The Right Opinion

Todd Akin Was Never Accused of Rape -- Unlike Bill Clinton

By Larry Elder · Aug. 23, 2012

Which is worse, Rep. Todd Akin's, R-Mo., ignorance about human anatomy – or the way Republicans jump, run and hide when the Democrat-media complex decides they should?

Akin is the Republican candidate for a crucial Senate seat in Missouri. In an interview, he said that he believed that pregnancy following an act of rape is “really rare – if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.”

Incredibly dumb. The married father of six, including two daughters, apologized the next day and then recorded an ad apologizing yet again. That, at the very least, should have satisfied his Republican supporters. But, no.

Akin's opponent, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Democratic PACs spent $1.5 million on behalf of Akin to ensure his Republican primary victory over two other Republicans that experts considered surer bets to beat her. Unfortunately for McCaskill, Akin was leading in the polls before the gaffe. Akin's stupid comments were just what she was hoping for.

Never mind that the “offended” McCaskill rode to election in 2006 by calling President George W. Bush a murdering racist. Oh, yes, she most certainly did. Bush, said McCaskill during the campaign, “let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were black”!!!

After this hideous smear, why didn't the race-card-playing McCaskill resign from the race? But, yawn. Crickets. Media mute.

Republicans, hoping to take back the Senate by picking off the vulnerable McCaskill, also drop-kicked Akin. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus urged him to “step aside” and “let someone else run, to actually give ourselves a better chance of winning.” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, head of the National Republican Senate Committee, threatened to withhold $5 mil previously promised to the Akin campaign.

President Obama, whose party chair routinely accuses the GOP of engaging in a “war against women,” condemned Akin's remarks as ignorant: “Rape is rape, and the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we are talking about doesn't make sense to the American people and certainly doesn't make sense to me.”

“Rape is rape,” said Obama.

President Bill Clinton plans to speak at the Democratic convention in North Carolina. Clinton, some might vaguely recall, was accused of rape by a woman named Juanita Broaddrick. “Dateline NBC” aired her allegations against the then-Arkansas attorney general and gubernatorial candidate.

Here's what Broaddrick alleged: “I first pushed him away. I just told him 'no.' … He tries to kiss me again. He starts biting on my lip. … And then he forced me down on the bed. I just was very frightened. I tried to get away from him. I told him 'no.' … He wouldn't listen to me.” To this day, former ABC reporter Sam Donaldson is the only national reporter to ask Clinton about Broaddrick's allegation.

Then there's Kathleen Willey, who on “60 Minutes” made a credible allegation of sexual assault against Clinton. Willey, a Clinton campaign volunteer, says that Clinton, in the Oval Office, took her hand and place it on his aroused genitalia: “He touched my breasts with his hand … and then he whispered … 'I've wanted to do this ever since I laid eyes on you.' … He took my hand, and he put it … on his genitals.” Willey said she managed to push him away.

Let's not forget Paula “drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find” Jones. Alleging that then-Gov. Clinton propositioned her and exposed himself in a Little Rock, Ark., hotel room, Jones sued him for sexual harassment. Jones alleged that a state trooper escorted her to a room at the Excelsior Hotel to meet Clinton. Clinton dropped his pants and, according to Jones, asked her to “kiss it.” Clinton later paid Jones $850,000 to settle the sexual harassment lawsuit that Clinton long claimed lacked merit.

Akin is supposedly a chauvinist retrograde. But there is an absolute, media-observed no-fly zone over Clinton, a man variously accused of rape, sexual assault and harassment by three different women. Why Republicans show so much deference is bewildering.

What about the allegations of sexism – in the supposedly pro-women Democratic Obama White House? Pulitzer Prize winner Ron Suskind was given approved access for his book “Confidence Men.” White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, whom Suskind recorded, complained about the anti-woman “frat house antics” atmosphere in the Obama campaign: “This place would be in court for a hostile workplace … because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.” What?!

But, crickets.

Many folks are fed up with cowardly Republican leadership that crumbles before the Democratic-media complex rather than shines a light on its hypocrisy. My advice to Akin? Hold a press conference and announce, “I'll resign when Bill Clinton apologizes to Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey.” Then watch the contributions pour in.

Game on.



tdrag in South Carolina said:

Larry is right on the money. While Todd Akin's comments were ignorant at worst, every day the Court Jester Biden says things far more insulting and ignorant. Why is it Republican "leadership" is always so fast to throw our guys of the cliff?

Thursday, August 23, 2012 at 8:17 AM

David Fields in Chicago, Illinois said:

So two wrongs make a right?

Thursday, August 23, 2012 at 8:46 AM

alex torello in New Haven, CT said:

Two wrongs? Did you say 2 wrongs? I think Larry listed approximately a dozen wrongs . . . and don't stop there!
It's the old lib-dem mantra when caught with their pants down to observe: "They all do it."

