Montana Wingnuts Jump to Defend “Legitimate Rape” Comments

A leader of the Montana Constitution Party defended Todd Akin’s claim that women don’t get pregnant from legitimate rape in the Missoulian this week.  Marilyn Hatch, of Lolo, says real rape victims don’t get pregnant because:

5. There can be disruption of the ovulation cycles due to the extreme emotional trauma. (A. Helligers, U.S.C.C. AB Conference, Washington, D.C., October 1967).

6. One study shows there is 58 percent “sexual dysfunction” (no penetration, or retarded or premature ejaculation).

7. Another study shows that there is often no sperm deposited in the vagina.

Montana Human Rights Network photo

What kind of person would defend forced pregnancy for rape victims?

Marilyn Hatch has been arrested for obstructing access to health care clinics in four states, the Missoulian reported.  Hatch also ran a fake “gold standard” bank in Victor, which she believed would help disrupt the United States banking system.  The bank, known as a “redemption center” accepted fake money called “Liberty Dollars” and exchanged them for gold and silver.  The Montana Human Rights Network has a great report on Hatch’s wingnut activities.

Of course, Hatch is not the only Montana conservative to support these appalling views.  A former candidate for chair of the Montana Republican party,  Rick Breckenridge, is also on the record defending Akin’s views. Breckenridge’s  Facebook page reads “Hang in their Atkin [sic].” He also claims on Facebook that he knows “several victims of rape who did not get pregnant.”

Screenshots pasted below.

Besides his candidacy for GOP party chair,  you might remember Rick Breckenridge as a platinum sponsor of the “Liberty Convention 2010”.  As Cowgirl readers recall, this was the conference in Montana that sparked an FBI investigation into an anti-government plot to kill Alaska state troopers.  Media Matters reported that the FBI got involved after one of the conferences speakers bragged to the audience about commanding a 3,500 strong armed militia and creating a new court system to supplant federal courts.

People like Breckenridge and Hatch are classic examples of the kind of people who hold these views.  Which is why it’s so disurbing that  Congressman Rehberg sent Akin $5,000 bucks and that Tim Fox and Congressman Hill share Akin’s views on forced pregnancy for rape victims.



21 Comments on "Montana Wingnuts Jump to Defend “Legitimate Rape” Comments"

  1. Why stop at medical “studies” from 50 years ago? Why not 100? Why not 150? Leeches for stomach cramps anyone?

  2. That’s not even a study-it’s a claim some whack job made at a religious conference 50 years ago. If somebody said it today, they would draw upon themselves the kind of national scorn and derision we say w Akin-and deservedly so.

  3. How the heck are you kids going to respond if Akin wins, as he dang well might? Actually, I don’t have a problem with his election, given the establishment has already sequestered Akin and won’t support any loony stuff.
    The guy might also have some redeeming qualities on other issues. It will, however, be a darned shame if McKaskill wins over such a dumb interpretation. Stuff like that makes it hard for me to be Republican sometimes.

  4. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | September 24, 2012 7:40 PM at 7:40 PM |

    Speaking of wingnuts, WHO THE F*CK VOTED for this moron? Come ON, press! Where is super reporter (tee hee) jon adams? Is he doing another hard-hitting story on ice cream flavors at DQ? Why no PRESS on this crazy shit?

    Look, folks, I’m been TRYING to tell everyone for YEARS that these are some crazy inbred mofos! And I was the one that was banned from all the sites!

    Well, here’s the deal. Here’s your challenge. Here’s the situation. YOU find some common ground with THIS crazy son of a bitch! I dare you! Pogie has the story.

    Adams, I’ll give you your first interview question for this inbred bugnuts. Just ask him “who ya gonna shoot”, dickwad?

    • Lynn, you should look to see how PBS has been roundly shamed by both Dr. Pielke, Sr. and Dr. Judith Curry:

      I have to agree that this was not PBS’ finest hour, but not exactly for the same reasons as described by the PBS Ombudsman. Doing a major segment on climate change was in principle a good idea, but pulling off an effective one hour segment on this complex topic required much more thought and investigation and involvement with journalists that are experienced with this topic.
      Centering this show on the faux conversion of Richard Muller set this story down a certain path that turned out to be unfortunate. Richard Muller has never questioned the CO2 contribution to climate change. His ‘skepticism’ has focused on the hockey stick and was further triggered by the Climategate emails whence he questioned the reliability of the historical surface temperature records. That said, Richard Muller has become an important figure in the public debate on climate change, I just wish the story surrounding Muller was better presented (e.g. such as this interview).
      PBS clearly wanted to include something about the critics of Muller. I was contacted a month ago for a photo of myself, to be used briefly in a segment about Muller (I was not interviewed for this). I have been critical of Muller’s press releases and the originally released version of his latest paper on attribution (whereas I am coauthor on 4 papers from the BEST group). In terms of other critics of Muller, Watts and McKitrick stand out. Watts was chosen for this segment apparently not for his specific criticism of Muller, but based on the recommendation of the Heartland Institute.
      IMO, Watts handled himself very well in the on-air interview and also in the extended written interview. Nothing that he said was unreasonable. It is rather bizarre that on this particular show, I came across as the ‘denier’ and Watts as the ‘lukewarmer.’
      The outrage over Watts seems to be not so much what he said, as over his being given any airtime at all. On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not. However, on a program discussing the public debate over climate science, Watts should be front and center. His blog WUWT has far and away the largest traffic of any climate blog in the world (as per Alexa). As such, Watts is a figure of central importance in the public debate on climate change. To those who don’t like this fact, I advise you to take the time to understand why WUWT is so successful and maybe you will learn something about the public debate on climate change.

  5. Joe from Paterson, NJ | September 25, 2012 7:25 AM at 7:25 AM |

    W.T.F is with these people! Every day I get so mad that the GOP pretends that their goal is “lower taxes” when really they want to force this scary social agenda on the nation.

  6. Hatch is one of those types that march around Blue Mountain clinic with the giant photos of supposedly aborted fetuses. She and Pastor Himes are old friends.

  7. I am absolutely speechless. Words fail.

  8. How much you wanna bet this bunch was homeschooled and never got medically accurate sex education?

  9. I am waiting for the first court case where the defendant will claim that he should not be prosecuted for rape as it was the legitimate kind.

    • It’s already happened, many a perp claims it wasn’t actually rape but consensual sex- or that the woman was drunk or dressed provocatively so she “deserves it”

  10. Marilyn Hatch is the former head of the Montana Constitution Party. Her husband has run for legislature as a Constitution Party candidate. She’s part of the crew with Jonathan Martin. She and Martin came to Helena multiple times over the last decade to testify against civil unions and for bills to repeal the right to privacy.

  11. i am surprised that the idiot Dave Howard has not commented on this issue.

Comments are closed.