It’s repugnant because the logical conclusion to his *()&# notion is that if a woman is pregnant, she was not legitimately raped. The syllogistic expression would be simple: If a woman’s body fights off pregnancy in the case of rape, and a woman is pregnant, then she cannot have been raped.
He said legitimate meaning forcible (later clarified). AND the next sentence for anyone who actually listened to the interview was, “but let’s assume maybe that didn’t work...” So he does NOT say a woman CANNOT get pregnant from a forcible rape. As always the left heard something they knew they could use against the pro-life side. And as always our side, in their cowardice piled on.
Was he wrong about the science? I believe he was. Was he repugnant? I think not. He does not believe an infant should pay with it’s life for the sins of it’s father. If you ask the question THAT way how many people would agree?