Thursday, August 23, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Marty in Portland, OR said:

Wow Larry! Having to go back to the old debunked "Clinton is a rapist/pot smoker/cocaine dealer/cocaine abuser/murderer (pick your lie)" stories. What that Obama birth certificate thing did not work out well for you, Keyes, and Orly? I know "Larry" actually will never see these posts, but wouldn't it be more relevant (and timely) for him to discuss why GW was not invited to the GOP convention? Or why, 4 years ago (while GW was president) the GOP also did not invite him TO HIS OWN PARTY'S CONVENTION? LOL LOL I do feel sorry for the conservatives, as you guys put up with the dysfunctional RINO's 4 years ago, and this election is just a repeat. Romney is too liberal and too Mormon for most evangelicals to accept.

Thursday, August 23, 2012 at 11:21 AM

WCJ in Texas replied:

Bill Clinton admitted to smoking pot. Of course he didn't inhale, wink, wink. Larry said he was accused of rape, he didn't say Slick Willie actually did it. Only those that want to ignore all the evidence against Slick Willie think he's innocent. George Bush certainly had his faults but compared to Bill Clinton he is a saint.

Thursday, August 23, 2012 at 12:44 PM

AJ in NJ replied:

Because getting over 100,000 innocent people killed is saintly. Right.

Thursday, August 23, 2012 at 6:45 PM

WCJ in Texas replied:

AJ, you fail to see the irony in it.

Friday, August 24, 2012 at 9:21 AM

colonel in fl replied:

Billy boy clinton always was a horny running dog, he has a severe sexual appetite that never seems to be satiated, i doubt if his age comes into play, "once a running dog always the same. His appetite is still working , it is that it does not hit the papers in any sense. He would screw a snake if some one held it for him, CIAO

Friday, August 24, 2012 at 6:03 PM

G in Maryland replied:

GW was invited to the convention but declined because he is choosing to stay out of the public eye since retiring. His choice...goes to show how easily you all like to spread the untruth.

Friday, August 24, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Bill in Texas said:

I am one who wants an equal intelligence in my people. If Akin were running in Texas, I wouldn't be able to support him. Think before you speak.

On the other hand, It would be nice to finally some in the GOP establishment finally grow a real pair and do (what seems to be a sideline quarterbacking position) the "impossible" and take on the media and the dems at the same time! Its not hard to do, especially with YouTube being able to help out. Play the stupidity of the Dems while your on the soap box and show the people that they aren't getting the whole truth on the matter. Show them who is getting the literal and genuine pass during prime time TV. Last time we had something even close to that was a Texas business man, difference is he had charts to show us where they were screwing up. Point to ponder...What would happen in politics if a Ross Perot type of canidate came forward with the full backing of what is available on the internet? I would keep up with that campaign.

Thursday, August 23, 2012 at 1:52 PM

India in GA said:

"Many folks are fed up with cowardly Republican leadership that crumbles before the Democratic-media complex rather than shines a light on its hypocrisy"


"...Rep. Todd Akin's, R-Mo., ignorance about human anatomy... Incredibly dumb."


There is considerable evidence that pregnancy resulting from forcible rape is very rare. But, I'm sure the media will never point that out. They would much rather paint Akin as an ignorant Neanderthal than give any consideration to the point he was trying to make.

If I understand correctly, Akin was trying to point out that the argument for legal abortion for ANY REASON is often justified by making a case for the necessity of abortion for rape victims, which, as I said before, turns out to be very rare.

Thursday, August 23, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Craig in Fresno, CA replied:

"From a scientific standpoint, what's legitimate and fair to say is that a woman who is raped has the same chances of getting pregnant as a woman who engaged in consensual intercourse during the same time in her menstrual cycle," said Dr. Barbara Levy, vice president for health policy at the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Thursday, August 23, 2012 at 5:49 PM

India in GA replied:


The key part of that statement is "during the same time in her menstrual cycle".

We all know the factors that must be in place in order for a woman to get pregnant. Let's assume that both the rapist and the victim are fertile (many victims of rape will be children, post-menopausal, biologically infertile, or are on some kind of birth control; and rapists as a group are prone to varying sexual disfunctions). AND let's narrow the definition of rape to an act that includes penetration and ejaculation (sorry to be so crude, but the former are not a forgone conclusion).

A one-time act of rape still has only (roughly) about a 1 in 5 chance of occuring close to a woman's ovulation, right?* I'm no expert in this matter, but all of this seems to lend credence to the argument that pregnancy as a result of rape, is, in fact, rare compared with pregnancy as a result of consensual sex.

*Yes, I know there are variables like irregular cycles and the viability of sperm--I'm just trying to get a general idea, here.

Friday, August 24, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Sue K in Bronx, NY replied:

You're displaying as much ignorance as Atkin. Women who are raped are more likly to befcome pregnant than woman on average.

He should at the very least be removed from the Science and Technology Committee, as his knowledge of biology, particularly women's, is painfully inadequate.

Thursday, August 23, 2012 at 7:50 PM

India in GA replied:

"You're displaying as much ignorance as Atkin"


Please note that I did not say that women cannot become pregnant through rape. I said there is *evidence* that supports Akin's claim that pregnancy as a result of rape is rare. I have seen estimates of incidence rates as low as 0.08%.

