next is lynne vincent with heaven is for real followed by daniel james brown's boys in the boat, a look at the crew team and their quest for gold in the 1936 berlin olympics. .. and cheryl strayed ramps up the list with her remembrance of an 1100-mile solo hike on the

pacific crest trail in "wild." >> former u.s. congressman todd aiken appeared on chance's "wall street journal" to talk about his book, "firing back." he talks about a controversial statement he made about rape in his senate campaign, this just over half an hour. >> we're joined now be former congressman and 2012 republican senate candidate from missouri, todd akin. coiningman akin, much of your books about the day in 2012. what happened? >> guest: actually that's just the first chapter. there's a whole lot more in the book. the interview was cut on a friday afternoon, and i could tell by looking back at the tape

i was a bit tired, but i didn't see anything that seemed too outstandingly -- that people were going to jump on because it was one of those gotcha, trying to trap you type of things, because the talk show host was a very liberal guy. so then it played sunday morning, and a guy that had been -- they call them trackers, had been following me during the whole campaign. he picked up on the word, "legitimate" together and thought, okay, there's an opportunity. so, sunday morning, everything was fine. by sunday evening, my assistant campaign manager called me and said, def con 1, which is a military term for defense condition one, means red alert. and within a couple of days i'd gone from the respectable congressman to basically somebody that was considered some sort of pariah, and that was for mischoosing some words.

i shouldn't have specified rape. i was trying to separate the idea of statutory rape from a rape that causes stress. most rape is stressful so i was making a point, stress affects pregnancy, which is was a big parent this that gets you to the got cho couldoo you say the words caused a cataclysmic explosion. let's play a clip from the interview and have you explain it. >> so, if an abortion could be considered in case of a tubal flanges, what about in the case of rape, legal or not? >> people always want to try to make that as one of those thing toes, how do you slice this particularly tough ethical question. from what i understand from doctors that's rare. if it's a legitimate rape know, mail body has ways to shut that whole thing down. let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something.

i think there should be some punishment but the punishment ought to be in the rapist and not attacking the child. >> host: part of your book is explaining what you meant by that. >> guest: a little bit. just from the beginning. the point is this. he is asking the very hard question and that is, what happens if a woman raped. the question is, does the child that is conceived in rape have the same right to life as the child that is conceived in love? and that's the question. and my argument is, if abortion is wrong, which i believe it is, then it's wrong there. the person should be punished is the rapist and not the child. the trouble was i got into saying the chances of becoming pregnant from rape are somewhat reduced because of stress. people argue about that. i'm not a medical doctor. but i give you some common sense. you may know families, got married, want to have children, couldn't have kids so they adopt the kid and then, process stow,

-- presto, the woman gets pregnant and has a child. a lot of people say the woman was stressed and then knowing they could adopt children, they had regular children. i know a gal who was competitive in the triathlons. a very beautiful gal but she drives her body very hard to the point she is almost sterile, according to her husband, because her body is under stress all the time. from those swimming, biking, and running. so, that was my case. now you can say, well, maybe or maybe not stress plays a factor. the real question was -- and it's a tough ethical question, does the child conceived in rape have the same right to life as the child conceived in love mitchell case was, yes. >> host: part of your book is firing back at the party bosses and media elite. here's a quit from your book: what i said was not a gaff but a clear statement of conservative

principle. often the very same pundits who criticize the lack of clarity in political campaigns are the first ones to attack people like me who tried to add both, some as i just about to learn myself then republicans are sometimes quicker to athang even the democrats. can you talk about the fallout? >> guest: sure. what i -- one of the contrasts that ising in on this -- and it affects even your job, john. we all believe in free speech. me question is this. if somebody gets on a program and chooses words poorly, that's to be insensitive or thoughtless in certain ways, but it's still just speaking. now jump forward from the tomorrow i made those commentses, two weeks later, the democratic national convention, bill clinton, the keynote speaker, now if you put juanita broderick's sworn testimony that bill clinton raped her aside and say that didn't happen you still

