News Abortion

Todd Akin Doesn’t Know the Difference Between Contraception and Abortion, But He Wants “It” Outlawed

Robin Marty

The Republican challenging Sen. McCaskill doesn't understand the difference between contraception and abortion, but he still knows abortion is always wrong.

Missouri Representative Todd Akin is fresh off his victory in the Republican prmary and ready to take on Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill in the general election.

He’s less ready to admit he knows nothing about contraception.

Speaking on a local radio show, Akin tells the host that he believes the morning after pill should be made illegal, because it causes an abortion. Confusing emergency contraception with RU-486, he claims it causes abortions, and abortions are always wrong. Except maybe, he allows, in cases where there is a tubal pregnancy, since in that case the woman’s life is in danger.

“Representative Todd Akin’s false statement illustrates exactly why politicians should not be meddling in women’s personal medical decisions,” said Planned Parenthood Missouri Advocates via email statement.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

The fact is that emergency contraception prevents pregnancy. Abortion ends a pregnancy. Missouri women and families rely on all forms of contraception to prevent pregnancy and stay healthy.

Planned Parenthood affiliates in Missouri provide over 20,000 emergency contraception kits each year. Emergency contraception is more effective the sooner it is taken and it is important that women are clear about where to get emergency contraception and how it works.  Confusing emergency contraception and abortion is dangerous for women’s health.

Analysis Politics

Libertarian Nominee Gary Johnson’s Abortion Doublespeak

Ally Boguhn

In an election year when many voters are increasingly frustrated with their options, both Gary Johnson's presence in the race and his policy positions are notable. When it comes to reproductive rights in particular, Johnson appears to have spent years walking a fine line.

The Democratic Party won’t be the only one on the ballot this November with a self-described pro-choice nominee on its presidential ticket. Libertarians chose former New Mexico Republican Gov. Gary Johnson, a self-identified pro-choice candidate, as the party’s nominee for the 2016 race during their convention on May 29.

Though Johnson’s chances of becoming president are low, the Libertarian Party will likely be the only third-party option on the ballot in all 50 states. According to statistical analysis site FiveThirtyEight, several recent national polls have the Libertarian nominee taking 10 percent of the vote. Those numbers are nothing, the site noted, to shrug at: “Gary Johnson is neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton. He might not win a state, but he could make some noise.”

In an election year when many voters are increasingly frustrated with their options, both Johnson’s presence in the race and his policy positions are notable. Candidates need only reach 15 percent in selected public opinion polls to make it to the national debate stage, meaning Johnson may have a shot at bringing his opinions to the masses.

When it comes to reproductive rights in particular, Johnson appears to have spent years walking a fine line, frequently presenting himself as “pro-choice” while simultaneously opposing abortion on a personal level and supporting some restrictions on the procedure. “[Abortion] should be left up to the woman,” said Johnson during a 2001 interview with Playboy, adding that if his “daughter were pregnant and she came to me and asked me what she ought to do, I would advise her to have the child. But I would not for a minute pretend that I should make that decision for her or any other woman.”

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Johnson’s current campaign website continues this trend, seemingly attempting to have it both ways on abortion. It borrows aspects from both anti-choice and pro-choice advocates and pushes the line that the candidate “has the utmost respect for the deeply-held convictions of those on both sides of the abortion issue.”

“It is an intensely personal question, and one that government is ill-equipped to answer,” reads Johnson’s campaign site. Though the site notes that the candidate has “never advocated [for]abortion or taxpayer funding of it,” it goes on to explain that Johnson supports the “right to choose.”

“Further, Gov. Johnson feels strongly that women seeking to exercise their legal right must not be subjected to persecution or denied access to health services by politicians in Washington or elsewhere who are insistent on politicizing such an intensely personal and serious issue,” concludes his abortion platform before adding an aside that he supported bans on “late term abortions” during his time as governor. The page does not define what “late term abortion” means in this context, nor does it go into more detail about what specific bans Johnson backed.

