Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Republican John Koster Opposes Abortion In Cases of Incest and "the Rape Thing"

Posted by on Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 1:25 PM

At an Everett fundraiser with Congressman Tom Price (R-Georgia) over the weekend, 1st Congressional District Republican candidate John Koster was caught on audio frankly chatting about rape, incest, abortion.

Koster says that when a woman's life is in danger, "I'm not going to make that decision." But rape and incest are different, he says. "Incest is so rare, I mean, it's so rare," Koster emphasizes, that it's apparently not worth an exemption from the abortion ban he supports. And rape?

"But on the rape thing, it's like, how does putting more violence onto a woman's body and taking the life of an innocent child that's the consequence of this crime, how does that make it better? You know what I mean?"

Yeah, I think I know what you mean, John. You even said "the rape thing" twice. Rape... it's just a thing.

(Yup... this is the guy who the Seattle Times enthusiastically endorsed. Go figure.)

[via Fuse]

 

Comments (41) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Of course this guy is anti-abortion. He's Republican. But "the rape thing" thing? C'mon. That's your hook?

For Fuck Sake. You realize you guys are throwing every phrase uttered by these guys under the microscope and then screaming Red Alert on any particle of phrase that even MIGHT spark partisan outrage. Isn't that what we complain Fox news does?

Isn't it enough he's wrong about abortion rights?

Jesus Christ. It's like an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm in here where the peanut gallery instantly goes nuts on Larry David's every curmudgeonly bumble.
Posted by tkc on October 31, 2012 at 1:40 PM · Report this
2
Yeah! And when a criminal smashes your face with his fist during a robbery, how does the additional violence of the police throwing him to the ground and immobilizing him using force make that any better?
Posted by Defend This I Dare You on October 31, 2012 at 1:41 PM · Report this
3
These guys think that forcing a babies on woman will actually put women on the right track.

How does forcing a woman to live with the consequence of a crime make anything better?

Getting raped and having to deliver a baby is not the same as getting mugged and icing a black eye.

If a girl in college gets raped and is forced to carry the rapist’s baby to term, how likely is the chance she’ll finish school and be able to resume dating and living a normal life? And what compensation is a fuckwad like Koster going to give her other than a guilt trip and bestowing the consequence of a crime on her for nine months?

You hear that ladies, “crime has consequences” you rapist tempting sluts!

Posted by sall on October 31, 2012 at 1:42 PM · Report this
eastcoastreader 4
damn it, someone let Colbert to re-set the "days since a GOP person said something stupid about rape and abortion" clock.
Posted by eastcoastreader on October 31, 2012 at 1:46 PM · Report this
Keister Button 5
Why are Republican male candidates even opening their yaps about abortion and rape? The GOP was heading for a Senate majority from July 22 to August 19 2012, the latter date was when Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) was honest about his and the party's position on abortion and rape, then the trajectories switched for the Democratic and the Republican parties so the Senate is projected to lose only two Democrat seats. On fivethirtyeight blog an October 31 data point shows the Ds with a 90% chance of a Senate majority, the highest it has been this election cycle.

If the Republican female candidates make comments they aren't reported so much here or nationally, and it may be that the GOP women are even too smart to open up on that subject, regardless of what their positions are.

Did Koster think that only Romney's remarks would be secretly taped and made viral? Did he think that what happened to Akin in red-except-for-three-urban-legistlative-districts Missouri would not happen in his recently redrawn legislative district in a decidedly bluer state?
Posted by Keister Button on October 31, 2012 at 1:46 PM · Report this
6
@tkc: It's not the quotation or phrase itself. It's the entire attitude and mindset toward rape. These guys (and yes, they're basically all guys) don't get it, they don't understand it, and they don't think it's a big deal. And yet they want to govern and regulate it.

Given the opportunity, they would make abortions illegal in all cases (except for, maybe, the life of the mother). But let's face it, people will still have abortions. And what are you going to do with those women? Put them in jail?