heave a guy that has a numerous series of accounts of sexual abuse and sexual impropriety, and he is getting applause at the democratic convention. there's a difference, i would say, between saying some words and actually abusing a woman. so, doesn't seem like the democrats have the war on women going, and then recently we found out -- this was not covered widely by the news -- that hillary clinton some years ago had defended a rape ises of a 12-year-old girl. that's okay for a lawyer to defend. a rapist. that's okay. but she also demeans the testimony of the 12-year-old girl, who was looking for justice in a court of law. she got the rapist awful the -- off the hook, and ten years afterwards she is talking about it on a media interview and is laughing about it. it's a war on women. the democrats' war on women. i don't think the national media is balanced in dealing with many issues. it's not just balance.

i goes to the point of keeping the public intentionally ignorant of some of the things done and said by people that are more on the liberal media side. >> host: todd akin, here to answer your questions, take your comments, as we discuss his book "firing back, taking on matter bogses and media elite to protect our faith and freedom." going through your life and involvement in politics and that day in that interview and the fallout from the interview, phone numbers. 202-585-3881. democrats, 2-02-585- -- if you're outside the u.s. it's 202-585-2883. we'll start on the line for independents in texas. rachel is calling to talk to you. rachel, good morning. >> caller: yes. how are you doing? like you're saying if my 12-year-old daughter was to get raped, my granddaughter, and i was to take her to the emergency, they could not give

her the morning after pill so she would have to have her whole life remembering being raped, brutally raped, and you know what? it's up to you people to make the laws, and go after the rapist and make them to where they never get out because this young girl that has been brutally raped goes through it every day in her life, and these guys, spend two years in prison and get out, and it is up to you to make the laws to where that does not happen. >> guest: well, first of all, your caller, i completely agree with the caller in the sense that rape is a very serious crime. it used to be a capital offense. you could be put to death for having raped somebody, then the supreme court said you can't do that anymore. but i am totally in agreement that rape is a very, very serious crime. the question is, what happens when someone is raped and become

pregnant? which can happen. we had at lot of those people work in my campaign, people of the children who were raped and had grope up and when they heard i was willing to defend their lives as little children, they were all on board with our campaign. so i agree with that. i don't think that killing in the child is going to take the horrible memories out of the woman who was raped. i think those memories are there, and that's why it's a horrible crime. >> oo in texas, bill, from corporation produce christi, on the line for democrats. good morning. >> caller: good morning, sir. i listened to you when you made your statement, sir, about women, and i listened to your explanation, and quite frankly, you used doctors to your advantagey your first statement and now using doctors again saying, i'm not one. you didn't get in trouble because of what you said. you got in trouble because of your ignorance.

you're in a position of authority. you are expected to know more and better than others, and you don't. >> guest: john, it's an interesting question. the question is ancillary to the main point, which is the question of rape. but the item of stress there have been at least six new studies that say that stress does play a part in pregnancy. and so i let those studies down and they were -- to me it's very much a passing point, not something that i want to die over particularly. and i do know so many people that i've heard that story about that they adopted a child and all of a sudden could get pregnant. so, i think that's a matter of debate between ob/gyns and medical doctors, what is the effect of stress on pregnancy. but i edged even in those poorly chosen words the fact that people can still get pregnant for being raped.

i was reported in the media that it i thought people couldn't get pregnant from rape and i said the exact opposite. >> host: what do you hope to accomplish with the book. >> guest: the same thing i was doing to do in the 24 years eye served in office, trying to bring forward truth and the ideas that are good that will protect our country and the freedom we all enjoy in america. i believe -- and i gave those 24 years in public service because i believe there's a difference between good ideas and bad ideas. it's sort of the war between good and evil. i never thought of the people i served with as good and evil, but the ideas were, and so this book is to try to bring light and clarity to a number of different situations. one of them -- this goes to your question about republicans. and that is, the republicans have -- like karl rove and others, "the wall street journal" editorial pain say no conservative can get elected to the u.s. senate.

