Rape expert Rep. Trent Franks(Matt McClain/The Washington Post) Rape expert Rep. Trent Franks (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)

There are more than five thousand comments already on Dana Milbank’s column on the bunch of House Republican dudes working on an antiabortion law. Milbank notes that the women on the committee, Democrats, keep trying to work exceptions into the law for rape, the life of the mother, etc., and the Republican men trying to kill those exceptions. It’s terrible optics — no Republican women on the committee, so it’s all men trying to take away women’s rights. And the fact that Rep Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), for example, says things like “the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low,” which is news to actual doctors and actual scientists who study actual things in the real world, does not help.

So, we have guys who do not care if their science is pretend or not, who feel entitled to make up statistics about women getting raped, who reject input from the women in the room, making the legislative decisions about uteruses for everyone. Hooray!

As an extended aside, PostScript doesn’t see how Frank’s science-from-his-rear-end even helps his argument. Even if the incidence were “low,” there are still incidents. Why not create an exception for them, if Franks believes there should be one? It’s avoiding the question to answer “what about X” with “X doesn’t happen very much.” And if Franks does not wish to make an exception in the case of rape, why is he afraid to say so? What, would women find that offensive?

Anyway. Here we are, with Franks so sure he is better at thinking than everyone else that he feels obliged to make things up in order to correct their thinking. That it’s okay to misinform people so that they will agree with him, because he is so right, though he can’t win the argument without making things up. About rape. Writing the abortion laws. That’s where we are. Awesome.

And, as glaucomatose argues, this bill isn’t going anywhere:

The really hilarious thing about all of this is that there’s no – zero – chance that this would ever go anywhere even if it passed the full House. Chances in the Senate? Nil. Chances Obama would sign it? Nada. All it does is help the Republican Party maintain its image of opposing women’s rights in all forms at all times. Keep digging, guys.

jhherring backs that up — this behavior is actively losing at least one vote:

Once again, it appears that the best campaign help the Democrats get is from the Republicans. I am not a Democrat, and in general dislike much of the typical Democratic rhetoric and reflexive positioning, but given the choice between their brand of goofiness and that of the Republicans, there is no contest. The Democrats are somewhat less likely to rack up long distance charges when making a (rare) reality check.

So, PostScript wonders, what is the point of any of this? Surely everyone who wants this bill to pass without an exception for rape is not waffling about whom to vote for next. What are Franks et all up to?

kaintuck suggests it’s for variety’s sake:

They would only have used the time to vote against Obamacare again.

But there are also supporters of this grandstanding, supporters even of keeping women out of the argument.

clued_in_to_thinking, for example, says women think wrong:

It’s about thinking of a life other than your own, something modern women have a lot of trouble doing. In a world where women are all about “me, me, me”–my rights, my choice, my body–it takes a dozen men to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.

cbk1 seems to agree that this law should have exceptions — but also sides with the Republicans completely, a disconnect PostScript will not attempt to parse:

Dangerous pregnancy is one issue, just killing a baby because you don’t want it is another. Ted Bundy also tried to rationalize his right to murder. Is the only reason a person votes for a Democrat is they want to be able to murder a baby?

And think_4_myself has figured out how other people should think:

Are most of you leftists men? I can’t imagine women are so sanguine about abortions.

While mhr614 may as well be Trent Franks himself, for all his (or her, HAHAHAHAHAHA) attention to logic, accuracy and the actual biology we purportedly are discussing:

The left want to give girls contraceptives at age 12 and abortions on demand nine months later. Compassionate people, liberals.

PostScript just doesn’t know. Normally the more important an issue is, the more important it is to argue logically and avoid rhetoric that most people find abhorrent in 2013 — such as that women shouldn’t think for themselves. And actually get bills passed. But it almost seems like it proves how much people care about the issue, that they are so certain of their own correctness that they are blind to the need to be logical, factual and persuasive. PostScript wishes she had a joke to end on.