And @sall's point is right on, too.
Posted by Calvin&Hobbes on October 31, 2012 at 1:52 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 7
if he feels this way, he should definitely not have an abortion.
Posted by Max Solomon on October 31, 2012 at 2:11 PM · Report this
Joe Szilagyi 8
How long until a certain someone on Soundpolitics.com posts that this is all, somehow, a lie to smear Koster?
Posted by Joe Szilagyi http://twitter.com/joeszi on October 31, 2012 at 2:14 PM · Report this
Jaymz 9
I know abortion is a sensitive topic, and hard lines are drawn, but I will never be convinced that an early termination is "killing a child". I'm very comfortable in my belief that an early term pile of cells - even bean shaped with somewhat decernable features - is not a life separate from the mother, based on the gestation of my own kids and consistent with my religious beliefs. An abortion following rape is a no-brainer for me... as is the right of a woman to terminate an early term pregnancy for other reasons.

Reporters continue to poke Republicans on this topic because they love controversy, and showing where those lines are drawn.
Posted by Jaymz on October 31, 2012 at 2:18 PM · Report this
blip 10
It's weird how they speak of abortions for rape victims as though they are mandatory and not a choice that should be left up to the individual. Pro-choice means just that: it is up to the woman to decide whether an abortion will "make it better" (ugh). Why are we still talking about this?
Posted by blip on October 31, 2012 at 2:25 PM · Report this
11
As Maddow pointed out in regard to Romney’s “only in cases of rape” stance: how many hoops will a rape victim have to jump through before receiving a green light for an abortion card? How long will that take?

Only a very twisted and out of touch individual would be content to tell a rape victim, “You’re a mother now!”
Posted by sall on October 31, 2012 at 2:27 PM · Report this
Baconcat 12
You can ask Koster about all this this weekend in Whatcom County at his last big GOTV event! He goes on before Rob McKenna.

http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=e54e…

BTW, Koster's former consultant is working for Todd Akin. The same consultant worked for Rob McKenna.
Posted by Baconcat on October 31, 2012 at 2:28 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 13
@3,
These guys think that forcing a babies on woman will actually put women on the right track.
No, that's not it.

1. Children born to unwed mothers are more likely to become criminals.
2. Prisoners are counted in the Census, BUT
3. Prisoners cannot vote.
4. More people in prison = more non-voters in a district = more republican districts.

Yeah, it sounds conspiracy-theory-ish. Look up where most prisons are and if those places are more republican or democrat. Look up the states that have the most restrictive prisoner/ex-prisoner voting rights and if those places are more republican or democrat.

Yeah.

Republicans want women to have babies so that more people will be in prison so that republicans will have more power and control.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on October 31, 2012 at 2:32 PM · Report this
14
A woman choosing to have an abortion is violence against her body but forcing her to carry a pregnancy against her will is not?
Posted by kersy on October 31, 2012 at 2:40 PM · Report this
15
blip, we're being forced to talk about a red herring because it's divisive. it's a non-issue for intelligent peeps. but it's easier to scream about in the media than to actually face the real issues at hand.....like climate change policy and getting the general public to have a complete paradigm shift in regards to materialistic pursuits.
Posted by hold onloosley on October 31, 2012 at 2:44 PM · Report this
Geni 16
Wait, what? Incest is really rare? On what planet?
Posted by Geni on October 31, 2012 at 3:02 PM · Report this
17

Rape and incest are horrible things and crimes against women.

The victim should always have the right to decide her future and also to punish the criminal who attacked her.

However, what bothers me is that in the myriad of discussions of abortion, no one is willing to come head to head with the reason for the majority of them -- which is that we men don't want to be held responsible for a lifetime of economic slavery for trying to satisfy a biological need (without rape, consensually) one or more desperate nights.

So, in the same way that men cannot enslave women through rape, should women, who after conception hold 100% of the say so for abort/no abort be allowed to enslave a man the rest of his nature days?

Why is this issue never, ever discussed??

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on October 31, 2012 at 3:12 PM · Report this
18
@17, I guess its the same reason that someone can sue you for money, but there not allowed to sue you for the right to butt fuck you. That there's a nontrivial difference between the money in your wallet and your body.
Posted by MikeB on October 31, 2012 at 3:18 PM · Report this
19
@18: Boom.
Posted by Calvin&Hobbes on October 31, 2012 at 3:27 PM · Report this
20
#18 & #19

You guys should form a company, What & What?
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on October 31, 2012 at 3:30 PM · Report this
Simone 21
I'm glad I'm still in Rick Larsen's district. This better be announced on Colbert Report soon and before election night.

