Koster: No intent to trivialize rape with controversial comment
»Play Video
SEATTLE -- A day after Republican congressional candidate John Koster said abortion should not be legal, even when it involves "the rape thing," he explained his controversial comment to a Seattle conservative talk radio station.
"There was never any intent on my part to be trivializing, be flippant or cavalier in any way, shape or form in my reference to the heinous crime of rape," Koster told KVI-AM Radio. "In my tenure in the state Legislature, there's nobody harder on sex offenses than I was. As far as I'm concerned, we can put these guys away for life."
An activist working on behalf of liberal group FUSE Washington asked Koster questions during a Sunday fundraiser. Koster said he does not oppose abortion when the life of the mother is in danger but then explains he would oppose it when it involves rape or incest.
Koster twice uses the phrase "the rape thing" when describing his views, first saying that he knows a woman who was raped and gave up the child for adoption without any regrets.
"But on the rape thing, it's like, how does putting more violence onto a woman's body and taking the life of an innocent child that's a consequence of this crime, how does that make it better?" Koster said in the exchange.
Koster is locked in a competitive House race against Democrat Suzan DelBene, who spoke out against Koster's comments Wednesday evening.
"I think his comments were offensive. They were extremely insensitive," DelBene said. "I think that women should have the right to make their own healthcare decisions between themselves and their doctors."
During Thursday's interview with KVI, Koster said the fuss over the comment was fueled by the media and those who oppose his position.
"In fact, some of these people who are hammering me now are the same people who think we can council and coddle these people into wellness and we give them too little jail time and we put them back into our communities," Koster said. "This is nothing more than a media assist throwing a life-line to DelBene because they spent $5.5 million and they still haven't put me away in this race, so they gotta sneak somebody in with a hidden microphone in a busy campaign event to capture something they might use."
Koster added had he said "rape issue" instead of "rape thing" there would never have been a problem.
"They're just grasping at straws trying to change the conversations about the issues our campaign has been about," Koster said.
Republicans have been beleaguered this year by comments about rape that some have deemed offensive. Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who is challenging Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, said women's bodies have ways of avoiding pregnancy in cases of "legitimate rape."
More recently, Indiana GOP candidate Richard Mourdock has been criticized for saying that pregnancy resulting from rape is God's will.
Collin Jergens, a spokesman at the advocacy group FUSE Washington, said one of the group's activists went to the fundraiser to ask Koster about the issue of abortion. Democrats have been trying to portray Koster as out of touch with the district, which stretches from areas east of Seattle to the border with Canada, and they have focused particularly on his stance on social issues.
"I was kind of shocked by how dismissive and demeaning it was," said Aaron Ostrom of FUSE.
Sara Kiesler, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest, said the Koster's remarks are proof that he shouldn't be involved in a woman's decision about her pregnancy.
"My gut reaction was that rape is violence, and that rape is a crime, and that his choice of words diminishes that violence," Kiesler said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
"There was never any intent on my part to be trivializing, be flippant or cavalier in any way, shape or form in my reference to the heinous crime of rape," Koster told KVI-AM Radio. "In my tenure in the state Legislature, there's nobody harder on sex offenses than I was. As far as I'm concerned, we can put these guys away for life."
An activist working on behalf of liberal group FUSE Washington asked Koster questions during a Sunday fundraiser. Koster said he does not oppose abortion when the life of the mother is in danger but then explains he would oppose it when it involves rape or incest.
Koster twice uses the phrase "the rape thing" when describing his views, first saying that he knows a woman who was raped and gave up the child for adoption without any regrets.
"But on the rape thing, it's like, how does putting more violence onto a woman's body and taking the life of an innocent child that's a consequence of this crime, how does that make it better?" Koster said in the exchange.
Koster is locked in a competitive House race against Democrat Suzan DelBene, who spoke out against Koster's comments Wednesday evening.
"I think his comments were offensive. They were extremely insensitive," DelBene said. "I think that women should have the right to make their own healthcare decisions between themselves and their doctors."
During Thursday's interview with KVI, Koster said the fuss over the comment was fueled by the media and those who oppose his position.
"In fact, some of these people who are hammering me now are the same people who think we can council and coddle these people into wellness and we give them too little jail time and we put them back into our communities," Koster said. "This is nothing more than a media assist throwing a life-line to DelBene because they spent $5.5 million and they still haven't put me away in this race, so they gotta sneak somebody in with a hidden microphone in a busy campaign event to capture something they might use."
Koster added had he said "rape issue" instead of "rape thing" there would never have been a problem.
"They're just grasping at straws trying to change the conversations about the issues our campaign has been about," Koster said.