Johnson’s attempts to craft his own middle ground in the abortion debate during the 2016 elections are holdovers from his past run for the White House during the 2012 election, when he ran as a Republican before switching over to the Libertarian Party. During a June 2011 interview with Rolling Stone, Johnson plainly stated his position on abortion, as well as several anti-choice measures he has supported in the past:

I support women’s rights to choose up until viability of the fetus. I’ve supported the notion of parental notification. I’ve supported counseling and I’ve supported the notion that public funds not be used for abortions. But I don’t want for a second to pretend that I have a better idea of how a woman should choose when it comes to this situation. Fundamentally this is a choice that a woman should have.

Johnson consistently says he is pro-choice up until the point of viability, something already enshrined into law in Roe v. Wade. As Rewire has previously reported, “Even though the Court in Roe decided that fetal viability would be the benchmark for the balance between a person’s right to choose and the state’s interest in “potential life,” the Court was silent on when fetal viability occurs. It left that decision up to doctors.”

In August 2011, during an argument with the editor in chief of the conservative CNS News, Terry Jeffrey, Johnson fired back at the host for pushing him to concede that a fetus should have the same “right to life” as born individuals. This argument is often used by conservatives to support so-called personhood legislation, which would grant constitutional rights to a fetus as early as conception, and could outlaw abortion as well as many forms of contraception.

“What you’re saying is that you would take this away from a woman, you would criminalize a woman who is making a choice that I believe only a woman should make,” said Johnson, who flatly asserted that women should have the right to opt for abortion up until the point of viability. “And you may in fact be criminalizing the activities of doctors who are involved also,” he noted.

Johnson’s critique of Jeffrey’s question and his clear opposition to criminalizing those who have or provide abortions stands in contrast to presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, who said in March that those who have abortions should face “some form of punishment” if it was illegal, only to later claim that doctors—not women—should be punished.

Even so, Johnson again touted his support for a number of restrictions on abortion access, presumably to shore up support among Republican voters. “I signed a law banning late-term abortion, believing there is a point of viability,” said Johnson on the show, “and I also as governor of New Mexico supported parental notification. I have also always supported counseling.”

State-mandated counseling for abortion-which is what Johnson seems to be pitching-often requires “information that is irrelevant and misleading,” according to a March 2016 report from the Guttmacher Institute. The waiting periods that frequently accompany such laws, for that matter, often create hardship for women by adding additional expenses or logistical hurdles for those seeking abortion care. Guttmacher also found in a 2009 report that the most direct impact of common parental consent laws “is an increase in the number of minors traveling outside their home states to obtain abortion services in states that do not mandate parental involvement or that have less restrictive laws.”

Johnson’s claim about banning later abortions during his tenure as governor of New Mexico, meanwhile, presumably refers to a so-called partial-birth abortion ban outlawing certain kinds of later abortions-though, like the claim on his 2016 website, the specifics are not clear Johnson signed the ban into law in 2000, making it the first restriction on abortion put in place in the state in more than 25 years.

In truth, “partial-birth abortion” is an inflammatory non-medical term, coined by the anti-choice National Right to Life Committee in 1995 in an effort to make passing abortion restrictions easier. It is often used to describe the dilation and extraction abortion procedure (D and X), typically performed between 20 and 24 weeks of pregnancy. New Mexico’s law made it a fourth-degree felony for a doctor perform the procedure on “an independently viable fetus.” As NPR has reported, most D and X abortions actually do not take place after viability:

And contrary to the claims of some abortion opponents, most such abortions do not take place in the third trimester of pregnancy, or after fetal “viability.” Indeed, when some members of Congress tried to amend the bill to ban only those procedures that take place after viability, abortion opponents complained that would leave most of the procedures legal.

According to the Albuquerque Journal, “abortion opponents say the [2000] law had little impact because it pertained only to cases in which a fetus had attained viability, which is defined as being able to live outside the womb.”

Johnson also asserted during a 2011 Republican debate hosted by Fox News that he would have signed a ban on later abortion, had one reached his desk. However, he again did not elaborate on what point in pregnancy such a ban would apply or whether it would have exceptions.

Johnson’s 501(c)(4) organization, Our America, has gone as far as to call for Roe v. Wade to be completely overturned. When Johnson was running for president in 2012, the group’s site discussed the candidate’s position on abortion before calling for the Supreme Court to overturn the case:

Judges should be appointed who will interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning. Any court decision that does not follow this original meaning of the Constitution should be revisited. That is particularly true of decisions such as Roe vs. Wade, which have expanded the reach of the Federal government into areas of society never envisioned in the Constitution. With the overturning of Roe vs Wade, laws regarding abortion would be decided by the individual states.

