benefit of the party’s supervision and superior wisdom.

Afterthought:  Of course, if the GOP ran the party’s go-to girl, Ann Wagner, against McCAskill, that would leave the GOP slot in the 2nd to some small potatoes also-ran. So if the GOP vote is split in the Senate race and the Democratic challenger in the 2nd, whom I believe is Glenn Koenen, actually got some party support, we might manage to get rid of not only Todd Akin, but Wagner as well? Too much to hope for?  

Then again, this strategically leaked rumor may only be one more part of the psy-ops strategy that the GOP is running against Akin. It may just be too dumb to be anything else.