Republicans have been beleaguered this year by comments about rape that some have deemed offensive. Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who is challenging Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, said women's bodies have ways of avoiding pregnancy in cases of "legitimate rape."
More recently, Indiana GOP candidate Richard Mourdock has been criticized for saying that pregnancy resulting from rape is God's will.
Collin Jergens, a spokesman at the advocacy group FUSE Washington, said one of the group's activists went to the fundraiser to ask Koster about the issue of abortion. Democrats have been trying to portray Koster as out of touch with the district, which stretches from areas east of Seattle to the border with Canada, and they have focused particularly on his stance on social issues.
"I was kind of shocked by how dismissive and demeaning it was," said Aaron Ostrom of FUSE.
Sara Kiesler, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest, said the Koster's remarks are proof that he shouldn't be involved in a woman's decision about her pregnancy.
"My gut reaction was that rape is violence, and that rape is a crime, and that his choice of words diminishes that violence," Kiesler said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
"I heard _______ is pregnant?" Oh yes, she did the rape thing. "Oh that's wonderful that she's expecting!" Yes, and the father's thrilled... he can't wait to get out of jail!Â
 @TruthinAdverts No no no, you hear wrong.  _______ is not actually pregnant. It was a legitimate rape thing, so her body rejected it. Everything is just dandy.Â
Â
OR
Well, it was not a legitmate rape thing. and _________ is super excited about  her gift from god.Â
Â
this is how stupid republicans are because this is how they actually think.Â
 @T H I S Tragic, is it not? "Blinded by the Right."
Revolting this is even in the minds of these stupid politicians!!! If I ever got raped and got pregnant because of the rape I would not want to carry it. There are some women that have chosen to continue the pregnancy and are now being sued by the perpetrator for custody rights!!
 @alildifferent I am personally (but not usually politically) pro-life. However, I really have to agree with you. This is a tough call, and while no woman should ever be faced with this decision, no idiot politician should be sticking his nose into the decision process either - especially with the callous attitude revealed in this nut's choice of words!Â
He may not have intended to trivialize rape. His position basically trivializes the victim who is for all practical purposes told to "suck it up" in the best interest of the future child. Oh, yeah. He forgot to mention she gets to share custody with her rapist who will have parental visitaton rights when his lawyer gets finished.
Too late. The only remotely honorable choice of action now is to give up the race and withdraw from the public view.Â
Â
If this were Japan, there would be another, very obvious, choice open to him, of course...
You still don't get it. Renaming the "thing" to "rape issue" would not have saved you, my friend. Not allowing abortion for women that have been raped is the ISSUE ! Â I think I have heard this from the Irish catholic church once, but never since. Â You are ignorant, insensitive, and incredibly unfit for office.
He looks like he's playing with himself.
 @Mother Hubcap LOL!  You make me laugh so.Â
"There was never any intent on my part to be trivializing, be flippant or cavalier in any way, shape or form ...
Â
Yeah......but you did.
Cause, y'know, making a woman carry around a physically and emotionally draining reminder of having been raped isn't violent...
It doesn't seem the congressional campaign thing is working out. However, he will be keep his base, reaffirm the convictions of those against him, and alienate the undecided.Â
If all the money spent on election advertisements  between now and election were diverted to the aid of those who were effected by Sandy, I would be grateful. I challenge both you Mr. Kostner and Ms. Del Bene to give these funds to those who are in need. We have all heard all the pitches that we need to make a decision. To those with the lobbyist adds I challenge you too, put your money to where it counts .
Please pass this on, people are hurting and political advertisements help few.
Â
Shut up, koster. The politics thing isn't for you.Â
For one, I don't believe Koster...at all. Â He isn't sorry. Â He's an idiot.
Â
Secondly why on earth are the Republicans all over abortion? Â The issue was solved by the supreme court decades ago.
Â
Look it's simple, if you don't want an abortion don't get one. Â Done nuf said.
 @DeadRabitz The Republicans are "all over abortion" because the need to be to hold onto their evangelical and fundamentalist Christian coalition partners which they co-opted back in 1980 from Moral Majority (which was neither). M-M in turn was founded by a bunch of Jim Crow bigots in the South who were looking for allies to help them fight off federal attacks on their segregated "sectarian" private schools. These were founded under in effect "The Church of the Good Ol' Boys and White Sheet People" - they were "sectarian" only for the purpose of shielding themselves from federal anti-discrimination law, and when threatened they couched the threat as an attack on religious freedom and convinced Bible-Belt fundamentalists and Northern Tier evangelicals to join their cause by that subterfuge.