Any mention of the topic seems to have been scrubbed from the current version of the organization’s website, but Johnson’s pitch for a potential replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court speaks for itself. Shortly after the justice’s death in February, Johnson shared a picture of himself on Facebook with Fox News’ senior judicial analyst, Andrew Napolitano, calling the conservative media figure a “great candidate” for the vacant seat.

Napolitano is stringently anti-choice: During a January 2016 segment for Fox News, Napolitano blasted the Court’s decision in Roe, claiming that it allows the “murder of babies in the womb,” advocating for Congress to pass an extreme “personhood” amendment in order to end legal abortion. He also compared Roe v. Wade to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford, which denied personhood to Black Americans, essentially upholding slavery.

Napolitano also took issue with exceptions to abortion bans in cases of rape in a 2012 opinion piece for FoxNews.com after former Missouri Republican Rep. Todd Akin notoriously claimed that in cases of “legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.”

“Rape is among the more horrific violations of human dignity imaginable,” wrote Napolitano. “But it is a crime committed by the male, not the female—and certainly not by the child it might produce. When rape results in pregnancy, the baby has the same right to life as any child born by mutually loving parents. Only the Nazis would execute a child for the crimes of his or her father.”

This rhetoric echoed Napolitano’s recent comparison of the legalization of abortion care to “the philosophical argument underlying the Holocaust.”

Johnson’s willingness to consider Napolitano to fill a Supreme Court vacancy make one thing clear: Even if Johnson claims to be pro-choice, should he win the White House, access to abortion may still be in jeopardy. The Libertarian nominee’s support of a number of abortion restrictions and apparent willingness to nominate anti-choice justices to the Court call into question whether the “right to choose” Johnson claims he supports would truly remain—an alarming prospect given the increased attention the candidate is receiving in the 2016 election.

Commentary Sexual Health

The Stomach’s Not Connected to the Uterus—But Some Kids (and Lawmakers) Might Really Think It Is

Martha Kempner

As much as we may want to laugh about the possibility that Idaho state Rep. Vito Barbieri did not know that the uterus is not part of the digestive system, a lack of understanding of basic anatomy can have enormous consequences on both a personal and legislative level.

Even as they exert efforts to control women’s sexuality, Republican lawmakers and commentators have demonstrated a stark lack of understanding of basic female anatomy and reproduction in recent years. When Rush Limbaugh used Sandra Fluke’s need to take the birth control pill every day as an indication that she must be having a lot of sex, it became clear he knew little about the mechanisms of ovulation and contraception. Meanwhile, who could forget then-Rep. Todd Akin’s claims that the female reproductive tract can “shut the whole thing down” so pregnancy won’t occur after rape? And on Monday, Idaho lawmaker Vito Barbieri appeared during a hearing to not know whether the uterus is connected to the stomach—a question he brought up while attempting to restrict reproductive rights in his home state.

This doesn’t just call into question Barbieri’s familiarity with the very processes he’s trying to coercively legislate—it also serves as a reminder of the dire lack of sex education throughout the country. Because although Barbieri may have claimed later that his question was rhetorical, many young people may not actually learn that what goes in a woman’s mouth will never, ever come out her vagina.

Barbieri’s comment came during a hearing on a bill that would ban doctors from providing abortion drugs through telemedicine by requiring them to examine a patient in person. As Rewire has reported, telemedicine is used to help women, particularly those in rural areas, who do not live near an abortion provider. Through the telemedicine process, women receive abortion medication at a local health clinic, where they sit with a nurse and speak with their doctor via video conferencing tools. Telemedicine abortion care is only available in Iowa and Minnesota, and 16 states have specifically banned the practice.

As Dr. Julie Madsen testified against the bill and explained to lawmakers how telemedicine can be useful, she brought up colonoscopies, during which patients swallow pill-sized cameras that travel through the digestive system and send pictures to doctors thousands of miles of away for evaluation. Barbieri asked whether something similar could be done around abortion procedures: “Can this same procedure then be done in a pregnancy? Swallowing a camera and helping the doctor determine what the situation is?”

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Madsen answered matter of factly, “It cannot be done in pregnancy, simply because when you swallow a pill it would not end up in the vagina.”

