Mitt Romney has responded at length to the furor over his comments at a fundraiser about the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income tax and see themselves as "victims." "My job is not to worry about those people," Romney said in the video.

The comments were "not elegantly stated," and were spoken "off the cuff," Romney acknowledged Monday night in a hastily convened press availability with reporters. But he also doubled down on the outlook he espoused in the video, charging that "the president's approach is attractive to people who are not paying taxes."

The comments from the fundraiser were recorded surreptitiously, and obtained by David Corn of the liberal magazine Mother Jones. Corn appeared Monday night on Hardball and The Rachel Maddow Show, where he revealed further details about the video.

Here are Romney's extended comments about the controversy tonight, footage of which was broadcast on The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell (you can watch them above):

I'm talking about the political process of drawing people into my campaign. Of course, individuals are going to take more responsibility for their life. My campaign is about helping people take responsibility, and becoming employed again, particularly those that done have work. This whole campaign is focused on getting people jobs again, putting people back to work. This is ultimately a question about direction for the country. Do you believe in a government-centered society, that provides more and more benefits? Or do you believe instead in a free enterprise society where people are able how to pursue their dreams? I believe the latter will help more people get good jobs. This is a campaign, fundamentally, about to help the middle class in America, and how to bring people out of poverty into the middle class. And we've seen the results of the last three, four years, and it has not worked. My approach will get 12 million new jobs and rising take-home pay.

Asked again about the comments, and whether he was giving a different message to funders than to ordinary voters, Romney replied:

It was not elegantly stated, let me put it that way. I was speaking off the cuff, in response to a question, and I'm sure I could state it more clearly and in a more effective way than I did in a setting like that. And so I'm sure I'll point that out as time goes on. But we don't even have the question given the snippet there, or the full response. And I hope the person who has the video will put out the full material. But it's a message which I'm gonna carry, which is, look, the president's approach is attractive to people who are not paying taxes, because frankly my discussion about lowering taxes isn't as attractive to them, and therefore I'm not likely to draw them into my campaign as effectively as those who are in  the middle. This is really a discussion about the political process of winning an election. And of course I want to help all Americans, all Americans have a bright and prosperous future. And I'm convinced that the president's approach has not done that.

...

This is the same message that I give to people, which is that we have a very different approach, the president and I, between a government-dominated society and a society driven by free people pursuing their dreams.

"I think what we just saw was part one of Mitt Romney's concession speech of defeat in this campaign," said O'Donnell. "And we will see the rest on election night."

Rep. Todd Akin has now made three separate radio appearances and cut a 30-second ad to apologize for his comments about rape. And yet, he still appears determined to hold onto that distinction between "legitimate rape" and other types of rape that helped get him in so much trouble in the first place. And among social conservatives, he’s far from alone.

Asked Monday by Mike Huckabee whether by “legitimate rape” he might have meant “forcible rape,” Akin grasped the lifeline with both hands. “I was talking about forcible rape,” he said. “I used the wrong word.” In other words, Akin still wants to distinguish between a violent rape and, say, a drunken date rape. And Huckabee seemed eager to support that distinction.

It’s not just them. Rep. Ron Paul recently used an equally peculiar phrase to get at the same idea. If Paul’s daughter or grand-daughter were raped, CNN’s Piers Morgan asked him in February, would he force her to have the child? “No, if it’s an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room,” the Texas lawmaker replied (itals ours).

So: “Legitimate rape,” “forcible rape,” “honest rape”—what’s going on here?  What’s with this strange GOP obsession with  parsing different categories of rape, and implying that some count more than others?

It all goes back to abortion, of course and the relentless conservative drive in recent years to limit exceptions to abortion restrictions—in this case by flat-out redefining rape.

Since the 1976 Hyde Amendment, restrictions on the use of federal dollars to pay for abortions have included exceptions for women who got pregnant via rape or incest. But last year, a Republican bill—co-sponsored by Rep. Paul Ryan and called a top priority by Speaker John Boehner—aimed to narrow the rape exception to “forcible rape.” As Mother Jones explained at the time:

This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion.

