State House Representative Eric Turner (R-Cicero) has suggested women would falsely claim being raped or the victim of incest to obtain abortions. This was in response to an amendment a state representative offered to a restrictive abortion bill for an exemption for victims of rape, incest, or those whose life would be in danger if the pregnancy continued. The video has gone viral within the past 24 hours.
The first I read about it wasn't on an Indiana blog or news site, but on legal scholar Jonathan Turley's blog.
This isn't Turner's first trip to the rodeo, as far as controversy goes. He's previously pushed for anti-immigrant legislation and has been one of the principal proponents in the Indiana House of a constitutional amendment that would define marriage between one man and one woman. Turner's son owns a building located in Marion, Indiana where Affiliated Computer Services rents, and Turner has an investment in the building (a financial interest Turner never disclosed). This building is where ACS runs their call center for the Family and Social Services Administration.
I support the state Republicans on a variety of issues, including a good chunk of their reforms for education. However, when those such as Turner speak, I cringe a little bit, and it makes me more reluctant to vote for any Republican.
UPDATE: Some politicos on Facebook are saying Turner has apologized for these comments, but I haven't been able to verify this supposed apology.
UPDATE II: Abdul-Hakim Shabazz reported that Turner apologized for these comments on the House floor the day after the comments were made.
UPDATE II: Abdul-Hakim Shabazz reported that Turner apologized for these comments on the House floor the day after the comments were made.
What Turmer suggests is supposedly wrong but the left's argument that without a safe environment, back ally abortions would become prevalent is perfectly fine? An increase in rape claims is a potential, logical consequence. That cannot be denied (give it a shot if you think otherwise). I would not go so far as to prophetically say "this will ocurr"; but, the line of reasoning is clearly logical. Emotions are responsible for the opposition to Mr. Turners comments as opposed to logic. Further, his claim is also falsifiable. We only need to wait and see.. My question is, will you and the extremist over at the IndyDemocrat acknowledge your wrong should his hypothesis prove correct?
ReplyDeletePoliticoMonk
www.thePoliPit.com
Matt, Now are you getting my point? First we have a Republican telling us that if we are married and dont have children then we cannot be Christians.
ReplyDeleteNow if my mother gets raped he is saying that she is faking it? This is one sick human being.
Focusing on Rep. Turner's words misses the larger point here. Despite this hugely offensive rationale for opposing the amendment, the Republicans in the House VOTED down the amendment. That is what is truly wrong here and will actually impact countless Hoosier women. Women who have been raped will NOT have an exemption. NOR will incest victims. It doesn't matter one iota if they are telling the truth or if their rapist has been prosecuted and found guilty. The amendment failed, so they are automatically excluded- even those women whose rapists are convicted. I have yet to hear a single person, PoliticoMonk, included acknowledge THIS FACT as opposed to so called future hypotheses on irrelevant points. What does PoliticoMonk, Rep. Turner and every House member who voted down this amendment say to a rape victim whose rapist was convicted? Look at the law itself. Where is the amendment for them, then? Oh right. It does not exist, does it? Rep. Turner, as the author, could have done it himself. He did not. Facts and the legislation itself are what matter here, not the idiotic and rambling musings of a man on what women rape victims do or do not think.
ReplyDeleteI'm actually very pro-life, and I certainly don't appreciate (anonymous) Internet politicos throwing me into a category which I don't belong. I've attended rallies/demonstrations and have even attended fundraisers. I doubt the same can be said for some of my "extremist" friends, as you'd say.
ReplyDeleteHowever, to try to politicize victims of rape and incest as a method to advance pro-life legislation is something I'm against. It, in fact, hurts our cause and only makes proponents of pro-life legislation and activism to truly seem out of touch.
In the world of journalism, I was taught that extreme claims require extreme sources, probably multiple and Turner doesn't provide those.
