What is Chris Matthews Talking About?

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

I’ve had Hardball on in the background for the past hour (I know, I know), and I just have to say that sometimes Chris Matthews stuns me. The topic was Todd Akin, and Matthews kept insisting that there was no difference — none, zero, nada — between Akin’s infamous reflections on “legitimate rape” and Paul Ryan’s view that abortion should be outlawed even in cases of rape and incest. He ended up badgering his guests over and over to admit that the two things were identical.

WTF? I assume Matthews is right about Ryan’s view (though I’m not sure if Ryan has ever explicitly clarified this), but what does that have to do with Akin? I don’t have any reason to think that Ryan believes some rapes are “legitimate” and others aren’t. He simply believes that abortion is murder, and it’s murder even if the fetus is the result of rape or incest. This is an extreme pro-life view, but it’s hardly a fringe view.

Does anyone have any idea what Matthews was talking about?

UPDATE: The consensus in comments seems to be that Matthews wasn’t referring to Ryan’s view that abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape and incest. Instead, he was referring to a bill that Ryan and Akin (and most of the GOP caucus) cosponsored last year that would have narrowed Medicaid funding for abortion in rape cases. The legislation would have restricted Medicaid funding only to cases of “forcible rape.”

The theory here is that “legitimate” is just another word for “forcible,” and Ryan agrees with Akin that there’s some kind of distinction here. Unless I missed something, Matthews didn’t actually say this, but I suppose he might have meant it and just forgot to say the actual words. Or something.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend