Note: This is not an official statement from Planned Parenthood.

In light of the recent trial of the abortion doctor, Kermit Gosnell, Planned Parenthood continues to stand with women across the country in reinforcing the importance of access to abortion that is safe, legal, and common.

The actions of Dr. Gosnell and the atmosphere of his clinic for reproductive health do not represent the experience of women who visit Planned Parenthood for access to birth control and other reproductive services.

Here are some important differences to keep in mind:

• In abortions after the first trimester, Planned Parenthood physicians never “snip the necks” of babies outside the womb. We take great care to make sure that the snipping happens inside the birth canal moments before birth, not after.
• Unlike Gosnell’s clinic, Planned Parenthood clinics do not have jars of baby parts or toilets overflowing with fetal remains. We make sure that the fetuses we dismember and extract from the womb are placed in sanitary medical bags and properly disposed of.
• Unlike Gosnell’s clinic, Planned Parenthood does not pressure women into having abortions. At the same time, we oppose all legislation requiring a woman to see an ultrasound, because seeing the heartbeat and face of the fetus might cause her to question her right to choose.
• Unlike Gosnell’s clinic, Planned Parenthood does not target vulnerable women from minority populations. The fact that most of our clinics are in the inner city and the largest percentage of abortions comes from minority groups has nothing to do with our business model.
• Unlike Dr. Gosnell, Planned Parenthood doctors are professional and courteous and treat patients with respect. They perform abortions with surgical precision and a smile. The possibility of a botched abortion or a baby born alive is very rare. Women can rest assured – the doctor will not err; the fetus will not escape. Our doctors are highly skilled in stopping the heartbeats of the little ones.

The sad case of Dr. Gosnell’s trial is a powerful reminder of the importance of reproductive rights. When late-term abortions are regulated, women in desperation visit clinics like Dr. Gosnell’s. For this reason, we recommend loosening restrictions on abortion at all stages of pregnancy. Women have the right to a safe, sanitary procedure, and the child has, well, no rights at all.

A week ago today, I tweeted:

I have a feeling the #Gosnell story is about to explode despite the blatant bias of the mainstream media.

— Trevin Wax (@TrevinWax) April 11, 2013

One didn’t have to be a prophet to see that the story was on the rise. One only had to watch Mollie Hemingway in action.

What Happened

For the past few weeks, coverage of the Kermit Gosnell murder trial has been virtually absent in the mainstream media. Noticing the lack of media attention to such an intriguing story, Mollie Hemingway (from the must-read blog Get Religion) began writing about the oversight.

As the details of the trial began to spread through outside channels, the silence of mainstream journalists became less and less excusable. Mollie kept blogging about the journalistic oversight. Then, she extended her protest to Twitter, publicly contacting journalists across the nation and asking them to explain their silence.

On Thursday, Kirsten Powers wrote an Op-Ed for USA Today that claimed American journalists had forgotten what should be on the front page. By Thursday night, Gosnell was trending on Twitter.

Social media outlets were rapidly spreading the news story. I was one of many who blogged about the story - registering my frustration with the way abortion stories are framed by journalists.

Gosnell in the National Spotlight

All day Friday, Kermit Gosnell was the top subject trending on Twitter. Anderson Cooper gave extensive coverage to the story on Friday night. Over the weekend, journalists covered the story of why there hadn’t been a story (which is not as good as actually covering the trial, but it’s a start).

Until the Boston Marathon bombing on Monday afternoon, the Gosnell story was top news across the nation, including CBS. What media critics had called a “blackout” had ended.

How Mollie Hemingway Changed the National Conversation

Without taking away from Kirsten Powers’ article or the thousands who blogged or tweeted about Gosnell, I believe Mollie Hemingway deserves most of the credit for causing respected journalists to give this story a second look. For example, when Sarah Kliff claimed Gosnell was a local crime story without policy implications, Mollie pressed her on the silliness of that excuse. Later, Sarah admitted she’d been wrong. Newsweek followed suit.

So what did Mollie do right? Several things.

1. She was an informed, credible voice on the issue.

Mollie knows the ins and outs of journalism. She also demonstrated an awareness of the issues related to the trial. She was not a blogger passing on conspiracy theories or someone always ranting against media bias on right-wing websites. She had both information and credibility, and she put both to good use. For that reason, people paid attention.