Anti-abortion groups left little doubt about their position, arguing that the law had never been interpreted to count statutory rape as rape. “We do not believe that the Hyde Amendment has ever been construed to permit federal funding of abortion based merely on the youth of the mother (“statutory rape”),” Douglas Johnson, of the National Right to Life Committee told LifeNews.com.

In other words, statutory rape shouldn't count as real rape. The new “forcible rape” language was only needed, Johnson said, to prevent pro-choice groups from trying to widen the definition of rape so that it would now apply to statutory rape.

But it’s not only about statutory rape. In that February CNN interview, Paul went on to say that though victims of “honest rape” should have access to emergency contraceptive services, "if you talk about somebody coming in and they say, 'Well, I was raped and I'm seven months pregnant and I don't want to have anything to do with it,' it's a little bit different story."

In other words, distinguishing between “honest rape” and other types of rape is necessary because women lie about rape. So only those who immediately report the crime should be allowed to terminate their pregnancies. In reality, of course, experts say it’s extremely common for women not to immediately report a rape, out of a combination of factors including trauma, shame, and fear of one’s attacker.  

In fact, if the Republican Party had its way, the forcible rape debate would be moot, because there just wouldn't be any exceptions to abortion restrictions. In the run-up to its Tampa convention, the party this week passed a “Human Life Amendment”—just as it did in 2004 and 2008—which opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest. 

Rep. Todd Akin confirmed Tuesday afternoon that he’s staying in the race for the Senate from Missouri, and appeared to tailor his pitch to conservative abortion foes.

"We are going to continue with this race for the United States Senate," the embattled lawmaker told Mike Huckabee in a radio interview just hours before the 5pm deadline for Republicans to be able to easily replace him on the ballot.

Since Akin said on Sunday that it’s rare for women to get pregnant via “legitimate rape,” igniting a firestorm of criticism, the Republican Party has tried to force him from the race, saying it would cut off money and support. Though he had told Sean Hannity Monday he planned on staying in, many political observers expected him to think again. 

“I believe, as I took a look at this race, that what we’re doing here is standing on a principle about what America is,” Akin said. “We’re missing the heart of what makes America. And a deep respect for life—that’s underlying everything.”

He added: “It’s deeply ingrained that a respect for human beings and a respect for life is just part of our culture.”

Though he apologized again for his comments Sunday, Akin also appeared to downplay them. “I misspoke one word in one sentence on one day,” he said. “It does seem like a little bit of an over-reaction.”

Akin noted a new poll showing him maintaining a narrow lead over his Democratic opponent, Sen. Claire McCaskill. And he shrugged off the loss of support from the GOP, saying he’s getting backing from ordinary Americans receptive to his pro-life message.

“What we’re seeing right now is a tremendous outpouring of support from a whole lot of regular small people,” Akin said. “There is an active and engaged and committed grassroots movement to stand up for what America is about. We believe that by taking this stand, this is going to strengthen this country.”

In a separate interview afterwards with Tea Party activist Dana Loesch, Akin said his misstep was one of word choice. "Misplacing the word legitimate ... that was the problem," he said, adding that he meant to refer to what he called "false rapes." 

Christian Gooden / AP

Rep. Todd Akin is apologizing for Sunday's outrageous comments about rape, but saying he plans to stay in the race for the U.S. Senate.

"I'm not a quitter," Akin said on Mike Huckabee's radio show Monday afternoon. 

"We all make mistakes," Akin added. "The many people who supported me know that when you make a mistake what you need to do is say you're sorry." 

Akin called his comments a "very very serious error," but said he was still the best Republican to run for the U.S. Senate. “I feel just as strongly as ever that my background and ability will be a big asset in replacing Claire McCaskill,” he said, adding: “I dont know if I’m the only person in public office whos suffered from foot-in-mouth disease here.”