YES, there have been recent studies that have found conflicting numbers, but as of now, I would not say that those studies have de-bunked earlier findings. So, is Akin--along with a whole group of researchers--'ignorant' of biology? I wouldn't say so.

In regards to your claim that "women who are raped are more likely to become pregnant than woman on average", you may actually be right---but I wonder if you know why. Look at any recent study that purports to show a HIGHER rate of pregnancy among victims of rape. In every one that I have seen, the numbers are inflated because the pregnancies counted include ANY pregnancy that occured within a year of the rape. In fact, there have been studies that show a very high conception rate among rape victims FOLLOWING the rape; one study found that 60% of women who become pregnant soon after a rape were impregnated during consensual sex.

I just read Mona Charen's thoughts on this matter. I recommend her article, as she articulated my argument far better than I have:

Friday, August 24, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Bob in Columbus replied:

The "incredibly dumb" part was questioning the "legitimacy" if the rape. Implying that if a raped woman were to become pregnant her rape was somehow not "legitimate." A VERY dumb (and legally dangerous) precedent to be set.

By controlling the language and trying to introduce "legitimate rape" into the common lexicon, one could then write legislation using that term. It was not stupid, it was calculated, and it is good that it has gotten the reaction it has.

Friday, August 24, 2012 at 2:37 AM

India in GA replied:

Bob, you're right, it was incredibly dumb to use the word "legitimate", but I don't think it was calculated for the purpose of "introducing 'legitimate rape' into the common lexicon". The man has two daughters. I certainly hope that he does not believe that there is any such thing as a "legitmate" rape.

Friday, August 24, 2012 at 10:28 PM

rab in jo,mo said:

Akin's biggest mistake was allowing himself to be drawn into the whole abortion debate in the first place. He should have killed the question with a response along the lines of "this really isn't a high-priority issue right now, with high unemployment, faltering economy and bankrupt treasury, there are more critical issues to deal with". Repeat statement until the interviewer gets tired of asking.

Thursday, August 23, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Arthur Christopher Schaper in Torrance, CA said:

Way to go, Larry!

Todd Akin is the harbinger to bring down the crass Mainscream media and the cowardly GOP Establishment.

Please visit "Schaper's Corner" for more informaion.

Todd Akin for Missouri! --"Show Me" what you got, Todd!

Don't give in to the political correctness of the media and party elites!

Thursday, August 23, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Arthur Christopher Schaper in Torrance, CA said:

Schaper's Corner--

Thursday, August 23, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Tod the tool guy in brooklyn ny said:

Speaking of RAPE---The U.S. Treasury has been repeatedly RAPED, by the Neomarxist Renegades, since 2008! The WILL OF THE PEOPLE has been RAPED, repeatedly, by the LEFTISTS. And Madison's Constitution was raped,by our own chief justice, John (Benedict Arnold) Roberts, with that incoherent June opine of the PPACA of 2010. I shant complain to my State Senator, because He's "Upchuck Schumer"---Part of the PROBLEM!!!

Friday, August 24, 2012 at 6:43 AM

stevie in Wisconsin said:

Bravo Larry! I wish you would send this article to Akin, Romney and Ryan. They could definitley use it in the campaign when the Dems start slinging their mud!

Friday, August 24, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Tex Horn in Texas said:

Todo the Tool Guy: you tell them, Todd! You're right, we're the ones being raped. And nary a word from the femmes about that. Even free contraceptives won't protect them from the pending financial disaster.

Friday, August 24, 2012 at 5:52 PM

QueensJudyG in Queens, NY said:

We're all missing the obvious people -- Todd Akin had money pouring into his campaign from the National Dems Campaign Committee--see Ann Coulter's article on this. Why? Ask yourselves--why would this be? Because he was PAID by them to answer a planted question the way he did. If he really was a solid Republican and/or Conservative, and/or Tea Partier, he would have dropped out of the race. He's staying in because....he was PAID by the Dems. Typical Chicago-style thuggery with U.S. elections from coast to coast, backed by the evil Soros-funded PACS. There is simply no other answer to the why. I've become that cynical considering who's in the White House right now and how he got there himself. A lot is at stake with Senatorial elections around the country this fall.

Monday, August 27, 2012 at 12:22 AM

VL in MO said:

I am really sick of everyone. Maybe it is time for everyone to research what this country was founded on and the people who had the guts to write the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You know, the actual Christians who gave us this republic? Lets just get rid of the whole bunch in Washington and start over. I think everyone is so caught up in this Democrat (which is no longer what it started out to be) and Republican Parties that the whole freedom and caring for each other is MIA. Just take a look at the people running or already in office and what they stand for and what they care about, how they live their lives then cast your vote. Why does any of the other stuff matter. Can any of you talk and talk and talk and never say something the wrong way??? Research instead of believing our biased media. The whole thing stinks right now!

Sunday, September 16, 2012 at 3:03 PM