When The Idaho GOP Discusses Rape . . .

. . . it does so in the most astonishingly inept, insensitive, and ineffective way possible.

Really. I think most 12-year-old treehouse dwellers with a pile of dirty magazines and a few Red Bulls, reeking from Axe Man Spray, would nonetheless be more reasonable than Idaho Legislator Charles Winder, whose concern about women seeking an abortion after a rape-induced pregnancy manifested thusly:

“Rape and incest was used as a reason to oppose this. I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape. I assume that's part of the counseling that goes on.”

- Idaho State Senator Chuck Winder (R-Boise) (March 19, 2012)

We do have indoor plumbing in Idaho, but we also have Chuck. Below is my take on our local discussion board, Vision 2020, from yesterday:

And the good legislator could've used the issue of pregnancy resulting from rape as an opportunity to . . . oh, I don't know . . . maybe discuss the importance of creating an environment that helps a woman feel safe enough to report rape to the police? Could he have, ummmm, maybe talked about the importance of doctors standing with their patients if they choose to report and press charges? Or maybe even . . . just brainstorming here . . . use his aptly-named Bully Pulpit to encourage vigorous prosecution of sex crimes? Harsh sentences for those convicted? Preventative measures to identify early on those young men who show signs of sexual, violent instability? Even express anger that ANY woman and even a few men ever experiences rape?

No? Nothing?

Nah. Instead, Winder talked about his suspicions that maybe rape isn't always rape and that when that woman who says she was raped seeks medical treatment, she should have to be grilled by a doctor who ought to be encouraged, Winder says, to ask her if the most traumatic event a woman can experience was maybe not really just, oops, a forgotten dalliance with her husband. It's not all that far from the thankfully still-hypothetical idea of a female physician being asked to interrogate a man seeking treatment for impotence if he finds that he can maintain an erection using pornography, or does he just have trouble with his wife? I think all men and all thinking, decent women would know how vile that would be. And I'm sorry to be so graphic here. Still, if you're embarrassed, guys, by reading this, imagine how embarrassing and vile and hateful it sounds to a woman when a male legislator suggests that she endure a vaginal probe to "educate" her about the developing fetus in her uterus. The example about guys and ED won't happen.

The nightmare is very close to happening to women. I hate abortion as much as anyone on this listserve, a position I've made clear before. But this is not the way to end abortion. It IS a way to roll back decades of progress for women and men, a means by which all life is devalued by an obsession solely on fetal life, an example of wrongly trying to use law to prevent something morally objectionable, and a cautionary tale of the dangers of patriarchy, without which no woman would be shamed for the results of an act that requires a man's participation. It's an incredibly hard issue to wrestle with for any woman, and the idea that she chooses to medically end her pregnancy with the same insouciance with which she chooses a green sweater over a blue one is offensive, untrue, insane, and dangerous. A woman's relationship with her God, if she believes; her doctor, whom she trusts; and, when applicable, her mate, is the only context in which abortion ought to be considered. The views of male legislators have no place, none at all, in this.

To put it another way, Mr. Winder -- we're just not that in to what you think on this one, pal.