At issue is a response Akin gave during a local TV interview Sunday, when he was asked whether abortion should be legal in the case of rape. "From what I understand from doctors that's really rare," Akin said. "If it's a legitimate rape, uh, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." 

In the interview with Huckabee Monday, Akin backtracked from that view. “I also know that people do become pregnant from rape," he said. "It does happen, and it is terrible.”

Several prominent Republicans, including Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, have called on Akin to quit the race. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who chairs the GOP's Senate campaign committee, said in a statement that Akin "should carefully consider what is best for him" and the party.

In a press conference Monday afternoon, Preisdent Obama' called Akin's comments "offensive."

"Rape is rape," Obama said. "The idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we're talking about doesn’t make sense to the American people. It certainly doesn’t make sense to me."

Rose Gordon Sala contributed reporting

The Obama campaign is jumping on what it calls an "awkward moment" from Sunday night's 60 Minutes joint interview of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

Trying to help explain why the richest Americans wouldn't pay a lower rate under Romney's plan, Ryan said: 

What we're saying is take away the tax shelters that are uniquely enjoyed by people in the top tax brackets so they can't shelter as much money from taxation, should lower tax rates for everybody to make America more competitive.

(Watch the moment above.)

That's not a proposal that Romney appears to have mentioned before. And it's a subject the former Massachusetts governor might prefer to avoid, since he famously has money parked in several locations known as tax shelters, including Switzerland and the Cayman Islands. 

Team Obama wasted no time in highlighting Ryan's comment. It sent out video of Ryan's comment Sunday night, along with a statement saying:

In an awkward moment on “60 Minutes” tonight, Paul Ryan said that he wants to eliminate tax shelters “that are uniquely enjoyed by people in the top tax brackets.” But Mitt Romney has investments in foreign tax havens that span the globe, leading experts to question whether Romney’s avoided paying U.S. taxes. While we can’t know for certain if he’s using his offshore accounts and investments to avoid paying his fair share in taxes or hedge against the dollar until he releases additional tax returns, we do know that Romney approved the use of tax shelters as head of Marriott’s audit committee. Tax experts have noted that Romney’s role with these abusive tax shelters represent “a key troubling public manifestation of Romney's apparent insensitivity to tax obligations.”

And it helpfully included links to several stories reporting on Romney's approval of the Marriott tax shelter plan.

No word yet on whether Romney agrees with Ryan's proposal.

Mitt Romney introduces Rep. Paul Ryan as his runningmate.

In picking Rep. Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney has taken a risk. The Wisconsin lawmaker has emerged in recent years as the ideological standard-bearer for his party, and in particular for its radical push to shrink the size of government. "To envisage what Republicans would do if they win in November, the person to understand is not necessarily Romney, who has been a policy cipher all his public life," Ryan Lizza wrote in The New Yorker  last week. "The person to understand is Paul Ryan."

Here are 5 things you should know about Romney's new running mate:

• The Ryan budget, "The Path to Prosperity," would end Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher program, slash food stamps for struggling Americans, and turn Medicaid over to the states. Virtually the entire GOP, including Romney, have signed onto the plan as a centerpiece of the party's legislative agenda.

• Ryan's plan also would further tilt the tax system toward the rich. He'd extend the Bush tax cuts for the richest 2 percent, but not President Obama’s cuts for those who earn the least. Here's a chart, compiled by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which shows the skewed distribution:

• Ryan also supports privatizing Social Security and turning it over to Wall Street. Had the plan been in effect during the 2008 financial crisis, millions of seniors' benefits would likely have been decimated.

• The economy suffers from a lack of demand, and by slashing spending, Ryan's plan would worsen the problem. It would result in over 4 million lost jobs over the next 2 years, according to a study by the Economic Policy Institute.

• Though he has tried to deny her influence recently, Ryan has claimed to be a devotee of the radical libertarian writer Ayn Rand. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” he once said at a Washington event in Rand's honor. “I give out ‘Atlas Shrugged’ as Christmas presents, and I make all my interns read it. Well… I try to make my interns read it.” Rand's philosophy centers on the notion that selfishness in the pursuit of profit is a virtue and that altruism is "evil," as she put it.

