OK

Paul Ryan on pregnancies resulting from rape:

The method of conception doesn't change the definition of life.

Richard Mourdock on pregnancies resulting from rape:

life is that gift from God and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen
This is essentially the same point of view when you consider what it means in terms of public policy.

Both Paul Ryan and Richard Mourdock believe it should be the government's job to force rape victims to carry and bear their rapists' children.

Mitt Romney says he disagrees, but he put Paul Ryan on his ticket. He continues to stand by his endorsement of Richard Mourdock. Whether the government should have the right to force rape victims to carry and bear their rapists' children seems like kind of a big thing to me. It really seems like a fundamental difference. If Mitt Romney doesn't think it's okay for the government to have that right, he sure has a weird way of showing it.

The guy Romney chose to be next in line as president, should they win, thinks that's a right the government should have. That's an okay thing for the government to decide, regardless of the victim's wishes and without her input.

The guy Romney continues to endorse, not only thinks so too, but he thinks pregnancies resulting from rape are something God intended to happen (and by extension, the rape, or what Ryan would call the "method of conception" must also be God's will, for without the conception there would be no pregnancy.) Romney stands by this man.

Romney says he disagrees with these men, but apparently it's not even enough of a disagreement to withdraw his endorsement of Mourdock. And apparently the strongest word Romney can come up with to describe his feelings about it is "disagree."

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.