Too often, people are willing to speak before they have built up credibility (e.g., almost all bloggers and people on Twitter). Others are afraid to expend their capital when it is needed (e.g., many Christians academics at secular colleges).

2. She didn’t just complain; she pushed.

Mollie didn’t use Twitter to gripe about the mainstream media. She personally approached stakeholders and journalists.

Twitter allowed Mollie to make personal contact with a reporter, but with lots of people eavesdropping. The effect was that her challenges to the reporter had some pressure and accountability built into them.

In short, she revealed the blind spot of a number of respected journalists, not by slamming them, but by pressing them on their coverage of stories.

3. She devoted time and attention to a serious issue worthy of conversation.

Journalists understand there are many issues related to abortion that are open for debate and discussion. It seems like we most often see stories about the chipping away of access to abortion in red states, or the unwise comments from pro-life politicians on exceptional cases.

Mollie pushed the Gosnell case because it was totally deserving of attention. It was also one of the first cases that puts the conflicted conscience of Americans on abortion (particularly late-term) on full display.

Conclusion

It’s important to have informed, credible people involved in all levels of journalism. These are the people who can gently and firmly expose the blind spots in how journalists direct our national conversation on volatile issues like abortion.

For example, it is sadly ironic that the article in which Sarah Kliff reports on Gosnell’s crimes is tagged “reproductive health.” Why not “human rights?” There is continued bias in the way journalists discuss the issue of abortion (or, in this case, infanticide!).

We’ve got a long way to go. But last week was something of a breakthrough.

Mollie Hemingway shows that, in a world where media coverage is no longer chained to mainstream outlets, one person can make a big difference.

On Twitter and FaceBook today, #Gosnell is trending. The reason for the social media buzz is the strange silence of the mainstream media regarding one of the most gruesome murder trials in American history.

To put the Kermit Gosnell trial in perspective, consider other famous cases of child-killing. From Susan Smith to Andrea Yates, and most recently the horror of Newtown, we are accustomed to 24/7 news coverage of these types of tragedies.

Not so with Dr. Gosnell.

Here are the reasons why:

1. The Gosnell case involves an abortionist.

Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the abortionist must be portrayed as a victim of hate and intolerance, not a perpetrator of violence. But it is impossible to spin this story in a way that keeps “abortionist” separate from testimony about dead women and children.

2. The Gosnell case involves an unregulated abortion clinic.

Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the clinic must be portrayed as a “refuge” for women in distress, not a “house of horrors” where women are taken advantage of. But it is impossible to spin this story in a way that keeps “abortion clinic” away from negative connotations.

3. The Gosnell case involves protestors who, for years, stood outside 3801 Lancaster and prayed, warning people about what was taking place inside.

Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the protestors must be portrayed as agitators and extremists, not peaceful people who urge mothers to treasure the miracle inside them. But it is impossible to spin this story in a way that keeps the abortion protestors from looking like heroes.

4. The Gosnell case involves gruesome details about living, viable babies having their spinal cords “snipped” outside the womb.

Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the details of an abortion procedure are to be avoided. But it is impossible to spin this story in a way that keeps people from asking why such violent killing is unjust moments after birth, yet acceptable at any other time during the pregnancy.

5. The Gosnell case raises the question of human rights.

Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the discussion must always be framed in terms of a woman’s “reproductive rights,” not a baby’s “human rights.” But it is impossible to spin this story in a way that keeps people from asking why “reproductive rights” should trump “human rights” – or why a doctor devoted to “reproductive rights” would (without any apparent twinge of conscience) violate human rights so egregiously.

6. The Gosnell case involves the regulation of abortion clinics.

Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the clinic must be portrayed as under siege from anti-abortion extremists. But it is impossible to spin this story in a way that will keep people from pushing for policy change and further regulation of Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics.

7. The Gosnell case exposes the disproportionate number of abortion clinics in inner cities and the disproportionate number of abortions among minority groups.

Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the discussion must be framed in terms of providing “access” for low-income, minority women. But it is impossible to spin this story in a way that keeps people from wondering if perhaps some abortion providers are “targeting” low-income, minority women.

