Republican Senate Candidate Richard Mourdock's Bizarre "God's Will" Rape Comment

-A +A
0

Voters must ask themselves: Do we really want to elect candidates with such extreme views? Candidates who are anti-women's rights, elitist and who don't care about what they say since they can always deny it? Does the truth count for something or is it just an inconvenient term?

[Black Star News Editorial]

The Republicans' attacks on women's control over their reproductive health rights continues.
 
First it was Rep. Todd Akin and Rep. Paul Ryan co-sponsoring a Congressional bill whose original language included the term "forcible" rape. Later, in a television interview Rep. Akin claimed in cases of "legitimate" rape a woman could prevent an unwanted pregnancy by simply "shutting that whole thing down."

Now Republican Candidate for U.S. Senate from Indiana, Richard Mourdock  has joined the Hall of Shame. During a debate Tuesday Mourdock was asked whether abortion should be allowed in cases of incest or rape. Here's what he said: "I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

Almost immediately thereafter Republican operatives started to try  and spin the comments. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney himself distanced himself from Mourdock, saying he disagreed with the comments.  Then it was Mourdock himself who took a shot at spinning his own horrendous comments.

It was "sick" and "twisted" for anyone to believe what he meant to say was that God ordains all forms of human conception, even in cases of rape. He denounced anyone who would take his words  "out of context."

What's sick and twisted is that every time Republicans are exposed for harboring extreme, resentful and even obnoxious views they simply call a press conference and say that wasn't what they meant -- and life goes on.

One thing's for sure.

The Republicans have been consistent, starting from the top of the ticket. Candidate Romney said he didn't care for 47% of the electorate -- the Obama supporters he claimed--  since he couldn't convince them to take responsibility for their lives. What's more they didn't pay taxes anyway, Romney said, during a $50,000 a plate fund-raising dinner.

After his remarks were exposed Romney said his comments were "inelegant." At the second presidential candidates debate he was even bolder -- declaring that he actually cared about 100% of American voters.

While Romney now says he does not agree with Mourdock's comments the senate candidate has just started running ads that Romney taped on his behalf. Will Romney now ask that those ads be pulled? We won't hold our breath.

At some point voters have to ask themselves: Do we really want to elect candidates with such extreme views? Candidates who are anti-women's rights, elitist and who don't care about what they say since they can always deny it? Does the truth count for something or is it just an inconvenient term?

Mourdock doesn't belong in the U.S. Senate because of his extreme views.  Romney doesn't belong in the White House because of he doesn't have a consistent position as he's shown in the last several weeks. He simply doesn't care about all Americans.


"Speaking Truth To Empower."



Also Check Out...

El Puente Artists And Los Sures
TNC's Fifth "Dream Up
LIBERIANS RALLY IN RESPONSE TO
NIGERIAN COMIC TURNS ON FANS
Easier Said Than Done
'HASHTAG' CAMPAIGN FOR