Yesterday, during what the Evansville Courier & Press says was an otherwise strong debate performance, Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock handed the Democrats a gift. He was asked to explain why he opposes abortion rights for rape victims and he said that “even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” I think we can set aside philosophical and theological discussions about predestination and the degree to which God controls and approves of everything that happens. As a political matter, what Mourdock said is poison. It makes it sound like every pregnancy resulting from rape is part of God’s plan. And the logical inference from that is that God approves of rape if it results in pregnancy. One can imagine a rapist’s defense attorney attempting to use this defense in court.
Mitt Romney’s spokeswoman Andrea Saul immediately said that the presidential candidate does not agree with Mourdock’s statement. Yet, somewhat awkwardly, a commercial featuring Romney and Mourdock began running on Indiana television on Monday. So far, the Romney campaign has not committed to taking down that ad.
After the debate, Mr. Mourdock attempted to do some damage control:
“Are you trying to suggest that somehow I think God ordained or preordained rape? No, I don’t think that anyone could suggest that. That’s a sick, twisted — no, that’s not even close to what I said,” Mourdock said.
“It is a fundamental part of my faith that God gives us life. God determines when life begins,” he said. “I believe in an almighty God who makes those calls. … There are some things in life that are above my pay grade.”
A normal human being will have trouble reconciling the idea that a pregnancy could be something that God intended to happen with the idea that God didn’t ordain or preordain the rape that caused that pregnancy. The loophole is, of course, that some things are above Mr. Mourdock’s pay grade and are not supposed to make sense.
One irony here is that Joe Donnelly, the Democratic candidate opposing Mr. Mourdock, is also anti-choice. The difference is that he is willing to make exceptions for the life and health of the woman, or in cases of rape and incest. So, there’s a clear choice between the two candidates, but both choices are still bad.
This whole scandal matters for more than one Senate race in Indiana. It matters because Mitt Romney’s running mate holds the exact same views about rape and choice as Mr. Mourdock. As you can see in the following interview where Paul Ryan discusses the controversy over Missouri Republican Todd Akin’s comments about “legitimate rape,” Ryan does not believe the “method of conception” had any bearing on whether abortion should be permitted. If the method of conception is rape, that shouldn’t be treated any differently than if it was consensual.
Now, it’s true that Ryan says in the same interview that he is joining Romney’s ticket and will support Romney’s exceptions for rape, but that doesn’t change his personal view which would take precedence if it turns out that Romney has a brain tumor or something and won’t be completing his term in office.
While it might seem that the most jarring thing about Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock’s views is their eccentric interpretation of female biology or God’s providence, the focus should remain on the policy. Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, and Paul Ryan all oppose exceptions for rape, and for the same reason.