look at todd akin. the point of the matter is, i was a reagan conservative for 12 years in the state house and 12 years in the u.s. congress. never pretended to be anything different than a reagan conservative. and so i was re-elected with great re-election numbers. so if i'm an example, anybody who is a conservative or christian that wants to run for office, i'm an example that you can get elected. second of all, where they took that then is in -- this is why firing back is relevant and interesting reading, quick read and that is you go to a place like mississippi and the senate leader palestine mississippi is putting money into the primary race in order to pick the candidate they want. and so i'm saying, that's not a good idea. one, you're wasting money early. you shouldn't use republican money against republicans. you should use it in the general election. second of all, think about. i say you're a republican in mississippi and you're not backing the guy that the establishment wants.

you're going to be irritated and not want to work for the party because the big guys in washington that jumped in and said we don't want your vote and elections. we don't want primary elections. we want selections and we're smart enough to know who you should elect and you're not. i think that's terrible strategy. a waste of money, insulting to the grandsonroots, and so i -- the grassroots and i stand against that. >> host: you mentioned karl rove, a voice calling for you to step out of the race. among those conservatives, those republicans who had called for you to step away, who is most surprising to you? >> guest: well, let me say that what happened was, first, the liberal media jumped on this thing. blew it out of proportion to the point they were saying i said thing is clearly didn't say. and it's a method of taking something someone says and misunderstanding it or misinterpreting it and then creating a big sense of everybody being angry about and it, and don't you think this and

that. so that what happened. the republicans were afraid of that whole situation and the republican establishment basically didn't just abandon me in the battlefield, they came and tried to destroy us. that's all in "firing back." i'm just butting the truth on the table. here's what happened. the conservatives all over the country, and prominent conservatives like newt gym griffin. mike huckabee, tony perkins,'ññ olli north, michelle bachmann, those people came to our defense. so essentially we were fighting a war on two fronts, the republicans and democrats were against us, the conservatives were for us, and ultimately the thing that did us in was comment biz senator mccain saying we don't want him to in the senate. and romney saying akin should step down. the democrats cult the clips, put them together in the last

week of the campaign and they're all the republicans saying we don't want akin and that was really powerful ad that the democrats used. >> and your race going on -- todd akin here to answer your questions, take your economy. s. let's go to derrick in pensacola florida on the line for independents good morning. >> caller: good morning, sir. first i like to tell him we're not all idiots, okay? we understand exactly what you said. no matter how many times you resay it or try to say it, we understand exactly what you said. now, would you -- you continue to say that woman can choose to get pregnant or not if she is raped. this is something that i don't understand why you continue to say this. idiot.

>> guest: i think he made it plain but he ifs not too good at hearing system said women could choose to be pregnant or not. that's when i talk about my comments being taken to absurd it i never said and it never implied it. some people just want to hear something and that's okay but that's not truth. >> host: our line for republicans, from california, scott. good morning. >> caller: hello. >> host: scott, are you with us? >> caller: yes. >> host: go ahead, scott. >> caller: i think it's a great that somebody has the courage to stand up to something to say something that is logical and actually fundamentally considering in the context of experience and knowledge of something -- [inaudible] your comments are correct fundamentally in the context,

you might say -- >> guest: scott, thank you for that. one of the things i try to do in the book, firing back, and you might be surprised in the conclusion, john, you think it's going to be political because i was a congressman for 12 years, but my conclusion is really to all of america, and what i'm trying to talk to is, the people who feel like they're not very big or not very important, they can really do anything but they have this terrible sense that our country is on the wrong track, and i'm trying to encourage those people that you don't even have to be involved in politics to make a big difference in america. and there's all sorts of things you can do with your lives by just following the dream that you have in your heart and doing it the best you can, standing for what is true and right and good and beautiful, and when we do that, as a group of people, the whole nation gets better and it isn't just political thing but what you do with your

family, taking time with your kids, what you do with your wife, relative to your faith or church or place of worship. those things come together to make this country, and that's what want to talk about in the conclusion. so maybe you're not that interested in politics but you care about our country, and this book is written for you. >> host: when you want to talk about some of those issues from an elected office again one day? >> guest: that's quite possible. i just don't know. i've always gone along and just felt like god had something for me to do and i did what seemed logical for many years, and always seemed logical to run for political office because i was interested and i'd studied a whole lot about the founding of america. a lot of great quotes in, firing back, from our founders, and if if you read the quotes you realize america is off track a lot today from where they started and i argue that america was started on the right track and that's why we have been blessed as much as we have. >> host: everfeign on our --

