Republican 'Rape Panels'

"Richard Mourdock thinks kids born of rape are God's gift; otherwise, how do you justify making a woman carry her rapist's child to term? He can sleep at night by telling himself God meant for that to happen, and hence, it's okay to force women to have those kids.

The bottom line is that they don't want to have a rape exception for abortions. Do you know that in 31 states, the rapist father would get to have visitation rights with that child? So, the victim would have to be forced to see her rapist for next eighteen years on a weekly basis. How do you justify something that hideous and barbaric? You say she wouldn't have gotten pregnant if it was a legitimate rape or that God intended it anyway.

But how about Mitt Romney's position that you can have an exception for rape or incest. Okay, how do you prove that you qualify for that exception? Whose responsibility is it to show that it happened? What evidence do you have to present? Do you have to have a conviction first? Wouldn't that make it too late? If later the man is acquitted, does the woman go to prison for getting the abortion?

Will there be rape panels to decide if someone was actually raped? Someone has to decide if they get the exception or not, right? How will the woman convince the rape panel that she has been raped?

Republicans so far have referred to legitimate rape, forcible rape, easy rape, honest rape, emergency rape, enjoyable rape and now gift-from-God rape. Check out this unbelievable Republican Party Rape Advisory Chart for all of the direct quotes from Republicans on this issue.

They're not saying all of this because they just keep slipping up with words. They're stating whole theories on rape. That's not misspeaking; that's accidentally telling us what you really think.

It's not like Todd Akin meant illegitimate and he accidentally said legitimate rape. He stated a whole biological hypothesis. Why? Because he's thought that for decades and assumed the rest of us believed it, too. That's why he said it on television -- because he didn't realize that it was objectionable.

Richard Mourdock thinks kids born of rape are God's gift; otherwise, how do you justify making a woman carry her rapist's child to term? He can sleep at night by telling himself God meant for that to happen, and hence, it's okay to force women to have those kids.

The bottom line is that they don't want to have a rape exception for abortions. Do you know that in 31 states, the rapist father would get to have visitation rights with that child? So, the victim would have to be forced to see her rapist for next eighteen years on a weekly basis. How do you justify something that hideous and barbaric? You say she wouldn't have gotten pregnant if it was a legitimate rape or that God intended it anyway.

But how about Mitt Romney's position that you can have an exception for rape or incest. Okay, how do you prove that you qualify for that exception? Whose responsibility is it to show that it happened? What evidence do you have to present? Do you have to have a conviction first? Wouldn't that make it too late? If later the man is acquitted, does the woman go to prison for getting the abortion?

Will there be rape panels to decide if someone was actually raped? Someone has to decide if they get the exception or not, right? How will the woman convince the rape panel that she has been raped?"* Cenk Uygur breaks down the very real possibility of 'rape panels' and other hardships a woman would realistically face if forced to carry a rapists child to term.

*Read the rest of Cenk's article, "Rape Panels" on The Huffington Post:

Support The Young Turks by Subscribing

Support The Young Turks by Shopping

Like Us on Facebook:

Follow Us on Twitter

Buy TYT Merch