Missouri Tea Party Senate Candidate doesn't think abortion in cases of rape is really necessary. Why? Because in cases of "legitimate rape" women's bodies know how to prevent a pregnancy from happening in the first place.
It is always the case that when you finally think right-wing fundamentalist anti-women politicians can not get any crazier… they do something to prove you wrong.
Today’s case in point is provided by Missouri Tea Party Senate Candidate Todd Akin, a former board member of Missouri Right to Life, who has come up with a whole new angle on why rape is not really a legitimate reason to allow an abortion (in his eyes, of course).
This morning, Akin told Charles Jaco, the anchor of the Jaco Report, that from what he “understands from doctors” (which doctors, he does not say), that assuming we are talking about “cases of legitimate rape” the “female body has a way of shutting that down” (i.e. preventing pregnancy).
So ladies, according to Mr. Akin, if you are raped, you not only have to prove to Mr. Akin that your rape was “legitimate,” you also are at fault for allowing yourself to become pregnant.
Like This Story?
Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
Mr. Akin’s biography says he has a degree in Management Engineering, and is a “student of the Constitution.” Clearly, he is not a student of medicine, gynecology, biology, nor, I’d venture to say, common sense and common decency. And I am not sure I trust him on the Constitution either.
An amicus brief filed in a federal court case provided an opportunity for journalists to state in clear terms why David Daleiden's claims to be an investigative reporter endanger the profession and its goal: to safeguard democracy by holding the powerful to account and keeping the public informed.
Last week, 18 of the nation’s preeminent journalists and journalism scholars put their names to a filing in a federal court case between the National Abortion Federation and the Center for Medical Progress, the sham nonprofit set up by anti-choice activist David Daleiden.
From the minute he released his deceptively edited videos, Daleiden has styled himself as a “citizen” or “investigative journalist.” Indeed, upon releasing the footage, Daleiden changed the stated purpose on the website of the Center for Medical Progress to be about investigative reporting instead of tissue brokering, as he had earlier claimed.
The amicusbrief provided an opportunity for journalists to state in clear terms why David Daleiden’s claims to be an investigative reporter endanger the profession and its goal: to safeguard democracy by holding the powerful to account and keeping the public informed.
“By calling himself an ‘investigative journalist,’ Appellant David Daleiden does not make it so,” the journalists and academics wrote. “We believe that accepting Mr. Daleiden’s claim that he merely engaged in ‘standard undercover journalism techniques’ would be both wrong and damaging to the vital role that journalism serves in our society.”
Like This Story?
Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
The signatories included former and current professors and deans from the nation’s top journalism schools, who have collectively trained hundreds, if not thousands, of reporters. They included women and men with storied careers in investigative journalism, whose credentials to speak with authority about what journalism is and how we do it cannot be doubted.
Their message is clear: David Daleiden is not an investigative journalist, and what he didis, in fact, at odds with the fundamentals of our craft.
Daleiden’s motivation for claiming the status of an investigative reporter is clear. In order to avoid financial ruin and potential jail time, he seeks to cloak himself in the protection of the First Amendment, arguing that everything he did was in his capacity as a reporter, and that the Constitution protects him as a member of the free press.
In so doing, Daleiden threatens to inflict yet more damage than his campaigns have already done, this time to the field of journalism. For if the court were to accept Daleiden’s claims, it would be endorsing his message to the public—that journalists routinely lie, break the law, get people drunk in order to elicit information, and distort quotes and video footage so dramatically that people appear to be saying the exact opposite to what they said. What hope would reporters then have of preserving the already tenuous trust that the public places in our word and our work?
This is not the first time some of the nation’s most decorated reporters have carefully reviewed Daleiden’s claims and the techniques he used to gather the footage forhis videos, and concluded that he is not a reporter.
Last month, the Columbia Journalism Review published an article titled “Why the undercover Planned Parenthood videos aren’t journalism,” which was based on the results of a collaboration between the Los Angeles Times and the University of California, Berkeley’s graduate program in journalism.
That study was led by Lowell Bergman, a legendary investigative reporter whose career over the past few decades has been symbiotic with the evolution of the field. Bergman’s team and the LA Timesconcluded that:
Daleiden, head of the Irvine-based Center for Medical Progress, and his associates contend that they were acting as investigative journalists, seeking to expose illegal conduct. That is one of their defenses in lawsuits brought by Planned Parenthood and other groups, accusing them of fraud and invasion of privacy.
But unpublicized footage and court records show that the activists’ methods were geared more toward political provocation than journalism.
The team found what we already knew: Daleiden and his co-conspirators attempted to plant phrases in their targets’ mouths in the hopes of making them sound bad, hoping to drum up “political pressure,” according to a memo obtained by Bergman’s group that Daleiden wrote to his supporters. The activists’ use of fraud was so extensive and enthusiastic, and their deliberate splicing of videos so manipulative and dishonest, that they in no way reflected the methods or goals of real reporters.