Looking for one piece of writing that captures what Ryan's all about? Read this masterful profile by New York magazine's Jonathan Chait, "The Legendary Paul Ryan."

The Washington Post / Getty Images

The Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable care Act—the most significant domestic policy accomplishment of President Obama's tenure—by a vote of 5-4.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer voted to uphold the health care law's individual mandate as a tax, requiring almost all Americans to buy health insurance. Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy voted to strike it down.

From SCOTUSblog:

The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read. 

In a key section, the ruling notes: 

Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.

In other words, the court ruled that the fact that the writers of the law called it a mandate rather than a tax is irrelevant, since it functions like a tax. No one questions Congress's power to impose a tax. 

SCOTUSblog's Tom Goldstein expanded on that in an interview with MSNBC. "As a technical matter you don’t have to buy health insurance if you’re willing to pay the tax," Goldstein said. "You have to comply with the tax, it’s not an optional tax. The Supreme Court has said …the mandate is upheld under the taxing power and there is still a consequence for not complying with the mandate. The court didn’t throw out the mandate piece of this."

Goldstein suggested the ruling will likely be seen broadly as legitimate and impartial. "The conservative Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the President's health care law," he said. "The public can have a lot of confidence in this result."

As TPM noted at the time, Roberts may have tipped his hand that he took this view of the mandate during oral arguments in March. “The idea that the mandate is something separate from whether you want to call it a penalty or tax just doesn’t seem to make much sense,” he declared at that time. “It’s a command. A mandate is a command. If there is nothing behind the command, it’s sort of, well what happens if you don’t file the mandate? And the answer is nothing. It seems very artificial to separate the punishment from the crime. … Why would you have a requirement that is completely toothless? You know, buy insurance or else. Or else what? Or else nothing.”

In a tweet, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, called the ruling a "victory for the American people," adding that "millions of American families and children will have certainty of health care benefits + affordable care."

And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on the Senate floor: "No longer will Americans live in fear of losing their health insurance because they lose a job. No longer will tens of millions of Americans rely on emergency room care or go without care entirely because they have no insurance at all."

Meanwhile, RNC chair Reince Priebus tweeted: "Just elect Romney. We need full repeal." And Speaker John Boehner echoed that, saying in a statement that the ruling "underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety."

Republicans said the House would vote the week of July 9th on repealing the law. Mitt Romney has also said he'd repeal the law if elected.

The law's supporters may not want to celebrate too hard just yet. Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington, questioned whether the law can survive given that the court limited the federal government's power to terminate Medicaid funds, effectively allowing states that oppose the law to opt out of it. 

"This creates a ripple effect," Turley said on MSNBC. "A majority of states oppose this law. If they had an ability to opt out, they would. I don't see how the health care law could survive if the pool is reduced by that amount. You need to force young people to buy health insurance since they're not going to get sick as often and (having them in the pool) makes it more affordable."

"The law is precarious in terms of staying an efficient system and being affordable," Turley added.

Twenty-six states, most of them Republican leaning, sued to strike down the law, and many would presumably choose to opt out if allowed to do so.

If they did, they would likely have support from the GOP presidential nominee. A spokesman for the RNC, Sean Spicer, said Romney has made it clear that “states should do what’s best for their individual  states.”

It's also worth noting that the court rejected the administration's argument that regulating inactivity falls under Congress's power under the Commerce Clause, thereby severely limiting the future scope of Congress's regulatory authority. In the majority opinion, Roberts wrote"

As expansive as our cases construing the scope of the commerce power have been, they all have one thing in common: They uniformly describe the power as reaching “activity.” 

The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Every day individuals do not do an infinite number of things. In some cases they decide not to do something; in others they simply fail to do it. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him. 

That narrowing of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause could have implications for future cases.