The GOP saw all this as an opportunity to gather up Southern Democrats disaffected by civil rights legislation and fundamentalist and evangelical Christians offended by Roe v. Wade - all in one sweep. And secular Republicans have been grudgingly embracing a pro-life position ever since, in fear that they will lose their fundamentalist and evangelical allies if they defect at all.
Meanwhile, more and more fundamentalist and evangelical Christians have been sucked in by political "solutions' to spiritual problems, and have traded the weapons of spiritual warfare for the carnal ones of political warfare in violation of 2 Cor 10.
To understand just how much this violation has affected biblical Christian faith and obedience, one need only look at how Christians have flocked to and supported a Mormon for President: this unprecedented and unholy alliance is such a violation of biblical Christian faith that it truly boggles the mind - but ONLY of those who have actually made a study of the real scriptural foundation of Christian faith and the utter incompatibility of Mormon doctrine - all the way to Isaiah 14:12,13 and Galatians 1:8.
All this is not to say that Mormons are not generally and by all appearances very nice and sincere and apparently respectable people - it is just that Christians are prohibited by scripture to make alliances with those who practice idolatry and open rebellion against the ONE and ONLY true God, or who preach "another Jesus". Yet this is what is happening for sake of political expediency: Christians are burning incense on the altar of Caesar.
And Republican focus on abortion and "gay marriage" (far more than the economy and taxes) is at the heart of this: it is what is keeping the carnal Christians on tether.
 @JLS1950  BOOM!!!  I had to copy your comment for my own records just so I can reread it again and send it out to a few select people including my Dad who is in disbelief himself of how these people have been acting. Â
Â
You put it all in one finely worded statement. Â ThanksÂ
 @DeadRabitz Wrong.  You're begging the question by assuming abortion is only a personal issue.  You would never say "if you don't like slavery, don't have slaves".  And the supreme court is not infallible.
 @Vertex  @DeadRabitz Interesting point. It begs the question, "What's the difference between slavery and abortion?"
Â
In my view, slavery is an act perpetrated by one class of people upon another who are already alive and who would otherwise have an opportunity to lead normal lives. Abortion is a personal act perpetrated by a woman upon her unborn child. I think the argument about life status and potential is much more complex and nuanced than for slavery (and certainly much more so than most people on both sides of the issue tend to make it seem).
Â
You could argue that aborting a fetus is worse than enslaving a living person because now the person that that fetus MIGHT have turned into no longer has an opportunity to live. But in my opinion, such an argument is akin to gambling - I frequently hear "Your unborn child could be the next Mozart!", and the response is frequently, "Yes, and he could also be the next Hitler."
@Vertex it depends on what state you live in but a fetus gets some rights around 24 weeks. Again, this is and should be a private matter. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. If you want to prevent abortions, then support groups that teach safe sex in schools, programs that teach about birth control, condoms and such. Just look at the teen pregnancy rates in areas that teach abstinence only birth control. Support birth control being covered by insurance.
@Vertex I haven't said anything about slavery.
 @DeadRabitz I am perfectly aware that a fetus does not have the same legal standing.  This does not prove the fetus is not a human.
 @DeadRabitz I didn't say slavery and abortion were the same.  Please try to actually understand my posts instead of just knee jerk reacting when you see slavery and abortion in the same sentence.
 @Vertex Actually you didn't. You're worse than Glenn Beck right now. You're trying to connect things that really don't.
 @Vertex can you let us know when you have a logical argument?  we haven't seen anything yet.
 @Vertex  @Andrew Bush No we are saying that abortion is a personal matter and you have no right to make that decision for anyone else.  Your beliefs are yours and yours alone, you can not force others to follow them. Â
 @Vertex  @Hagar An adult, a child, an infant or and adolescent all have legal standing and rights, a fetus has none of these.  A fetus is not considered human.
 @Vertex  @KieferSkunk slavery and abortion are not the same.  Slavery is perpetrated on humans and an abortion is performed on a fetus.  The human has rights wear as the fetus is not a human and has no rights.
Â
Â
 @Andrew Bush Let me simplify it for you: do you think our law should allow human rights crimes be up to personal preference?  Yes or no.
 @Andrew Bush Uh..I just explained one of the arguments above your post.  Slow down and try to actually comprehend what you are reading.
 @Vertex  Yeah okay... I will leave you to continue arguing with yourself.  Â
 @Andrew Bush Enjoy the entertainment.  And let me know when you have an actual argument.