jennifer on from silver springs, maryland. >> caller: good morning. mr. akin. i'm confused. i actually vote democratic and i'm a true conservative person. let me just explain something i'm trying to understand from republicans. i don't think you guys understand the difference between true conservative christopher and fiscal conservatism. republicans stand for fiscal conserve tim which has nothing to do with religion or with god's given rights and i don't understand how they come down on women, telling them what to do with their body, how to function, and telling people how to live their life. if god gave us the right to make choices, who is another man to tell me that it can't make a right choice for me on my family? >> guest: jennifer, that's allege been questioning and if you really want to -- an interesting question, and you say, laws tell people what is right and wrong. somebody put a stop sign up near your house and it is wrong to

not stop your car at the stop sign. so that's the nature of laws. so, on what basis do we make laws? general in america we have a law that says you're not supposed to kill people, but if we're not supposed to kell people, let me ask you this. first of all, is it ever right to take -- intentionally take the life of an innocent person. we think, no, you don't do that in america. we believe god gave us the right to be alive. is it ever right to intentionally take the life of an innocent person. i think no. the second question is this, when a woman is pregnant, what is inside of her? my wife had six c-sections. every time we check it's also baby. no harbor seals or nothing else. so if it's a person inside, then doesn't it make sense that those lives should be protected? and that is my case. it's not that we're trying to project somebody's will on a woman's body. it's respecting human life. and i could add the second part,

the economic side of the question, and that is the bible says you're not supposed to steal and when government take missouri from one person and gives it to another that's a form of stealing. >> host: mavis in florida on our line for independents, mavis, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i would like to say to the congressman, in reference a woman's body, we have a right to decide for ourselves, and the republicans wants you to bring this child into the world and then when it gets here, and the mother, being young or not in a position to take care of that child, they don't want to offer the child food stamps, don't want to feed it, don't want to help it medically, and you say bring a child into the world but you haver no help, and as a man, you don't tell me as a woman what can and cannot do with my body. it's my body.

you be concerned about your house, and i'll be concerned about mine. >> guest: well, that's the same point as the previous caller. what is it that is inside a pregnant woman? is it a child? if it's a child, then i would say the child has the same right to life as everybody else in our society. and that's the question. so, is it the right for a woman to control her own body? of course it is. does that right extend to taking the life of an innocent child? i say, no, that's what makes me pro life. and so also, what the caller said is categorically not true. the people that i know of that are very active in the pro-life area are very generous. they always want to help women that are in trouble. i know omany center in our area, st. louis, where a woman with an unwanted pregnancy is given a place to live, food, a nurturing environment so she can keep her child so to say that people who are pro-life are heartless, want

to have somebody have a child and they can't day take care of it, that's just not true. >> host: we have 15 minutes with senator todd akin, taking your calls and questions this morning. let's go to dave in washington, dc on our line for democrats. dave, good morning. >> caller: good morning. how are you, mr. akin? >> guest: i'm fine, david. the'ing do? >> just great. i'm a doctor, an internist here in d.c., and this is a topic that you really should strongly consider letting go of. i'm sure you have expertise, work that you did before you were in office and work that you're doing now. you're not helping yourself. there are hundreds of variables that go into whether or not a child is going to be born healthy and alive, development, birth weight, strength,

gestation, physical environment, fetal growth, i know you have your five studies and i don't know how familiar you are with scientific research and medical research, but you can find five studies on anything. it has been dish want your audience to hear this -- entirely disproven that there is any relationship between rape and whether or not a child will or will not be born. now, i know -- >> host: mr. akip, what's your response? >> guest: well, look, the doctor certainly knows a lot more about the subject than i do, and as i said, i am familiar with a number of different studies and people that say that they think that the stress is a factor. okay, if it is or isn't, is a said, i'm not living or dying on that point. it was my understanding that stress does affect, but as i said there's people going both ways on that. and i don't think it changes the

