Missouri Senator Todd Akin sparked international outrage on August 19 when he publicly stated…Missouri Senator Todd Akin sparked international outrage on August 19 when he publicly stated that “legitimate rape” rarely causes pregnancy because “the female body has ways of shutting that down.” Although the Republican Party at large has condemned Akin’s biologically ludicrous and morally offensive remarks, his views are in perfect sync with Republican policy. Few pro-life Republicans are so bold as to insinuate that any woman who claims she was impregnated by an act of rape must be lying, but the idea that abortion should be outlawed across the board — with no exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape and incest — is part of the official platform for the Republican party.

Because 75 percent of Americans oppose bans on abortion for victims of rape or incest, it is perhaps unsurprising that Republicans who run for President tend to distance themselves somewhat from the party line. George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney have all voiced support for exceptions including rape, incest and danger to the pregnant woman’s life. Although Paul Ryan, despite what he might say on the subject now, attached his name to the House of Representatives’ Sanctity of Human Life Act, which would not have permitted those exceptions.

But with the majority of Republican lawmakers apparently supporting an across-the-board abortion ban undaunted by the plight of rape or incest victims, it is worth asking exactly why so many of them are calling for Todd Akin to drop out of his Senate race.

I’m glad that the majority of GOP lawmakers are willing to believe the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology when it reports that “among adult women, an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year.” But if they accept those statistics, they have to accept that what they’re advocating is 32,101 women every year involuntarily carrying a rape-conceived pregnancy to term. And frankly, I wish they’d act a little more embarrassed about that.

I am transparently and unabashedly pro-choice. I believe every woman, regardless of how her pregnancy was conceived, has the right to decide with her doctor whether or not to give birth to a child. But the GOP’s attitude and policy, toward rape and incest survivors in particular, is worth writing about, because it sheds light on the real attitudes that lurk behind the “pro-life is pro-woman!” rhetoric.

In theory, everyone has sympathy for women who are victims of rape. But hours of lip service are worth absolutely nothing if you advocate policies that re-victimize survivors.

In 31 of 50 states, a rapist can legally sue for custody and visitation rights to the child his assault conceived. If you – Todd Akin, Paul Ryan, or any person reading this column who believes in outlawing abortion – had a daughter, sister, or friend who was impregnated by rape, and you knew that her rapist could sue for custody of the child if she carried the pregnancy to term, would you force her keep the baby? I’m not asking if you’d want her to, or if you’d advise her to. Would you force her?

People who actually care about sexual violence understand that people who have survived rape don’t need any more forcing.

In theory, narrow exceptions like the ones advocated by Romney and McCain only lessen the burden on survivors. Restrictive policies with specific exceptions always place emphasis on preventing the exception from being abused. As pro-lifers like Akin love to remind us, if we simply granted rape exceptions based on the survivor’s word, what would stop every woman who wanted an abortion from simply claiming she was raped? So even in the so-called “compassionate conservative” world, where abortion privileges were only granted to those who had earned them by being victims of violent crimes, those women would be called upon to prove that they had been “legitimately raped.”

We already know how this plays out because, in most states, abortions cannot be reimbursed by Medicaid except in cases of rape or incest. Most of those states require the survivor to report the rape to the police – a process that often subjects victims to scrutiny and dismissive behavior from the police, aggression and personal attacks from the prosecution, and threats from the rapist. In high-profile cases, reporting a rape can result in having one’s name leaked by the press; the women who were allegedly assaulted by Julian Assange have received death threats from the public since having their names leaked.

For all this, victims can expect a conviction … 1 percent of the time. Among that 1 percent, the average time served is approximately five years.

The other option for women who want to obtain Medicaid funding for abortion without reporting to the police is to obtain a letter from her doctor. But doctors are discouraged from writing those letters for fear of fraud charges – any doctor who seems to be writing “too many” rape appeal letters in a given year risks being accused of Medicaid fraud, even though one in four American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime, and many experience extended abuse over a period of time.

Any way you slice it, those who oppose legal abortion – those who advocate for rape and incest exceptions, and those who don’t – considers these acceptable casualties. And that’s precisely where the pro-life movement’s carefully constructed facade of compassion for women, including those who have been sexually assaulted, falls messily apart.

Pro-life is not pro-woman. Bipartisanly despised Todd Akin, with his foot-in-mouth disease, is a particularly good illustration of that.

Contact Tracey at [email protected].