Remember that figure. Now ponder how the liberal media tried to milk the story of Missouri Rep. Todd Akin's incredible "legitimate rape" gaffe for all it was worth, giving the story legs it never had in the first place.
To recap -- for those of you that might have mercifully been taking a much-needed vacation in a distant galaxy for the past 10 days -- Akin is a Republican running for the U.S. Senate in Missouri. He is staunchly pro-life -- or anti-abortion, which is the term folks who put out the Associated Press Stylebook insist we journalist types use. (Those who favor legalized abortion, Associated Press wonks tell us, get to be called "pro-choice," not "pro-abortion." You've no doubt detected a whiff of media liberal bias right there, and the Associated Press isn't even close to being one of the more liberal institutions.)
But back to Akin: When asked why he is against abortion even in cases where the woman's pregnancy is the result of rape, the clueless goof instead spouted some nonsense about how a woman's body has mechanisms that prevent it from being impregnated during a rape.
Akin's stupidity was his and should have been his alone, but liberal media outlets -- and President Obama, their darling du jour for the last 900-plus days -- immediately tried to pin the Missouri congressman's junk obstetrics on ALL Republicans.
Perhaps the most over-the-top liberal reaction came from New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who claimed that Akin "reflects a severe stance on abortion that many in his party embrace, including the new vice presidential candidate."
Oh, Dowd didn't stop there. She went on to describe Republicans as "antediluvian, anti-women, anti-immigrant" and "anti-gay." She even threw the word "medieval" in there and called Republicans a "troglodyte tribe of men and Bachmann-esque women."
They say the ad hominem attack is the first, last and indeed only refuge of those that have no legitimate argument. The ad hominem attack is also the first, last and only refuge of those that want to avoid dragging facts into a debate.
And the fact is, Democrats and their liberal media lap dogs are arguing as if abortions for women who became pregnant as a result of rape are the rule, not the exception. But here are the figures, taken from the Center for Bio-ethical Reform website. (The CBR is an "anti-abortion" organization, but those running the website said they got their data from "pro-choice" organizations like the Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood.)
Six percent of abortions are performed on women because either they or the baby will have health problems if the pregnancy is carried to full term. Some 93 percent of abortions are performed for what the CBR called "social reasons, (i.e., the child is unwanted or inconvenient)."
Some might accuse folks at CBR of putting their own spin on the term "social reasons." Some abortions might be performed not because the child is "unwanted" or "inconvenient," but others might claim abortions are also performed because the mother or parents are financially incapable of caring for the child.
I'll concede that point, but the fact remains 93 percent of abortions occur not for health reasons, nor because the pregnant woman was raped, but because either the man or the woman involved in the conception -- or both of them -- blew it in the contraception department.
And the abortions performed because the women were raped?
That's right. For the past two weeks, we've all been involved in a debate about women who get abortions because they got pregnant after being raped. We haven't discussed the 93 percent of abortions that substitute as a method of birth control at all.
Is using abortion as a method of "birth control" a "women's health issue" in any normal meaning of the word "health"?
Examiner Columnist Gregory Kane is a Pulitzer-nominated news and opinion journalist who has covered people and politics from Baltimore to the Sudan.