If I was a voting member of the assembly, I'd likely vote for the amendment that was proposed. As for the medical exception, I believe that decision should remain between the doctors and the patient. I guess that makes me more "liberal" than some would like, but I think that's how most Americans truly feel about abortion. They don't like it, but recognize it should be an option under certain circumstances.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Matt. As someone who believes very strongly in victims rights, particularly for sex crimes and those committed against child victims, requiring bringing criminal charges is a deeply anti-victim concept and is, frankly, shocking to me. Particularly for children who are the victims of incest, there are a myriad of reasons why victims may choose not to press charges or participate in a trial which can lead the prosecution to abandon the case. This reality does not in any way mean that the pregnancy is not the result of incest or rape.
ReplyDeleteIS, I assume you are answering me based on the parenthetical anonymous (as if anonymous posting negates what I have to say.) I have never understood why bloggers make snipes at anonymous postings when those people actually read their blogs. I am not totally anonymous (formerly IndyCAD), people know who I am-I just use a pseudonym. It is difficult to hold some forms of employment and enjoy your rights. But, since you don't know me personally, I'll graciously accept the anonymous jab.
ReplyDeleteYou say you don't appreciate being thrown into a category in which you don't belong, please let me know where I assumed you were on either side of the debate? I pointed out you and IndyDemocrat because you are the only two that have posted the same video. Additionally, each of you disagree with Turner. Therefore, I asked if you would apologize for your individual wrong for suggesting he was off the mark (paraphrased), if his hypothesis turns out to be true.
IS, never once did I address your individual position on abortion. Nonetheless, I am glad to know now that you are pro-life.
A commenter, who for some reason the comment isn't showing, asked if I would apologize if Turner's claim turned out to be true. It is not incumbent upon me to prove someone wrong, but rather for the person initiating the claim to prove they're right. I see no need to apologize for posting my opinions on the events as they have unfolded, and somehow, I doubt Turner would ever provide a source for his statement anyway, let alone a valid one.
ReplyDelete"What does PoliticoMonk, Rep. Turner and every House member who voted down this amendment say to a rape victim whose rapist was convicted?"
ReplyDeleteErin, I oppose All abortions on moral grounds. Science cannot tell us "why" something is wrong nor does the law. I believe the rapist should be put to death and the mother and child should be loved. But, the current philosophy among most (not all) pro-choice proponents is to understand why the rapist did what he did and destroy the unborn child. That is backwards. If the unborn is a human being, then we do not have the right to kill them for the crimes of their father. No one should be punished for crimes committed by another person. That is unjust. Even a victim of rape understands and appreciates that. Unless they believe the unborn is not a human.
I also speak as a father of four girls.
IS, my apologies then. I thought it seemed a bit out of character for you to read that far into what I had written. But, I did not see the other post.
ReplyDeleteSo, indeed you abandon your previous argument in support of Rep. Turner's rationale that it's not about real rape and incest victims, only those who falsely claim to be? Good to know. I suspect Rep. Turner actually agrees with your position which would of course make him a liar and disingenuous as to his stated rationale for opposing the amendment and NOT offering his own amendment limiting the exception to convictions on rape and incest which he obviously could have done and chose not to.
ReplyDelete"requiring bringing criminal charges is a deeply anti-victim concept and is, frankly, shocking to me."
ReplyDeleteErin, I do agree with you on this.
Erin, I did not provide any arguments for Mr. Turner. What I said was, false claims of rape are in fact a potential logical consequence. It is that premise that needs to be refuted.
ReplyDeleteall life should be protected. abortions only to protect the life of the mother.
ReplyDeletePolitico,I find it odd, truthfully, that you agree that this idea is incredibly anti-victim. It is THE REASON given by Rep. Turner to vote against the amendment. Here were Rep. Turner's own words at the :44-51 second mark if you care to listen to what he said: "this isn't a situation where there is a charge, conviction or some confirmation, so I would ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment."
ReplyDelete"What I said was, false claims of rape are in fact a potential logical consequence. It is that premise that needs to be refuted."
ReplyDeletePolitico, I'm that you are unfortunately missing the point at hand. It is already hard enough for rape victims to be taken seriously in this state. And while Rep Turner's statement may or may not be logically sound, it is marginalizing the experience of women who are rape victims. One man who has decided to make assumptions about a potential future correlation (which, if you have ever taken a statistics class, know does not imply causation) is, in my opinion, not worthwhile grounds to dismiss and underscore the rights of rape victims or the experience of rape.