We already know the rate is 5% for rapes resulting in pregnancies.
Stop trying to defend the indefensible imbecile.
A real newz junkey would have read that abstract instead of cutting and pasting it...I read the damn thing when Malkin linked it.
Did you notice, “news junkey” that it didn’t differentiate between rapes that were violent, so called “date” rapes, statuatory rapes, and rapes that could also be otherwise non-consensual sex but still non-violent?
I never saw that. So you’re comparing apples to oranges. I posted an excerpt elsewhere from a book about rape—and when the author, a pro-abortion director of a sexual assault center, speaks about pregnancy being rare in rape it is about VIOLENT rape, which was what the good Congressman was apparently referring to in his 38 second sound bite.
Come on people, get a clue. This guy is a staunch, strong conservative. At worst he made a gaffe...and you’re all so damn anxious to fire him over it.
Good thing none of you were fighting the Germans and the Japanese during WW2...you would’ve bent over crying the first time you ever heard General Patton speak.