With his statement Tuesday that pregnancy from rape is God’s will, Senate candidate Richard Mourdock became the latest Republican to stumble into trouble attempting to articulate a key pro-life argument against abortion — that life begins at conception — but doing so in a way that appears insensitive to women.
And while prominent Republicans, including presidential candidate Mitt Romney, quickly distanced themselves from the Indiana state treasurer, his position is basically consistent with his party’s official platform.
Mr. Mourdock, who has been locked in one of the country’s most closely watched Senate races, was asked during the final minutes of a debate with Democratic challenger Rep. Joe Donnelly whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.
“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God,” Mr. Mourdock said. “And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
Mr. Mourdock apologized Wednesday to anyone who he said might have misinterpreted his statement.
But the media firestorm again highlighted the tightrope the pro-life GOP walks regarding possible exceptions to abortion restrictions.
A slew of anti-abortion groups and activists jumped to defend Mr. Mourdock. The head of the Indiana Right to Life’s political action committee, Mike Fichter, applauded the candidate for recognizing “what our Founding Fathers wisely proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.”
The Susan B. Anthony List, dedicated to helping elect anti-abortion candidates, accused Mourdock critics of twisting his words for political gain.
“Richard Mourdock said that life is always a gift from God, and we couldn’t agree more,” said the group’s president, Marjorie Dannenfelser. “To report his statement as an endorsement of rape is either willfully ignorant or malicious.”
Mr. Mourdock’s Democratic opponent, Mr. Donnelly, says he is morally opposed to abortion, though he has sponsored legislation that would prohibit taxpayer funding for abortions with the exception of rape and incest — a move hard-line pro-lifers suggest is hypocritical.
“It’s like saying [to me], if I had my way, you’d be dead right now,” said anti-abortion activist Rebecca Kiessling, who was born as a result of a rape. “That’s the reality of it, saying that you’re not worth it; you didn’t deserve to be protected.”
Yet polls consistently have shown over the years a majority of Americans think a woman should have the right to an abortion in the case of rape or incest. The percentage of Americans who say abortions should be illegal in all circumstances never has risen higher than 25 percent since the mid-1970s, according to Gallup polling.
The Republican Party, at its August convention in Tampa, Fla., approved a platform with a strong anti-abortion plank, calling for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion with no explicit exceptions for cases of rape or incest.
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, chairman of the Republican convention platform committee, denied his party was making a judgment on a rape or incest exception, saying in August that decisions on the matter ultimately rest with the states.View Entire Story
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Sean Lengell covers Congress and national politics and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
By John Solomon
How the government's punishing of the exposure of official wrongdoing can linger for years
Independent voices from the TWT Communities
A collection of reader guest articles, thoughts and opinions by Communities writers and breaking news and information.
Great discoveries in the world of restaurants and chefs fulfill the quest for delicious food and cooking.
Paul Rondeau dissects the propaganda, media tricks, and other shenanigans targeting our families, faith, and freedom…and even life itself
Benghazi: The anatomy of a scandal
Vietnam Memorial adds four names
Cinco de Mayo on the Mall
NRA kicks off annual convention