Ryan Can't Get Away from His Anti-Choice Extremism, Even If He Denounces Akin
Poor Paul Ryan. As one of the most fervent anti-woman Republicans in the House, he must be aching to come to the defense of his bestest bud Todd Akin. After all, they've voted together 93 percent of the time, so they see eye-to-eye on pretty much everything—including whether there are different types of rape that are not as bad as real rape and whether it's ever okay for women to have abortions. (Spoiler alert: Yes and no.)
But because Ryan is now Mitt Romney's running mate, he has to keep a lid on the crazy. The campaign even forced Ryan to sit down for an interview to disavow Akin's claims and pretend that he's shocked and offended by Akin articulating exactly what Ryan also believes.
Just look what they made Ryan say:
His statements were outrageous, over the pail. I don’t know anybody who would agree with that. Rape is rape period, end of story.
Really, Ryan? You don't know anyone who would agree that there are different kinds of rape? Legitimate rape, forcible rape, rape-rape, not-really rape. No one comes to mind, eh? Not even this guy?
Paul Ryan also co-sponsored HR 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion" bill in which Republicans tried to redefine rape so that it only applied to "forcible" rape so those fake rape victims would stop exploiting loopholes to cash in on fabulous gifts and prizes. Republicans pulled that part out of the bill so everyone would stop criticizing them, and then they tried to sneak it back in anyway.
But Ryan draws a complete blank, can't think of a single person who would agree with Akin that sometimes rapeisn't rape. So the interviewer helps him out:
Delano: "You sponsored legislation that has the language ‘forcible rape.’ What is forcible rape as opposed…”
Ryan: “Rape is rape. Rape is rape, period. End of story.”
Delano: “So that forcible rape language meant nothing to you at the time?”
Ryan: “Rape is rape and there’s no splitting hairs over rape.”
That's good to know, Ryan. So the next time your party tries to redefine rape, we can count on you to let your fellow Republicans know just how "over the pail" that is? Think you can toe the new line on that one? I'm thinking no:
Delano: “Should abortions to be available to women who are raped?”
Ryan: “Well, look, I’m proud of my pro-life record. And I stand by my pro-life record in Congress. It’s something I’m proud of. But Mitt Romney is the top of the ticket and Mitt Romney will be president and he will set the policy of the Romney administration.”
Wrong answer, Ryan. Now is no time for you to give a wink-wink to your party that you still think women who are raped should be forced to have their rapists' babies. The correct answer is:
[A] Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.
That's your new talking point, buddy, and there's no room in it for you to remind people of how extreme you really are. Even if it hurts. Just like this must have hurt:
Nobody is proposing to deny birth control to anybody [...] And I don’t think they're going to take the bait of all these distractions that the president is trying to throw at them.
Nobody is proposing to deny birth control to anybody? Not even this guy?
He believes ending a pregnancy should be illegal even when it results from rape or incest, or endangers a woman’s health. He was a cosponsor of the Sanctity of Human Life Act, a federal bill defining fertilized eggs as human beings, which, if passed, would criminalize some forms of birth control and in vitro fertilization.
Oh, and Ryan? About the "distractions that the president" is throwing at lady voters? Those distractions you think we don't care about? You just keep dismissing our basic rights as "distractions," pal, because it's really working for you. Which is why the latest polling shows that when it comes to trusting President Obama or Mitt Romney on issues that matter to women, it's not even close. Unless you think the 52 percent who choose Obama, as opposed to the 24 percent who choose Romney, is also just "splitting hairs."