What's wrong with that?
Would you rather that he evaded answering the question?
"Well, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, @answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade." BHS
“Would you rather that he evaded answering the question?”
Obviously in this case... YES!!!
He gave, two parts to his answer, the first part was enough - doctors say that rapes don’t usually result in pregnancy. He could have, should have left it there; it was enough; it was specific enough.
He tried to add to the answer and meant to do so by referring to the incidence of a “legitimate charge of rape”, as opposed to what is left to the listener to interpret, but which he likely meant those incidence where “the charge” of rape was “not legitimate” - it was a false charge. He meant be right, but the distinction is unnecessary, and in trying to say what he meant, he used the term “legitimate rape” - not “a legitimate charge of rape”. Which begged the question, are some rapes “legitimate”? He didn’t need the second part of his answer and when he attempted it he fumbled it and that fumble looked stupid. He didn’t know when to stop talking.
I'd rather see people running for senate to answer questions properly. "It's not the baby's fault" would have been a proper answer. Doctor's say it's rare without using a term like "legitimate" which is bad. He's probably trying to differentiate between statutory and forced.