Todd Akin: a lucky break for Republicans?

Sometimes I wonder. Out comes the provisional party platform which is completely against reproductive rights for women AND glbt rights, and all the republicans are up in arms against Akin. Like, they might even look like there are limits to their war on women:

From Andrew Rosenthal:

Since the 1980s, the Republican platform has been a test of how far the mainstream of the party is willing to move toward the right-wing fringe. Judging from the draft circulating this week, the answer is, pretty much all the way over.

The draft is more aggressive than any I have seen in its opposition to women’s reproductive rights and gay rights. It calls for a constitutional amendment outlawing all abortions and one denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry.

Judges who have supported laws allowing same-sex marriages, the platform says, are guilty of “an assault on the foundations of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values.”

As you might guess, the rest of the news about gay and reproductive rights is really bad. Contraception could be a casuality, for example, according to Rosenthal.

In the meantimes, let’s get that meanie Akin out of the running. Heaven forbid the mainstream party should get associated with theories from outer space.

10 thoughts on “Todd Akin: a lucky break for Republicans?

  1. Ugh. More news on this front:

    “Kansas Secretary of State and Mitt Romney surrogate Kris Kobach is comparing LGBT people to drug users and polygamists. ThinkProgress reported that Kobach made the remarks while debating the GOP platform’s marriage equality language today in Tampa. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins authored the platform’s marriage section, which comes out strongly against marriage equality and LGBT families.”

  2. Jamie, I wasn’t being subtle. The idea is just that Akin is both a distraction and a chance to look pro-women’s rights. Perhaps a bit like a racist who says “of course XYZ is completely wrong, and we never thought skin color made a difference to IQ” and then argues on other grounds against affirmative action.

  3. I don’t think that’s true, John. I’ve seen lots of criticism of Galloway’s comments. I mean, if you’re really wondering why ‘the same people’ aren’t up in arms about both, it’s probably just because one’s a US politician and one’s a UK politician, so many media outlets aren’t particularly concerned about one of them. (Or at least, the US ones aren’t concerned about Galloway.)

  4. Akin on GMA today denying he meant what he said. I though George Stephanopolous had the most pertinent question, “Yes, but how did a thought like that even enter your head?” Silence, then a compete dodge by Akin.

  5. MANY (caps intended) years ago I had two women students come to me, worried about something a Sociology prof had said in class – that women who were raped would “repel” the offending sperm; so, women who “claimed” to have been raped and became pregnant clearly had “wanted it>” That old, old, old man is long since gone, and I assumed that such nonsense was an aberration. I am so horrified to learn that this cr*p is still being promulgated – and, of course, by the anti-science, anti-biology, anti-reproductive information crowd.

    The crowning vomit on all this is that Akins is on the Science SubCo.

Comments are closed.