The brief submitted in the NAF lawsuit last week echoes these findings and resoundingly makes the same point: Daleiden is not an investigative reporter. The main arguments in the brief boil down to the following, which can be understood as the pillars of investigative journalism:
Reporters do not falsify or distort evidence. Daleiden spliced and manipulated his videos and transcripts to give the false impression that they captured illegal conduct. A reporter’s job is to uncover and convey the truth, not to concoct false claims and peddle them as facts.
Reporters must use deception as a last resort, not a first resort, if they use it at all. Any use of deception—even in the service of obtaining the truth—tends to undermine the public’s trust in any of the reporter’s work. For this reason, even investigations that have uncovered serious abuses of power are often criticized, if not condemned, by the profession if they have obtained their information through deceptive means. As the brief noted, in 1978, the Chicago Sun-Times was barred as a finalist from the Pulitzer Prize because the truth it exposed was obtained through elaborate deception—Sun-Times reporters opened a bar called The Mirage for the purposes of documenting very real public graft. No one doubted that the evidence they found was both true and of great public importance. But, led by Ben Bradlee, the journalism establishment rejected the Sun-Times’ use of deception because of the long-term damage it would cause to the profession.
Reporters follow the law. Daleiden and his co-conspirators created fake government identification which they used to gain access into private events. No legitimate news organization would permit their reporters to take such steps.
Reporters do not deceive subjects into making statements to support a “predetermined theory.” Daleiden used alcohol to try to manipulate subjects into using words and phrases that he believed would sound bad on tape. Real journalists try to report against their own biases, instead of manufacturing evidence to prove their own theories.
Reporters seek to highlight or prevent a harm to the public. Daleiden caused great harm but exposed none.
A point that wasn’t mentioned in the legal filings is that Daleiden failed to follow a rule that student journalists learn in their first weeks of school: You must afford the subject of your reporting a full opportunity to respond to the allegations made against them. Daleiden’s videos came as a surprise attack against Planned Parenthood and NAF (but not, apparently, to certain Republican members of Congress). No reputable reporter would conduct herself in such a fashion. That is an ambush, not an article.
To many readers, these arguments may seem academic. But the reality is that real reporters take their obligations more seriously than the public might realize, to the point of risking—and sometimes losing—their lives in the service of this job, which many consider to be a calling.
One of the best investigative reporters of my generation, A.C. Thompson of ProPublica, recently reported on a group of assassins that operated on U.S. soil in the 1980s, who murdered Vietnamese-American journalists for political reasons.
To report that story, Thompson attended events held by members of the groups he believed to be linked to—or were actual parts of—these networks of killers. He did phone interviews with them. He met with them in person. And he did all of that on camera, using his real name.
Make no mistake: Thompson potentially put his life at risk to do this work, but he did it because he believed that these men had been able to murder hisfellow reporters with impunity, and with possible—if tacit—support from the U.S. government.
Contrast that to Daleiden’s conduct. As noted in the legal brief:
Daleiden may think Planned Parenthood kills babies, but there was no risk whatsoever that its managers would have killed him, or even slapped him, if he approached them openly.
Daleiden’s arguments are, in some ways, the natural extension to the existential crisis that gripped journalism more than a decade ago, with the rise of blogging.What followed was a years-long debate over who could be labeled a “journalist.” The dawn of smartphones contributed to the confusion, as nearly anyone could snap a photo and publish it via Twitter.
It is therefore a tonic to read these clear defenses of the “what” and “why” of investigative journalism, and to see luminaries of the field explaining that journalism is a discipline with norms and rules. When these norms are articulated clearly, it is easy to show that Daleiden’s work does not fall within journalism’s bounds.
At times like this, the absence of David Carr’s raspy voice makes itself painfully felt. One can only imagine the field day he would have with Daleiden’s pretensions to be committing acts of journalism. Judging by this legendary exchange between Carr and Shane Smith, one of the founders of VICE news, from Page One, the 2011 documentary about the New York Times, Carr would not have minced words.
The exchange came after Smith’s self-aggrandizing assessment of his team’s work covering Liberia—where they uncovered cannibalism and a beach that locals were using as a latrine—and then mocked the New York Times’ coverage of the country.
Just a sec, time out. Before you ever went there, we’ve had reporters there reporting on genocide after genocide. Just because you put on a fucking safari helmet and went and looked at some poop doesn’t give you the right to insult what we do.
To paraphrase: Just because Daleiden got some hidden cameras and editing software, and called himself a reporter, doesn’t mean he was doing journalism.
It’s important that both the public and the courts recognize that reality.
Disclosures: A.C. Thompson is a former colleague of the author. The author also appeared, extremely briefly, in the Page One documentary.
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.
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  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.