I just hope that people haven't filled out that part of the ballet yet in that new district. Though I'm sure that people who were going to vote koster will still no matter what.
Posted by Simone on October 31, 2012 at 3:30 PM · Report this
Sir Vic 22
@6 The GOP would make all abortions illegal, except for their ignorant, sex ed deprived daughters.
Posted by Sir Vic on October 31, 2012 at 3:51 PM · Report this
keshmeshi 23
@11,

I may have already mentioned this on Slog, but it bears repeating.

There already is a rape exception to get abortions covered under Medicaid. It's a fairly wide exception, at least too wide for the likes of Todd Akin and Paul Ryan who tried to change it from "rape" to "forcible rape".

Nevertheless, Medicaid recipients who qualify for the exception (because their pregnancies were the result of rape) almost never take advantage of it. They would rather scrounge up the money than get some government bureaucrat to rubberstamp their abortions.

That is what Romney et al. are counting on with their rape "exception" for abortion.
Posted by keshmeshi on October 31, 2012 at 4:08 PM · Report this
Hawke 24
@22, don't forget their mistresses. Abortion is ok for them as well.
Posted by Hawke http://facebook.com/thehawke on October 31, 2012 at 4:12 PM · Report this
25
@17
You were born several decades too late. Throughout history, up through the 60's, men who impregnated women they weren't married to more or less got to decide for themselves whether or not to contribute to the child's support. After that, those darn feminazis and pinko liberals spoiler everything.
Posted by Clayton on October 31, 2012 at 4:27 PM · Report this
26
@20: Sorry, I read quickly through #17, and didn't catch the "(without rape, consensually)" part.
Posted by Calvin&Hobbes on October 31, 2012 at 4:31 PM · Report this
27
Republican John Koster is running against Democrat Suzan DelBene. Please donate a few bucks to Suzan at her website and send these scumbag Republicans to where they below; the Gutter:
http://www.delbeneforcongress.com/index.…
Posted by Mitt Romney on October 31, 2012 at 4:34 PM · Report this
28
@17: John, buy a condom. They're sold in stores now--even in Kent.

There, saved you from a lifetime of economic slavery.
Posted by J.R. on October 31, 2012 at 4:53 PM · Report this
venomlash 29
@2: /thread
Posted by venomlash on October 31, 2012 at 6:39 PM · Report this
WFM 30
I just immediately started hearing that Nirvana song in my head with Kurt Cobain singing "Rape thing! Rape thing!". Now I can't get it out of my head.
Posted by WFM on October 31, 2012 at 7:40 PM · Report this
WFM 31
Fuck, now I'm re-writing the whole song in my head. I can't stop.

I'm a Re-pub-li-can,
Na na na na
I'm a re-pub-li-can,
Na na
Rape thing,
Rape thing, again.

Posted by WFM on October 31, 2012 at 7:45 PM · Report this
32
@17 Are you required to take care of the woman carrying your spawn? No? Then what financial servitude are you talking about? We're talking about pregnancy, not taking care of your born children which, btw, uterus bearers are equally responsible for.
Posted by kersy on October 31, 2012 at 9:04 PM · Report this
33
He knows a woman who was raped and gave up the baby for adoption? That's interesting. I know a woman who grew up being molested by her own father. She's my mother. I guess from my perspective, incest isn't all that rare.
Posted by Amanda on November 1, 2012 at 12:20 AM · Report this
34
@32 It sounds like Supreme resents paying child support.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on November 1, 2012 at 5:45 AM · Report this
35
Wow Goldy, talk about substanceless attack. Yes, Koster called something a thing. It's not like everything is a thing ... oh wait, yes, it is. Everything is a thing.

The fact is that Koster expressed a widely held opinion that is perfectly consistent and reasonable: if you believe the living human child in the womb has rights, such that abortion on demand should not be legal, then it is perfectly reasonable -- perhaps even obligatory -- to believe that it should not be allowed to be killed unless another life is in danger, not even in the case of rape.

