Rep. Phil Gingrey Wades Into the Todd Akin Comment Mess. And Intellectually Drowns

Phil Gingrey is, by any objective measure, an accomplished man. In addition to being a six-term Congressman from the influential and economically powerful Atlanta northwest suburbs, he has also been an obstetrician/gynecologist for almost 40 years. So his willingness to speak so recklessly and baselessly on a subject that may have cost a former colleague an election seems odd regardless of the safety of his seat and the friendliness of his audience.There were two parts to Gingrey’s remarks on Akin’s fateful gaffe. His first statement attempted to explain what Akin meant by the use of the term “legitimate,” as if no one theretofore had any idea. Eager to be helpful to no one, though, Gingrey offered that Akin was probably referring to that all too common situation where an embarrassed and frightened 15 year-old girl becomes pregnant and insists she was raped in order to cover for her shameful behavior. For two reasons, this grotesque addition of detail to Akin's already offensive and roundly rejected comments was disastrous: First, we already knew what Akin meant; his message, loud and clear, was that (in his view) too many women and girls are “crying rape” in order to obtain abortions, since many otherwise anti-choice voters find abortion more tolerable when pregnancy is the result of sexual assault. Second, Gingrey's specific example is no more reality-based than Akin’s more vague intimation that rape is regularly fabricated by devilish and/or desperate women who find themselves pregnant. Rape is reported falsely by women very rarely. There is zero reason to believe it is reported falsely specifically to obtain abortions in any more than minuscule numbers.  For Gingrey to supplement Akin’s already asinine comments with a reference to them only adds insult to injury. Gingrey’s second statement was simply, utterly, nonsensical, and there is no need for a medical degree to see why.  In it, he claims that Akin was “partly right” in asserting his “shut the whole thing down” characterization of the female reproductive system during a rape. Stress and adrenaline, the good doctor reminded us, can prevent ovulation; hence the advice to couples struggling to become pregnant to focus on stress reduction and relaxation. Pray tell though, Dr. Gingrey: What in God’s name does that fact- stress and a lack of relaxation over time- have anything to do with a trauma response that might occur during the unexpected and unplanned for “legitimate” sexual attack of a woman? Even Gingrey seemed to realize the foolishness of this comparison as the words tumbled from his mouth. He acknowledged in the next breath that ovulation occurring some hours before a traumatic event would make subsequent conception during experienced trauma irrelevant to any prior state of relaxation (and thus presumably Akin’s comments that much more stupid). Not deterred, though, Gingrey still ended with the now nakedly baseless assertion that Akin’s comments were “torn apart” by the media. Indeed, as if anything emerged from either Akin’s original comments or Dr. Gingrey’s support of them that was unfairly challenged. However mind-boggling Rep. Gingrey's "logic" or willingness to speak it might seem, the underlying instinct of Gingrey, Akin and their ilk to do so is less mysterious. Religiosity appears to demand from them explanations consistent with their beliefs regardless of scientific fact. So perhaps their belief in an attentive and just God begs the idea that an evil act will not produce the miracle of conception. It is, I suppose, a pleasant idea. But it’s an idea that is contrary to scientific fact. And rather than acknowledging its observable failure, men like Akin and Gingrey are instead willing to fuel it with another deeply offensive myth that only serves to further demonize the very women they claim to serve. Perhaps Akin, a non-physician, at least had ignorance as a defense to his career-ending remarks. What is Phil Gingrey’s excuse?