overall question philosophically a bit. so if that doctor, dave, is right in what you're saying that stress has -- that's all right with me. i'm not an expert on the subject. >> host: after your statements in 2012, you released a senate ad apologizing for the legitimate rape comments you. said your wife was the only one would told you not to apologize upon reflection you're inclined to agree with her. >> guest: this was a tack kick cal question. the media took this out of proportion, saying things i didn't say. they were saying that you think if a woman is raped she can't get pregnant. i never said that. i edged they could. i had people working on my campaign that were the children of rape. so, we had to politically deal with where we were, and we didn't have enough money to explain the comments, so we felt the best thing to do was some

people had been misinformed about what i said, and to apologize for anybody who was upset about what they had heard, but it wasn't what i had said. that was just a decision whether or not to run that ad, and we thought that was the right thing to do in the campaign. the trouble with doing that is it also is saying that in some way that what you said is wrong, and the only thing that i know of is people question whether stress is part -- has an affect on pregnancy, and that's one that goes back and forth. i've heard doctors argue both ways. so, the question is, do you run the ad or not? all of our folks, except for my wife, said, yeah, you probably need to do the apology one. on the other hand it makes it look like you're guilty and in fact all i was trying to say was essentially i think the life of a child has the right to life. that was it. >> host: line for runs, battle creak, michigan, doug is waiting.

good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'd like to say hi to good gentleman akin. >> guest: hi, doug. how are you doing? >> caller: well, i'm hanging in there. i'm a veteran, i'm disabled, and i'm kind of curious in what type of republican i am now daze because i grew up -- nowdays because i goo up -- well, before he became nixon's -- shook his hand and even knew president bush junior in the air force. shook his hand. and i always consider myself an eisenhower republican. >> guest: right. >> caller: eisenhower was for unions. eisenhower was for a lot of things, strong government, and a large government because he felt that our government was -- with everything we are happening now, as big as we are, we need to

have -- not one person can handle all this. anyway, my point is, i'm for abortions, i don't think they should be taken lightly or be done easily and i believe the husband of, if a woman is married, should be notified that she had one. >> guest: well, doug, i appreciate your being a veteran. i am an army va. i have three sons in the marine corps. i don't know how to explain that. anyway, i think at what i heard you say was that you're basically a moderate republican. i tend to be more like ronald reagan, i think. and that is i believe in a strong defense but i also brief that a lot of problems we have are created by too much government. i i think reagan famously said we have more government than can afford, and i would suggest to you, with the common sense that you sound that you have, if you took a look at the budget of what is happening in this city and how we're spending a trillion dollars a year on a 3

$.5 trillion budget, trillion we don't have, you'd say maybe we have more government than can afford. >> host: darryl from blumfield, indiana, democratic line. good morning. are you with us this morning? we'll go on to nell waiting in white cross, georgia. on our line for independents. nell good, morning. >> caller: good morning. >> guest: hi, nell. >> caller: how are you. >> guest: veil well, thank you. >> caller: i'm fine and blessed. i'm not hearing you now. >> host: go ahead with you question or comment. we can hear you. >> caller: i'm very pro life. i don't believe in abortion. i believe a baby is a baby, before it's born, and i don't believe we have the right to take that life, and you're

you were earlier talking about the kids coming across the border. we should show compassion, we should take care. and these very liberal i guess that's what they're called, people that use -- they don't want prayer, they don't want god or anything but now suddenly the > guest: nell, just talking to you, i heard your heart and the fact you love people and you love children. and you know, it's interesting what you're saying is so in line with what our forefathers did when they set this country up.

