Republican believes rapes don't cause pregancies?
Todd Akin, a Republican congressman from Missouri who is running for the U.S. Senate for that state, stated this during an interview: "From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," said Akin said of pregnancy caused by rape. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume maybe that didn't work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist."
From what I read about number of pregnancies per year caused by rapes, it is about 32,000 per year. Frankly, it is not rare at all for abortions to cause pregnancies. Rep. Akin opposes abortions even involving a rape (as do many Republicans). Indeed, Republicans have supported even the banning of female soldiers using their own health insurance to get abortions after being raped.
Akin and others like him do not utilize facts but utilize faith based facts. Or in other words, non-facts. They just make stuff up. They don't believe in evolution because they don't want evolution to be true. They don't believe in climate change because supposedly that is not in their god's plan.
Oh by the way, American Atheists, an atheist organization obviously, has opposed the putting up a giant cross at the taxpayer financed 9/11 Museum in New York City. This supposed cross is just two cross beams that were found in the wreckage of the World Trade Center. That something like this would be found, is not the least surprising considering the hundreds if not thousands of crossed beams that made up those towers.
Now it is obvious to anyone and everyone that the religious right-wing want this cross displayed because of its' religious meaning to them. But, they have tried to pretend it is all about historical context. They state that it is part of the history of the recovery after the attack. Well, technically that is true, but they want it because it is what it is, something that resembles the Christian cross.
Now, American Atheists stated fine, just allow symbols of other religious or non-religious groups to be displayed. Well, the president of one religious right-wing group, a Jay Sekulow, believes it is bizarre if something like a giant letter A, for atheists, is displayed.
Why? Why is a representation of a Christian cross fine but a letter A for atheists, bizarre? Frankly, I find the beliefs of Christianity bizarre but I am polite enough not to use that as a supposed legal argument as he does against atheists. Strangely this Sekulow had opposed a private building on private land that contained a mosque (near but not at the site of the WTC attack) but the government putting up a cross (for religious reasons while pretending otherwise) is fine? The march of the theocrats marches on, until they are stopped.