As others in the chamber giggled audibly, Barbieri responded, “Fascinating. That certainly makes sense, doctor.”

After a subsequent Internet explosion making fun of the legislator for apparently not knowing that the digestive and reproductive tracts are separate entities, Barbieri shot back that he was asking a rhetorical question designed to make that very point. As he told the Spokesman-Review late Monday, “[Madsen] was drawing a parallel between a colonoscopy and how much more dangerous it was than a chemical abortion. So, I was trying to draw out the distinctions.”

Barbieri did not sound sarcastic on the tape, but his claim that his question was posed to make a point is plausible, and we might as well give him the benefit of the doubt. That said, it’s also plausible that someone could believe that swallowing a camera could take a picture of a pregnancy. After all, most of us are told as children that we grew in our mommy’s “tummy.” Unless that oversimplification is corrected either by our parents or a sex ed class, misunderstandings can easily remain.

In Barbieri’s state, at least, there’s no guarantee that students will ever learn basic reproductive anatomy. Idaho does not mandate that schools teach sex ed at all. If schools do teach it, the law leaves most decisions about the curriculum up to each district, though it does say that sex ed in the state must be “factual, medically accurate, objective, and developmentally appropriate.” So teachers can’t actively give incorrect information—like pretending babies grow in “tummies.”

But state law also says teachers have to give students “the scientific, psychological information for understanding sex and its relation to the miracle of life.” The Idaho Content Standards for Health say students should learn about the “consequences of sexual activity” beginning in sixth grade and that information provided to high school students should include “encouragement of abstinence from sexual activity, sexually transmitted diseases [STDs] including HIV, pregnancy prevention, and methods of prevention.”

Those same content standards state that by the seventh or eight grade students should be able to “label the major components of each body system and identify the relationship to overall health.” Hopefully, this would include all parts of the female reproductive system. However, it’s hard to have faith that that is true across the board when one considers the other focuses of the Idaho sexuality education law: Classes must also include “knowledge of the power of the sex drive and the necessity of controlling that drive by self-discipline.” Nowhere do those guidelines specifically mention reproductive anatomy, leaving room for schools to intentionally or unintentionally forget to mention the vulva, vagina, and uterus.

I’m sure there are schools in Idaho—and across the United States—that are doing a good job providing students with a sexuality education that teaches them about anatomy and much more. But without regulations specifically requiring classes that teach young people about reproductive biology, I fear too many students are graduating without knowing enough to have laughed at Barbieri’s remarks (rhetorical or not).

There is, unfortunately, a precedent for the avoidance of these topics. A report on sexuality education in New York, for example, noted that two-thirds of districts that taught about anatomy included no mention of vulvas. And few could forget Holt’s Lifetime Health textbook, still used throughout the country, which describes the vagina simply as “the organ that receives sperm during reproduction.”

This dearth of instruction can have lasting effects. I’m teaching a course this semester that’s made up of college juniors and seniors. Last week, we were discussing body image and, in particular, how women feel about their own genitals. I realized a few sentences in that not everyone knew what I was talking about when I used the terms vulva and labia. So I put a line drawing of external female anatomy up on the screen—one that’s apparently missing from many sex education courses. Students were fascinated. A number of them (all women, by the way) admitted that they hadn’t realized women had three different holes “down there”: the urethra (which is attached to the bladder and allows urine to come out); the vagina (which is attached to the uterus and is where a baby comes out); and the anus (which is not part of the genitals but is close by and is where feces come out).

As alarmed and snarky as I want to be about the possibility that Rep. Barbieri did not know that the uterus is not part of the digestive system, part of me just isn’t surprised. If these young people in my class made it halfway through college without realizing that the vagina isn’t where urine comes out, any amount of misinformation seems possible.

So instead of just making of fun of the lawmakers and commentators who keep getting it wrong—or at least after we have a quick laugh at their expense—we have to remember that no one is born knowing exactly where or what a cervix is. They have to learn. We can start by dispensing with the cutesy talk and telling little kids that they grew in a uterus and that external female genitalia is called the vulva, not the vagina. Then we have to get serious about sex education—because as funny as this whole thing sounds, a lack of understanding of basic anatomy can have enormous consequences on both a personal and legislative level.