they -- to them it was so obvious. it's not obvious anymore but we hold these truths to be self-evident. that means everybody agrees with this idea, that our creator blessed uss with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the reason they listed life first is because if you're dead the liberty and pursuit of happiness does not do you any good. so that basic -- that is basically a foundation of our country, respect for individuals, and the border situation is a very tough question. we also are a nation of laws, and every nation has laws, and the question is do you have wide-open borders so number -- anybody can come, terrorists? that a question. but this respect for each other is something i get into the book "firing back." this is something that it beat up on republicans and democrats about and that is in the political process, what we'll do, we'll target people and say

that joe blow thinks this is and this. we know it's not true but we are trying to run his character down so people won't vote for him. and that's wrong. because we're lying about another person. we're bearing false witness against a neighbor. when we do that, we make the country worse for everybody. and i tried to in "firing back" i talked about how we rap our campaign -- ran our campaign in the senate primary and people were compare me to barack obama. barack obama was the most liberal senators in the u.s. senate and i'm one of the more conservative congressmen. so comparing me to him may be a stretch. so why do we say things.people we know are not true and isn't that destructive to our lives? and i'm challenging people of both parties. what don't we sell our benefits,

what we believe in and let the vote decide. >> host: her two politicians in the republican party are the people who are most aligned with what you're talking about in your book here? who would you support in a 2016 primary. >> guest: the people that supported us in our race -- i mentioned them in "firing back i" consecutive, tea-party type people, and i've had -- i take the republican leadership on some points to task, particularly in the courage to stand up for what we really believe. i don't think we make the country a better country by running away from something we know is wrong or evil. i think that each one of us has to have the courage to say, wait a minute, i love you but that idea you have is horrible. it's no good here's why. and we have to do that and love each other. >> host: shirley is i up next on the line from run ares from new castle, pennsylvania. >> caller: good morning and

thank you for c-span. mr. akin, i just want to say, thank god for people like you, who are willing to stand up and say this is how i feel, this is what the bible says, most importantly. god says that we are not, not to do abortions, we're not to shed innocent lives, and i understand being raped is absolutely, absolutely terrible. terrible. and the person that commits the crime, believe, should be given the full extent of the law. that they don't ever, ever do it again. >> guest: shirley, i think you're absolutely right, and i think that is one of the places where i try to outline in our book "firing back" how can we as just individual it? citizens -- you might be

surprised but as a congressman you still feel pretty helpless in trying to get the country back on track. you can be down here and just year after year feel like your beating your head against the wall to get one little bill passed that sees so common sense. all of us share a certain frustration, and my -- what i'm trying to encourage people is that if we approach things the way shirley is suggesting, we try to do what is right and good and true, we show love for our neighbor, that can have a huge impact on our country. and i've given some examples in the book where people do things -- they aren't plate cat al all haute have tremendous consequences politically. so think about winston churchill reside nanny. a good christian lady. loved the little boy. the parents parents of winston l did not love their son and didn't care about him. but this nanny took care of him and he became a guy that basically brought freedom 0 all of europe. so you can do things that are not political and have huge

political ramifications. that's how i want to encourage people. >> host: georgia is next, jerry, on the line for democrats. >> caller: good morning. >> guest: how are you doing? >> caller: fine, thank you. i just wanted to ask you why are you still referring to women as gals? >> guest: i don't remember saying gals. it's a slang term for women, i suppose. i don't remember using it particularly. why do you ask? >> caller: because it's -- you're supposed to be well traveled and an intelligence man and still referring to women as gals. >> guest: well, don't know that's a reflection of somebody's training or intelligence, but what is your point? >> host: i think we lost the caller. greg washington, dc. on our line for independents. greg, good morning. >> good morning. i just wanted to make a point that many people have already made the point about how you might have scientific ignorance, but the real issue is that your

liege statement is objectionable bass rape is something that cannot at the be dine feed scientifically and it's a social issue and deserves a social definition. so your objection is you're qualifying somebody who has been raped -- you're asking whether somebody has been legitimately raped in a social context as opposed to being a purely scientific question and that's it. >> guest: well, greg, i think you're getting a little finer than i -- i didn't really follow all your reasoning. my point was, i was connecting the idea of stress with the stress that rape brings. now, of course, there are kinds of rapes they call statutory that are not stressful. they may be consensual. i always try to leave that out. again fire like we're kind of beating a dead horse here a little bit, john. the real question is, does that life -- does the person that is conceived in rape have the same right to