Feel free to disagree with him, but it's perfectly reasonable. That's literally all this audio shows, that Koster is consistent and reasonable.
Posted by pudge on November 1, 2012 at 5:51 AM · Report this
36
35 is right in that at least this Koster fellow is internally consistent. If you really believe the fetus has just as much right to life as an adult woman, it doesn't matter how that life came to be.

Whether the folks who believe that want the death penalty (or just life w/o parole) for doctors who provide abortions, or the women who obtain them, is an open question.
Posted by clashfan on November 1, 2012 at 7:09 AM · Report this
Jaymz 37
@35 - In my mind, there is a difference between being reasonable, and being logical. It is logical for Koster to reach his position based on his belief, but I personally don't think his position is reasonable.
Posted by Jaymz on November 1, 2012 at 11:33 AM · Report this
mtnlion 38
Why are "rape and incest" always talked about like two separate things? To my knowledge, we don't mean an adult brother and sister who happily screwed and big sis got preggers. I don't think the GOP would want consenting incestuous women to have the option to abort. That's also a pretty rare situation, I think.

But fathers/uncles abusing their daughters/nieces is a bit more common, and that's decidedly rape--the fact that it's incest is merely another sad addition to the picture.
Posted by mtnlion http://radicalish.wordpress.com on November 1, 2012 at 2:40 PM · Report this
Bonefish 39
35: 1) Read post #37; 2) The language he uses ("the rape thing") is dismissive. Sure he doesn't explicitly say the words "rape is no big deal," but he implies it; subtext is relevant and his cavalier language shows a cavalier attitude towards rape.
Posted by Bonefish http://5bmisc.blogspot.com/ on November 1, 2012 at 4:54 PM · Report this
40
The "rape thing" is nothing compared with the rest of that quote. Koster says letting a woman choose abortion when they are raped is “putting more violence into a woman’s body.”

Obviously, no one ever explained to this man where babies come from. Because anyone who has even passing familiarity with the concept of birth understands the violence inherent in pushing an 8 lb baby out of a vagina--especially when it is against the will of the mother. This is the essence of violence: forcefully causing physical damage and interfering with personal freedom (source, OED).

Clearly, John Koster is confused and he needs our help. Let's help him understand what it means to give birth by sending him real, unedited pictures and descriptions (or whatever else you think helps get the point across) of the experience of birth and it's aftermath. Don't forget to include c-sections, because nothing says non-violence quite like a bloody scalpel!

Here is his campaign site: http://www.kosterforcongress.com/.
Posted by Sovht on November 1, 2012 at 5:41 PM · Report this
41
"I'm not going to make that decision"- means "I totally think that I have the *right* to make that decision, but I'm just magnanimously choosing to cede my right to make it for women everywhere." What a prince.

Also, how dare this fucking jackass talk about how "incredibly rare" incest is. Directly from Shakesville: "Incest is not rare. One in 6 women and one in 33 men will be victimized by sexual violence: 44% of those survivors will be younger than 18, and 34.2% of attackers of juvenile victims are family members. Those are facts. This isn't a difference of opinion. It is not imagined victimhood. These are not cooked numbers in service to an agenda. This is reality, in all its ugliness. Incest is not rare."

Koster also noted during this little off-the-cuff musing about how rape victims shouldn't have access to abortion that "Crime has consequences." RE-HE-HEALLY? The implication that a rape victim who is impregnated by an assault and chooses to terminate a pregnancy is not recognizing or dealing with the consequences of rape is so abhorrent I can barely even wrap my head around the fact it came out of his mouth. Rape victims deal with the consequences of their assaults for the rest of their lives- pregnancies or not, abortions or not. I will never understand how so-called "pro-life" activists and politicians can say, straight-facedly, that a man who ignores our right to control our own bodies and make our own choices about what happens to and with our sexual organs is a criminal, and then turn around and say that *they* are moral leaders because of their endless quest to control our bodies and keep us from choosing what happens to and with our sexual organs.

Posted by Sphinx on November 1, 2012 at 8:08 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy