Akin To Akin: The biologically ignorant Sen. Boxer
By: Daniel Clark
By now, practically everybody has condemned Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin for his bizarre claim that a natural defense mechanism prevents women from becoming pregnant as a result of rape. Because of that statement, previously endangered Democrat incumbent Claire McCaskill has taken a 10-point lead over Akin in the latest poll. Still, one must never underestimate the Democrats’ ability to overplay their hand.
Not content with salvaging one Senate seat, they’re trying to smear all Republicans, and all opponents of abortion, as if they shared in the ignorance of Akin’s opinion. Unwilling to accept decades of consistent polling data telling them that their pro-abortion absolutism is a political loser, Democrats have seized on the Akin incident in an attempt to rehabilitate their favorite cause. They may even make it the centerpiece of their upcoming convention.
In a speech to Planned Parenthood, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D, Calif.) said, “It’s deeper than one Republican congressman. It goes all the way to the top of the Republican ticket.” Following a series of blitheringly stupid remarks in which she equated opposition to abortion with tolerance of rape, Boxer asked, “Where’s the outrage by Mitt Romney? There is a sickness out there in the Republican Party, and I’m not kidding. Maybe they don’t like their moms or their first wives.” Romney had actually condemned Akin’s comments as “offensive and wrong,” and called for him to drop out of the race, but why should Boxer start acknowledging the facts with that one?
Aside from giving pro-abortion Democrats an excuse to perpetuate their “War on Women” fantasy, Akin has enabled them to pose as the experts on biological issues, as opposed to those knuckle-dragging religious conservatives, who, as we all know, “fear science.” If only we had news reporters in this country, perhaps they would start asking Democrats, and especially abortion-supporters, to demonstrate their purported expertise where the facts of life are concerned.
On October 20, 1999, Sen. Boxer was being questioned by Sen. Rick Santorum (R, Pa.) in a debate over the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, when he confronted her with the question of when life begins. “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born – and there is no such thing as partial-birth – the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.”
Your baby has all the rights of a person when you bring it home? She seems to suggest that biology isn’t enough, but that some form of societal validation is necessary to establish personhood. Perhaps the mother should take her baby to a notary, and have the word “person” officially stamped on its forehead. Furthermore, how can there be no such thing as partial-birth? Are babies born instantaneously, as if being beamed through Scotty’s transporter? If a pro-life Republican had said there’s no such thing as partial-birth, he would now stand accused of callousness toward the pain that women go through during childbirth.
Santorum sportingly gave Boxer another chance to answer whether she would “accept the fact that once the baby is separated from the mother, that baby cannot be killed.” She responded by asking him to define separation, which few other people would have found so confusing. Santorum helpfully explained that it means “no part of the baby is inside of the mother.”
Boxer responded, “You mean the baby has been birthed and is now in its mother’s arms? That baby is a human being.”
“Well, I don’t know if it’s necessarily in its mother’s arms,” Santorum said. “Let’s say in the obstetrician’s hands.”
At this point, Sen. Boxer, representing the Party of Science, began to utter the most incredible answer. “It takes a second, it takes a minute. I had two babies, and within seconds of their birth — ”
Unfortunately, Santorum interrupted her at this point, and the exchange that followed allowed Boxer to escape having to finish that sentence. Nevertheless, there’s no mistaking the fact that she’d already indicated that a baby fails to qualify for personhood until some point after its birth.
Boxer later disavowed her own words, but Akin has done the same thing. If he can’t get away with it, then neither should she. Moreover, her belief is the one that’s truly representative of her party and its cause. Mitt Romney certainly does not share the viewpoint expressed by Akin, but President Obama just as surely agrees with everything Boxer said, as his record in the Illinois state senate will attest.
Maybe the Democrats just hate their children, eh Barb?
Daniel Clark is a writer from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is the author and editor of a web publication called The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press, where he also publishes a seasonal sports digest as The College Football Czar.