Either reporters are pushing an agenda supportive of abortion rights or they’re idiots.

But why rule out the possibility that they are both?

Mollie Hemingway nails the thing that bothered me the most when, within 24 hours of the Akin kerfuffle, it seemed that the words "forcible rape" had become entirely incomprehinsible to the media and leftists, notwithstanding the fact that the term "forcible rape" is used by the FBI in compiling crime statistics.

By Wednesday night, one reporter found that there were already 337 stories about this pro-choice talking point that requires reporters to pretend that they don’t actually understand the difference between statutory and forced rape. As I finish writing this, we see that the New York Times is now also pretending not to understand rape — as this comprehensive take-down of that story’s inaccurate and misleading reporting makes clear.

Either reporters are pushing an agenda supportive of abortion rights or they’re idiots. It’s one thing for pro-choice activists or the Democratic Party to advocate in support of those goals. But reporters playing games in service to that agenda is ridiculous. We’re all better than that, no matter what side of the issue we’re personally on.

Apparently, the New York Times spread the the false meme that Ryan was redefining rape when, in fact, he was using the FBI definition.

I'm not a journalist, but I managed to locate the FBI definition with a simple web search inside of five minutes.

Who "fact checks" the "fact checkers"?

"Children conceived in rape can be the most compelling witnesses of that unanswerable truth: that every human child is a gift from God...

... And we have prominent examples: Attorney and much sought after speaker Rebecca Keissling and activist Ryan Bomberger come to mind."

Here is Rebecca Kiessling's story.

I like to consider myself pragmatic. I have long accepted the "Lincoln approach." Abraham Lincoln's pre-Civil War strategy to slavery was to restrict it where possible, and put it on the road to extinction. It seems to me that the rape exception is pragmatically justified as a trade-off against abortion as a form of birth control, and because of the trauma associated with rape.

And then I run into this:

And I think, "no, she didn't deserve the death penalty."

It's not magisterial but it is an answer.

The question came up in our Communio group about a claim that someone had heard that the Catholic Church permits a rape victim to seek medical treatment within 24 hours of a rape in order to prevent pregnancy. I was dubious - 24 seems like too much of a "bright line" distinction, and I know that if the treatment amounts to an abortion, then it is verboten. Someone else also brought up the issue of artificial contraception, which seems like a non-starter since the whole act of rape shares nothing in common with the unitive and procreative dimensions of the marital act.

Here is what "the Catholic Church and abortion - for Dummies" has to say:

Acting quickly in the case of rape

Even the horror and tragedy of rape or incest isn’t considered cause to kill an innocent unborn life. If possible, the woman — who is also considered an innocent victim — can get treatment as soon as possible to try to prevent conception from occurring immediately after the rape or incest.

Moral theologians and doctors say that it takes several hours to a day for the sperm to reach the egg, so the Church permits a female rape victim to be given a contraceptive only if ovulation or conception haven’t yet taken place and the drug given isn’t an abortifacient — a so-called contraceptive that doesn’t prevent fertilization and conception but rather removes, destroys, or prevents implantation of the embryo.

If a woman waits too long, usually more than 24 hours, though, conception may take place, and any procedure or treatment to eject the unviable human embryo is an abortion.

The Church’s stand is that even though she’s an innocent victim of a horrible evil, the unborn child is also an innocent victim. No matter what the circumstances that led to the conception, once conceived, that child has an immortal soul and has a right to live as much as the mother.

A little more digging turns up something more magisterial from Archbishop Chaput:

One of the principles guiding Catholic health care is respect for the sanctity of human life from its beginning to its natural end. That principle is ensured by the Ethical and Religious Directives (ERDs) which govern Catholic medical institutions. ERD No. 36 says the following:

Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.

Here is the USCCB page with the directive.

So, it would seem that 24 hours may be a rule of thumb, albeit the real issue is whether ovulation has occurred. Likewise, the remediation can involve anything that is not an abortifacient.

Rape and Pregnancy - Based on how the issue is normally presented, these are some surprising and counter-intuitive statistics.

Jim Druly thoughtfully points me to the Georgetown Law Review article that substantiates the claim that only about 50% of rape victims who are made pregnant by the rape seek an abortion. Here's the relevant paragraph:

"It is difficult to determine with certainty the outcome of the approximately 25,000 to 32,000 rape-related pregnancies that occur in the United States each year. One study found that 50% of women who became pregnant by rape underwent abortions, 5.9% placed their infants for adoptions, and 32.3% of raped women kept their infants.7 Another study, conducted in a separate year, found markedly different results, concluding that 26% of women pregnant through rape underwent abortions.8 Of the 73% of women who carried their pregnancies to term, 36% placed their infants for adoption, and 64% raised the children they conceived through rape.9"

What these numbers seem to gesture at is that a majority of women - a large majority of women, potentially - do not accept the modernist perspective that a fetus is simply a blob of tissue.