 @Vertex Go believe your human rights crime on your own .., Again you don't want an abortion don't have one.  Â
 @Vertex There is no argument.  who are you arguing with? Â
Â
Do you see spirits or the great fake spaghetti monster?  Â
Â
Who are you even talking to? Â Â
Â
Â
 @Andrew Bush  Calling an argument nonsense proves nothing.  If you can't follow the discussion - sorry.  Someone claimed "breathing" makes us a human.  I put that claim to the test by basically asking if a newborn that hasn't breathed yet is not a human.
 @Vertex  Don't want an abortion don't have one. Â
Â
You will NEVER get to decide what others are deciding in the privacy of their own lives so sit and stew and whine and complain all you want. Â I don't care. Â
Â
I think its funny watching you try to win an argument with yourself. Â
 @Andrew Bush If you say "don't like abortion, don't have one" you are in effect saying "agree with me".  Because you are asking someone who believes abortion is a human rights crime to act as if it is not.
 @Vertex  No you just talk about a lot of nothing our laws are clear yet you seem to deny that. Â
Â
You talk of murdering a baby after it is born? Â
Â
Such nonsense to win some delusional argument you seem to be having with yourself.  Â
Â
Â
 @Andrew Bush I understand abortion is not allowed in late term.  What is your point?
 @Hagar Thank you for dodging my question.  I the question did a pretty a good idea of exposing how silly the "breath" argument is.  It seems perhaps maybe you did too.
 @Vertex  childish and dumb. Â
 @Vertex You don't understand the allowable term when an abortion is legal?  Â
Â
Â
 @Vertex Now you are getting stupid. Dismissed.
 @Andrew Bush Oh good...so you didn't disprove anything.  Next.
 @Vertex disproves?  There is no disproving you statements they have no facts to disprove.  Â
Â
It looks like rambling nonsense opinionsÂ
 @Hagar  So if a baby is delivered at full term and we kill it outside the mother before it takes a breath...no harm done?Â
 @Andrew Bush Please explain how your statement disproves anything I said.
 @Vertex What are you talking about.  Maybe in the some racist areas of the south attitudes about slavery is personal preference but not among normal people.Â
Â
No one is saying agree with me. Â It is the law. Â Abortion is legal and slavery is not. Â Â
Â
Personal preference????? Â Â
 @Vertex "Infant", "adolescent" and "adult" breath. They are human. A "fetus" does not breath. In Genesis 2:7, even the Bible distinguishes when dust becomes a living soul. âAnd the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living soul.â Pretty clear to me.
 @Vertex three are human and one is a non breathing bunch of cells forming. Â
Â
You don't understand that?Â
 @Hagar "Fetus" just refers to the stage of development of something.  As do the words "infant", "adolescent" and "adult".  None of those words prove that something is not a human.
 @KieferSkunk  @Vertex  @DeadRabitz There is no such thing as an "unborn child". Then I am an "undead corpse". It is a fetus, nothing more, nothing less, until it is outside the body, breathing. And the "liberal" press uses the term all the time. "Liberal" my arse. Almost all owned by corporations.
 @KieferSkunk My point was not that slavery and abortion are exactly the same but that we don't take human rights crimes such as slavery and treat them as something up to personal preference.  Yet people frequently tell anti-abortionists to just treat abortion as person preference (don't like abortion, don't have one).  This is about like saying "just agree with me".
 @Vertex Abortion is only a personal issue.  It's not an assumption its a fact.
Â
It's right up there with gay marriage, another personal issue. Â If you don't want one don't get one. simpleÂ
Â
@Vertex @DeadRabitz you have that right but you are still wrong.
 @DeadRabitz I am perfectly aware that the fetus LEGALLY has no rights.  But the law is not infallible.  Therefore a law denying rights does not necessarily prove no rights exist.  "The don't like an abortion don't get one" mantra when leveled at people arguing that abortion should be illegal is just question begging.  We have every right to argue for it being illegal and to attempt changing the law.
 @scared_citizen It's not a human. Â
look at it this way.
Â
I have a lump of wet clay on a pottery wheel. Â Is it a vase...no. Â Could it be...yes. Â Many things have to happen before that lump of clay can be called a vase. Â You have to shape it, mold it, draw it up into it's final shape and yet even then it is still not a vase. Â It must be removed form the wheel, fired in a kiln, cooled, glazed and fired again and again until the lump of clay can now be called a vase.
Â
The same thing happens while reproduction. Â Once the sperm and egg meet and fertilize is that a human...no. Â A month later, significant developments have happened and yet it still isn't a human, there is no heart, no legs no eyes. Â So at this point is an abortion killing a human...no.
Â
The laws change from state to state but in most the fetus gains rights at 24 months and most abortion are performed at 14 weeks.