8. The Gosnell case competes with recent stories about states enacting broad laws banning many abortions.

Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the choice of coverage must focus on the threat to a woman’s “right to choose.” But it is impossible to spin this story in a way that will keep Americans from joining together to enact more common-sense regulation of late-term abortions.

~~~ Related Posts ~~~

• 9 Things You Should Know about the Gosnell Murder and Infanticide Trial
• We’ve Forgotten What Belongs on Page One
• A WaPo Reporter Explains Her Personal Gosnell Blackout
• We Need Answers on Gosnell Coverage
• 10 Questions a Pro-Choice Candidate Is Never Asked By the Media

Full video, including the subsequent debate is here, beginning around minute 38.

Here is a collection of Kingdom People posts dealing with the issue of abortion and the rights of the unborn.

If Days Could Speak (January 22, 1973)

Forty years have passed, and so have 50 million little ones.

But the message of a day can change.

Pro-Life Momentum

TIME Sounds the Alarm: The Pro-Life Cause is Winning (January 3, 2013)

Despite the many setbacks the pro-life cause has faced and will continue to confront, TIME recognizes which movement is gaining strength and which movement is fading.

The Tide is Turning (December 30, 2011)

I was strangely comforted by the outrage in the comments section, particularly from those who still call themselves “pro-choice.” In fact, I’ve been perusing the comments and haven’t found anyone yet who defends the aborting of a viable fetus.

Top Ten Reasons I Am Optimistically Pro-Life (March 2, 2011)

Those of us who believe unborn children deserve human rights can be encouraged. Though we still have many hurdles to overcome before we arrive at the place where all human life is legally protected in the United States, we can be optimistic about the end result. Here are 10 reasons why…

On Media Bias

3 Media-Made Myths about Abortion (September 5, 2012)

In watching newscasters and reporters comment on the abortion debate, I’ve pinpointed three common myths about abortion perpetuated by people in the media.

10 Questions a Pro-Choice Candidate is Never Asked by the Media (October 24, 2012)

Debate moderators and reporters love to ask pro-life candidates hard questions about abortion. Curiously, they don’t do the same for pro-choice candidates.

What Todd Akin Should Have Said about Abortion and Rape (August 20, 2012)

I believe that all innocent human life should be protected. So, yes. This difficult situation is about three people: the rapist, the mother, and the baby. Currently, there is no death penalty required for the rapist. I refuse to believe we ought to give an innocent victim a sentence more severe than the perpetrator of the crime.

Conversations with Pro-Life Leaders

Are Black Children an Endangered Species? John Ensor:

In the first wave, Catholics took the lead is declaring the inherent evil of abortion.  Evangelicals then flooded in to help advance the pregnancy help movement.  The Third Wave points to the victory of our movement and the downfall of abortion as a business, when Black and Hispanic Christians not only join this movement, but lead it.

The Current State of the Pro-Life Movement – Scott Klusendorf:

We must become very skilled at making a gracious, yet persuasive, case for life in the public square. That is not all we must do, but it’s certainly essential if we are to win.

Pro-Life in a Culture of Death – Russell Moore:

Christian churches must, as our Lord’s brother James commanded us, care for the widows and orphans in their distress. This means that God calls Christian families to adopt unwanted children. It means also that Christian families and churches are to shelter unwed mothers and pregnant women who find themselves in a time of crisis.

What if every day of the year could speak? What would the message of each day bring?

I wonder.

Do the days soak up the joy of weddings, births, and victories that take place during their hours?

Do they bend and bow under the weight of heaviness, weeping over deaths, losses, and tragedies?

Does September shudder every time the 11^th rolls by, as it recalls the horror of human carnage and the blood that now stains the beginning of fall?

Will December 14^th forever strain under the weight of sadness, remembering the children gunned down in the innocence of youth?

There are days that remain with us, carving out a space in the calendar, forcing us to rethink life in terms of before and after.

And then there are days whose sadness spreads. Quiet events that bring monumental changes. Effects felt not on the first day, but on the second, the third, the hundredth, the thousandth.

More than fourteen thousand days have passed since a quiet winter day in January, when the rights of an entire class of human beings were denied with a stroke of a pen, when the most powerful nation in the world determined to withhold protection from its most defenseless.

If January 22 could speak, what would it say?

Unlike other tragic days, this one comes and goes each year with little fanfare. If January 22 could speak, it would tell us of the ignobility of being ignored.

The tears of those affected are unseen, because they never had the chance to cry. Their suffering is silent, captured only in ultrasound images that show them scurrying away from the intruding instruments determined to destroy and dismember their fragile bodies.

The cries of January 22 are drowned out by partisan powers of politics, the clanging of coins and cash, the frightful sight of moms and dads marching for the right to end the lives of their children, as if a baby were only a burden and not a blessing.

Oh, the injustice of those who profit financially from the business of snuffing out of the weakest among us!

Oh, the scandal of politicians more concerned about protecting the rights of doctors seeking to kill than the rights of babies struggling to breathe!

Oh, the tragedy of a society that exercises its freedom in the willful choice to close their eyes to the ultrasound images, to close their minds to miracle of life blossoming in the womb!

But not forever.

One day, January 22 will not be shrouded in sadness.

A new generation is rising. We refuse to make unborn children invisible. We are unafraid to stand up to the entrenched interests of those who would deny a class of humans their right to live.

We envision a more beautiful world – a world where all are welcomed into existence, where our love for life overcomes our desire for convenience, where we rely on each other as we choose life rather than revel in our freedom to choose death.

Forty years have passed, and so have 50 million little ones.

But the message of a day can change.

January 22 might break under the unbearable weight of its tragic significance if not for another day on the calendar. If that day could speak, it would tell us of the darkness of death and the coldness of a tomb whose stillness was shattered when the stopped, silent heart of a crucified man suddenly began beating again.

Days can change. That day gives January 22 hope.

On the cover of TIME this week is this headline:

40 Years Ago, Abortion-Rights Advocates Won an Epic Victory with Roe v. Wade. They’ve Been Losing Ever Since.

The story – “What Choice?” – is written by Kate Pickert. The main point of the article is that Roe v. Wade hurt the pro-choice cause by delivering the movement’s main goal and by energizing a generation of pro-life activism.

Not surprisingly, the story is biased against the pro-life cause. Though the issue of “personhood” and “life” is alluded to (see below), Pickert never explores the reasons for a surge in pro-life activity. Had she sought to explain the pro-life perspective, she would have shown how this debate is really a showdown between reproductive rights and human rights, and which rights are foundational to freedom.

Still, I commend Pickert for using the terminology of “pro-life” and “pro-choice” throughout the article. (She doesn’t use these terms consistently, but it’s nice to see the terms both sides prefer utilized in a journalistic piece.)

Summary of the Article

The story gives us an inside-glimpse of an abortion clinic and its director, Tammi Kromenaker. Pickert shows how it is increasingly difficult to obtain an abortion in certain areas of the country, due primarily to statewide legislation regulating abortion:

In 2011, 92 abortion-regulating provisions–a record number–passed in 24 states after Republicans gained new and larger majorities in 2010 in many legislatures across the country. These laws make it harder every year to exercise a right heralded as a crowning achievement of the 20th century women’s movement.

Surveying the landscape of pro-life legislation, Pickert paints a stark picture for pro-choice advocates:

While the right to have an abortion is federal law, exactly who can access the service and under what circumstances is the purview of states. And at the state level, abortion-rights activists are unequivocally losing.

Why is this the case? Pickert pulls no punches. Pro-choice advocates are losing the debate:

Part of the reason is that the public is siding more and more with their opponents. Even though three-quarters of Americans believe abortion should be legal under some or all circumstances, just 41% identified themselves as pro-choice in a Gallup survey conducted in May 2012…

If abortion-rights activists don’t come together to adapt to shifting public opinion on the issue of reproductive rights, abortion access in America will almost certainly continue to erode.

Even after the reelection of President Obama and the defeat of a pro-life candidate like Richard Mourdock (who got into hot water with their controversial comments on rape and pregnancy), Pickert points out that the winning Democrat is also pro-life.

Throughout the article, Pickert laments the shrinking of abortion rights and explains the reduction by pointing to the relegation of abortion to specialized clinics, new government regulations on the practice, and generational differences in the pro-choice camp. Though Pickert describes an abortive procedure in clinical, unemotional terms, she deserves credit for taking us behind the closed doors of a clinic to see what happens:

On this Wednesday it’s Dr. Kathryn Eggleston, who informs the woman that she’s reviewed her chart and asks, “Are you confident in your decision to have an abortion today?” If the woman says yes, the abortion begins; the whirring of the vacuum aspirator used to extract the fetus can be heard in the hallway. Within 15 minutes, Eggleston emerges from the room and enters another where the removed contents are examined and photographed for the medical record.

To be more specific, the fetus (baby) is extracted (by dismemberment), and the removed contents (body parts, actually) are examined (usually pieced back together) and photographed for the record. But hey, this is TIME, after all. We can’t expect them to show us a picture of what’s really happening, can we?

Nevertheless, it should be noted that Pickert is helpful in explaining the scientific advances that have helped the pro-life cause:

The antiabortion cause has been aided by scientific advances that have complicated American attitudes about abortion. Prenatal ultrasound, which has allowed the general public to see fetuses inside the womb and understand that they have a human shape beginning around eight weeks into pregnancy, became widespread in the 1980s, and some babies born as early as 24 weeks can now survive.

The scientific advances are demonstrating what pro-life advocates have been saying all along. There’s a human being in there, and an abortion stops the heart and takes a life. Unfortunately, the humanity of the unborn is never really discussed, although Pickert quotes Frances Kissling (longtime abortion activist), who clearly affirms that abortion terminates human life:

Kissling opposes the specific state laws pushed by pro-life activists but says the pro-choice movement’s effort to “normalize abortion” is counterproductive. “When people hear us say abortion is just another medical procedure, they react with shock,” she says. “Abortion is not like having your tooth pulled or having your appendix out. It involves the termination of an early form of human life. That deserves some gravitas.”

After a quote like that, you wonder if this article might actually delve into the central issue surrounding this debate: What is the unborn? At what point does an unborn child get human rights? But no, we return to the abortion clinic and the beleaguered, shrinking number of OB/GYN doctors willing to perform abortions. The article ends this way:

In theory, a lower rate of abortion might be something for both sides of the abortion debate to share credit for and even celebrate. But it also illustrates the ultimate challenge for pro-choice advocates. Their most pressing goal, 40 years after Roe, is to widen access to a procedure most Americans believe should be restricted–and no one wants to ever need.

Despite the many setbacks the pro-life cause has faced and will continue to confront, TIME recognizes which movement is gaining strength and which movement is fading. And that’s worth celebrating!

Debate moderators and reporters love to ask pro-life candidates hard questions about abortion. Curiously, they don’t do the same for pro-choice candidates.

Here are 10 questions you never hear a pro-choice candidate asked by the media:

1. You say you support a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any restrictions you would approve of?

2. In 2010, The Economist featured a cover story on “the war on girls” and the growth of “gendercide” in the world – abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?

3. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents’ consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?

4. If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?

5. Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the “eugenics” movement a century ago – the slow, but deliberate “weeding out” of those our society would deem “unfit” to live?

6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?

7. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that “abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend,” pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions. How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?

8. You describe abortion as a “tragic choice.” If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?

9. Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable – able to survive outside the womb?

10. If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?

It’s election season again, and our country’s ongoing debate over abortion is raging. In watching newscasters and reporters comment on the abortion debate, I’ve pinpointed three common myths about abortion perpetuated by people in the media.

MYTH #1: Believing abortion should be outlawed in most or all cases is an extreme position.

The pro-life position is not extreme. It is the view held by a majority of Americans today. Consider this recent poll from CNN:

CNN has released the results of a new poll showing a majority of Americans want all or most abortions prohibited — a clear pro-life majority.

The survey asked: “Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal under only certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?” Some 62 percent want abortions illegal in all cases or legal only in certain instances while just 35% want abortions legal for any reason.

When it comes to extremism on this issue, President Barack Obama has demonstrated his firm commitment to abortion rights. He even bucked other staunch pro-choice Democrats like Barbara Boxer to vote against a bill that would protect the lives of babies who survive abortion. According to the transcript of the discussion, then Senator Obama was concerned that the bill would put undue pressure on the abortionist:

As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?

People in the media continue to paint the pro-life position as an extreme minority position when, in fact, the majority of Americans want strict regulations on abortion. At the same time, they let the President’s radical commitment to abortion rights go unchallenged. (Not to mention other radical positions, such as Thomas Friedman’s.)

MYTH #2: A pro-life position is unpopular with women and risks losing their votes.

Many of the talking heads on TV bring up Romney’s pro-life position as if it were a liability with women. They speak of his views (and especially Ryan’s) as inherently alienating to women. Being pro-life risks losing the women’s vote. But this is another myth, as recent polls show women want more abortion restrictions than men do.

The polling firm asked:

Unless an abortion is necessary to save a mother’s life, do you think abortion should be permitted after the point where substantial medical evidence says that the unborn child can feel pain?

63% NO, ABORTION SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED [women:70%; men:55%]
21% YES, ABORTION SHOULD BE PERMITTED [women:18%, men:25%]
8% DEPENDS (VOLUNTEERED)
4% DO NOT KNOW (VOLUNTEERED)
3% REFUSED (VOLUNTEERED)

MYTH #3: Abortion is one of many women’s health issues.

The third myth perpetuated by the media concerns the framing of the abortion issue. Reporters usually speak of abortion in terms of “women’s health issues” and “women’s reproductive choices,” as if abortion were similar to breast cancer, contraception, or other challenges unique to women. Those who oppose abortion are then described as people who oppose women’s health.

This framing of the abortion issue is biased. For pro-life people, abortion is not, first and foremost, a women’s health issue. It is a human rights issue. At stake is our commitment to cherishing and protecting human life at all stages of development.

Interestingly enough, the same media personalities who frame the abortion issue as dealing with “women’s health” choose to ignore recent opposition to bills banning sex-selection abortion, including the recent “sting” operations that show Planned Parenthood employees assisting women who want to abort their babies if they are female.

Conclusion

Pro-life politicians often get tongue-tied when speaking on this subject because of these three unchallenged mythical assumptions of those in the news media. (For example, here is how Todd Akin should have answered when pressed on the legitimacy of abortion in the case of rape.) When the subject of abortion comes up, we would do well to bust the myths and reframe the conversation.

Abortion is front-and-center in the presidential campaign due to a congressman’s flub on national TV.

In case you’ve missed the news, Todd Akin, a Republican congressman from Missouri running for the Senate, was asked about abortion in the case of rape. His response:

Needless to say, such remarks proved offensive. Akin appeared to be making distinctions between violent rape and other forms (statutory perhaps?) as he sought to answer the question about abortion. Other Republicans are calling for him to pull out of the race while the Romney-Ryan campaign quickly tried to distance itself from the remarks.

Even so, as disturbing as Akin’s remarks are, I am concerned about the conflation of issues that suddenly appeared in the aftermath. Once the comment went viral, Republicans all over the country began distancing themselves from the remarks (rightly so) while also claiming to be pro-life except in the case of rape. (Romney is an example.)

Akin: Rape is a horrible crime, and a rapist ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I stand for human rights over against anyone who would violate the life of another – from the rapist to the abortionist.

Host: So you’d outlaw abortion in the case of rape?

Akin: Absolutely. As I said, I stand for human rights for all, including the unborn.

Host: But why should a woman who gets pregnant out of no fault of her own be forced to carry a pregnancy to term?

Akin: It is a tragic situation indeed. And my heart goes out to any woman in such circumstances. That’s why I could never recommend that she abort her child. Inflicting violence upon another innocent victim, in this case the baby, is not the way to move past the tragedy of her own innocence being taken.

Host: So you’d pass laws that would force her to carry on the pregnancy?

Akin: Like I said, I stand for the rights of all human beings. Even in a difficult situation like rape, the unborn child should have human rights. We must not let circumstances dictate to us when humans have rights. Otherwise, we could justify all sorts of atrocities in the name of “difficult circumstances.”

Host: But having a child as a result of rape would be a terrible reminder of the crime, wouldn’t it?

Akin: That’s possible. But let me ask you another question. If a woman chose to carry her child to term and then found that every time she looked at her infant she remembered the horror of the rape, would we allow her to smother the baby?

Host: Of course not!

Akin: You’re right. Because no matter how difficult her circumstances, we recognize the humanity of the infant. Unfortunately, many in our society refuse to recognize the humanity of the unborn.

Host: But your opinion on the humanity of the unborn shouldn’t be forced upon a woman who doesn’t hold that view.

Akin: Biology textbooks and scientists tell us the same thing we see when we look at a 4-D ultrasound: the fetus is human. Now, you can make the case that the unborn human should not have rights. And many do. That’s why unborn girls are aborted at a much higher rate than unborn boys, not only in places like China but in the United States as well. That’s why the number of children with Down Syndrome has plummeted. That’s why so many abortion clinics target inner-city areas with high minority populations. You see, once we begin to discriminate against some human beings, we are on the fast track to denying human rights for others.

Host: So you stand by your conviction that abortion should be outlawed even in the case of rape?

Akin: I believe that all innocent human life should be protected. So, yes. This difficult situation is about three people: the rapist, the mother, and the baby. Currently, there is no death penalty required for the rapist. I refuse to believe we ought to give an innocent victim a sentence more severe than the perpetrator of the crime.