I'd ask why we haven't heard more of this, but the answer is obvious.

Smoke v. Flames.

The Akin imbroglio is actually producing some discussion on the rape/pregnancy/abortion nexus.

This is from a discussion between Gloria Alred and Rebecca Kiesling on the Piers Morgan show; (Kiessling is the product of rape; her mother attempted to have her aborted twice.)

Kiessling had facts: you may be surprised to know that “rape victims choose abortion at half the rate of your average unplanned pregnancy (50% in the U.S.). With rape victims, it’s only 15 -25% who abort[.]”

And:

3. Rape victims choose abortion at half the rate of the average unplanned pregnancy, which is over 50%. Only 15-25% of rape victims choose abortion, depending on the study. The majority of rape victims choose to raise her child — not “the rapist’s baby” — HER child.

Those statistics seem counter-intuitive. I'd like to see the support for them. The best support I found seems to come from studies that were done in the late '70s and early '80s. I'm not sure that I'd put a lot of weight on them without more.

There's also this:

But just as we moved from opinion to focus on facts, both Morgan and Allred interrupted, saying the stats are mind-numbing, and while Morgan still insists that he has respect for Kiessling, we don’t get back to Kiessling’s train of thought. Allred heaps on fear, desperation, back-alley butchers, emotion, and the injustice of women being forced to raise children. Finally, they have a question for Kiessling: shouldn’t America stand for the basic right (to have an abortion) if one is desperate not to have a baby?

Kiessling responded immediately: “Modern America doesn’t allow us to kill a rapist or even a child molester. The Supreme Court has said that they did not deserve the death penalty. And I don’t believe that I or any other child similarly situated deserve the death penalty for the crimes of our fathers.”

That's a point worth considering, but, of course, when rapists are locked away, the victim doesn't have to re-confront the crime on a daily basis as would seem to be the case with a rape-caused pregnancy.

The fact that any woman would see beyond the crime to the humanity of her child seems like a miraculous act of heroism.

Pregnancies from forcible rapes are rare?

That's what this post from the Christian Life Resources argues, and supports with the explanation that the reason isn't some magical, mysterious gift of feminity but that the very brutality of rape causes trauma:

First, let's define the term "rape." When pro-lifers speak of rape pregnancies, we should commonly use the phrase "forcible rape" or "assault rape," for that specifies what we're talking about. Rape can also be statutory. Depending upon your state law, statutory rape can be consensual, but we're not addressing that here.

A relatively new category is "date rape." For some reason this is supposed to be different, but, forcible rape is rape, regardless of whether it occurs on a date or behind the bushes. If a college woman is raped on a date, she should undergo a medical examination and treatment, just as she would in the aftermath of an assault rape. It is not a separate category.

Assault rape pregnancies are extremely rare. Most pro-lifers have heard this comment, but too often cannot back it up with facts. A candidate for office in the State of Arkansas made this comment before the last elections. He was roundly criticized and ridiculed by the opposing candidate and the media. Unfortunately, there was no evidence that he offered substantive proof to back up his claim that rape pregnancies were rare.

How many forcible rapes result in a pregnancy? The numbers claimed have ranged the entire spectrum of possibilities. Some feminists have claimed as high as 5 to 10 percent, which is absurd. One problem has been the lack of available studies and accurate statistics. Often women do not admit to having been raped. On the other hand, it has been known that women, pregnant from consensual intercourse, have later claimed rape. Is it possible to know the actual facts?

There have been some studies. In the statistical abstract of the US in 1989, there were 90,000 rapes reported in the United States. (Bureau of Census Table #283)

Another study was from the U.S. Justice Department, which surveyed 49,000 households annually between the years 1973-1987. In 1973, it reported 95,934 completed rapes. In 1987, the figure was 82,505. The study stated that only 53% were reported to police. Factoring this in, the totals were 181,000 rapes in 1973 and 155,000 in 1987. In August 1995, the US Justice Department, using a different study with different questions, returned a result of 170,000 completed rapes plus 140,000 attempted rapes.

There are approximately 100,000,000 females old enough to be at risk for rape in the United States. If we calculate on the basis of 100,000 rapes, that means that one woman in 1,000 is raped each year. If we calculate on the basis of 200,000 rapes, that means that one woman in 500 is raped each year.

Now for the important question. How many rape pregnancies are there? The answer is that, according to statistical reporting, there are no more than one or two pregnancies resultant from every 1,000 forcible rapes.

But, does it make sense? Let's look, using the figure of 200,000 rapes each year.
• Of the 200,000 women who were forcibly raped, one-third were either too old or too young to get pregnant. That leaves 133,000 at risk for pregnancy.
• A woman is capable of being fertilized only 3 days (perhaps 5) out of a 30-day month. Multiply our figure of 133,000 by three tenths. Three days out of 30 is one out of ten, divide 133 by ten and we have 13,300 women remaining. If we use five days out of 30 it is one out of six. Divide one hundred and thirty three thousand by six and we have 22,166 remaining.
• One-fourth of all women in the United States of childbearing age have been sterilized, so the remaining three-fourths come out to 10,000 (or 15,000).
• Only half of assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm in her vagina,1 so let's cut the remaining figures in half. This gives us numbers of 5,000 (or 7,500).
• Fifteen percent of men are sterile, that drops that figure to 4,250 (or 6,375).
• Fifteen percent of non-surgically sterilized women are naturally sterile. That reduces the number to 3,600 (or 5,400).
• Another fifteen percent are on the pill and/or already pregnant. That reduces the number to 3,070 (or 4,600).
• Now factor in the fact that it takes 5-10 months for the average couple to achieve a pregnancy. Use the smaller figure of 5 months to be conservative and divide the avove figures by 5. The number drops to 600 (or 920).
• In an average population, the miscarriage rate is about 15 percent. In this case we have incredible emotional trauma. Her body is upset. Even if she conceives, the miscarriage rate will be higher than in a more normal pregnancy. If 20 percent of raped women miscarry, the figure drops to 450 (or 740).

Finally, factor in what is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that's physical trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. 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. So what further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one knows, but this factor certainly cuts this last figure by at least 50 percent and probably more. If we use the 50 percent figure, we have a final figure of 225 (or 370) women pregnant each year. These numbers closely match the 200 that have been documented in clinical studies.

So assault rape pregnancy is extremely rare. If we use the figure of 200, it is 4 per state per year. Even if we use a figure of 500, we're talking about only ten per state, per year. In the United States in one year, there are more than 6 million pregnancies. Roughly 3 million eventuate in live birth, 1.5 million are aborted and 500,000 miscarry. And so while each assault rape pregnancy is a tragedy for the mother (not for the baby, though), we can with confidence say that such pregnancies amount to a minuscule fraction of the total annual pregnancies in the United States. Further, less than half of assault rape pregnancies are aborted, even though that course of action tends to be vigorously pushed by those around the woman. 2,3

Assuming this information is accurate, and the sources seem dated, those are some surprising statistics, i.e., 15% of the population is naturally sterile? Really?

Also, less than half of assault rape pregnancies are aborted? There have to be more recent studies than 1979 and 1980.

This is getting silly or stupid or desperate.

Here's the latest memefad among the Obamites:

Apparently, this comes out of the fact that Ryan co-sponsored a bill that used the term "forcible rape" See Post-Partisan." Post-partisan writes:

Federal law already prohibits federal dollars from being used to finance abortions, except for pregnancies that are the result of rape or incest or situations in which the life of the mother is endangered. But the vague legislation, brought to you by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and 173 co-sponsors, would bar folks from using their health savings accounts to pay for an abortion. And they could forget about availing themselves of tax credits or deductions for medical expenses for an abortion. The scary part is when federal funding of an abortion would be allowed.

'The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--

'(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or

'(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

'Forcible rape'? The very concept is offensive on its face. How is that even defined? There is no definition in the bill. Maybe I'm a do-gooder liberal who fell for the whole "no means no" mantra of my childhood. Or that rape isn't sex, it's violence. But if a woman or girl gets pregnant through incest or rape (in all ways it is defined or understood) the government should not limit her choice by withholding the funding she could use to end the pregnancy -- if she chooses to do so.

So, it would seem that Ryan, apparently, invented the term "forcible rape," which term is "offensive on its face."

It gets worse. The term "forcible rape" is so novel and so offensive that it is literally incomprehensible. The leftist ThinkProgress even calls the term "forcible rape" "bizarre":

Earlier today, Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) claimed that “legitimate rape” does not often lead to pregnancy because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” This is not the first time the biologically challenged senate candidate tried to minimize the impact of rape. Last year, Akin joined with GOP vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as two of the original co-sponsors of the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” a bill which, among other things, introduced the country to the bizarre term “forcible rape.”

With all this dudgeon about Ryan's use of the term "forcible rape" which is "offensive," "bizarre" and a "redefinition," it is almost as if the Left has never heard of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting, which actually uses this bizarre, offensive and novel term as one of its categories of crime statistics:

Forcible rape, as defined in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.

Gosh! Ryan didn't "redefine" rape - he used a term that has a definition that's used by the FBI!

Admittedly, the FBI definition excludes "statutory rape" - but it isn't clear that the bill would have insofar as rape is against the will , as in non-consensual, and minors are generally presumed to be unable to give consent.

So, I guess we will be getting instant lectures from instant experts who will pretend that had never heard of the term "forcible rape" until this week.

*Sigh*

The left is an intellectual disgrace.