Â
So to answer your question, if a pregnant woman was on week 23 when she was killed then she was simply pregnant and the fetus has no rights. Â after that then it's up to the prosecutor as by law the fetus has rights. Â Depending on the state you live in.
 @scared_citizen You are entitled to your belief and others to theirs.  The issue here is that other people seem to think that their morals and beliefs are better than those held by others and they push those morals and beliefs on others.
Â
We should all follow our own moral compass and hold to our own beliefs. Â So if abortion is not for you then don't have one. Â It's personal and private. Â It's none of anyone else's business.
@LocalLady  Its funny how people can claim that an unborn child is not "human" one minute but if that same pregnant woman was killed while pregnant with that "zygote", you and the law would be pressing to have the killer charged with a second count of homicide (one for the mother and one for the unborn "zygote").
@DeadRabitz  People with closed minds live in darkness. While it is not my intention to tell anyone what to to with their own bodies, I do firmly believe that the fetus that is aborted IS a living human being and is being murdered. The fact that lacks a "birthdate" is irrelevant. That makes is a lot less of a "personal issue" unless you are the aborted fetus, then its a VERY PERSONAL ISSUE.
 @Vertex Abortion is a medical procedure and protected information.  An abortion is performed on a fetus and is not considered to be a human and thusly has no rights.
Â
You are adding your own morals to another persons personal issue. Â The legality of it has all ready been settled by the supreme court decades ago. Â Therefore, if you don't want an abortion don't get one but you have no say in the lives of others.
You *claim* abortion is a human rights violation. How do you figure? There is no viable "human", nobpdy to file a complaint. There is simply a cluster of cells (a zygote). It is not independent, it cannot survive on it's own outside the womb. It certainly does not have a lawyer & canont file any sort of complaint. It is not recognized as being a "person" (*for the most part) under law in any state. So how can "it" have it's human rights violated?
 @quidproquo or rather we are all dependent on something.  You can't live without air.  But that does not prove you are merely part of the air.
 @quidproquo Yes, but dependency does not prove something is a part of someone else.  We are all dependent on someone else.  And I'm sorry you were raped but I didn't say anything about rape.  And I have not said anything about what type of genitalia I have.
 @Vertex 1/4th of all pregnancies are lost before the end of the first trimester. You can stick your fingers in your ears and LALALALA all you want but this is a fact. It is a fact that the fetus could not survive outside the woman's body.Â
Also, until you possess female genitalia and have also been raped, you can be quiet. I've been raped and I probably would have killed myself if I had become pregnant with my rapists child. It's a horrifying thought to me.  I cried like a baby the day my period came after my rape because I was so happy.
 @quidproquo Wrong.  A fetus is not a part of the mother's body.  It is dependent, yes...but it is still a distinct, individual organism with it's own DNA.  It can even be male.
 @DeadRabitz Please explain to me how Hippa rules make it a "fact" that abortion is not a human rights violation.
 @Vertex  @DeadRabitz Yes it is a personal issue. A fetus is apart of a woman's body and is essentially a parasite (it takes nutrients while providing nothing in return). It can not survive outside her body until at least 24 weeks and even then there are high chances of extreme brain damage and death. It is personal.
 @Vertex I'm not making any claim, it's a fact.  As far as abortion is concerned it's covered under HIPPA.  You have no right to know anything about anyone else's medical history unless they allow you to. Â
Â
Â
 @DeadRabitz Yeah, merely claiming something is a personal issue does not make it so.  Sorry, this isn't a magic show.
 @DeadRabitz To be fair (I find myself saying that a lot), laws are not immutable. The people we elect to represent us do go to Washington to enact changes they believe in, supposedly on behalf of the people they represent. And it's obvious that people like Koster will keep trying to overturn Roe v. Wade every chance they get. My personal hope is that they never succeed, and eventually they get the message and stop trying. But as long as we keep electing them, they have the right to do so.
 @KieferSkunk I disagree a little.  The people we send to represent us should be voting as their constituents tell them too (Most of the time) not how they feel they should vote. Â
 @DeadRabitz Also, sadly, the fact that Roe v. Wade keeps getting challenged is evidence that there are a lot of people out there (average folks like you and me) who are willing to vote for representatives that would overturn it if they could. If those candidates really do represent them, then it's unfortunately not so simple an argument. :/
 @DeadRabitz That's how it SHOULD work, yes, and that's how I WISH it worked. But the reality is that our representatives sell themselves based on their beliefs and views, and then we vote for or against them based on those beliefs and views, not on how well we think they'll listen to us. And we have to more or less trust that they'll really represent OUR wishes as citizens, but more frequently we have to settle for whatever they think is right.