Rachel Wiener adds:

In a video posted on Akin’s website, Burrell elaborates, saying she regrets her abortion. "Todd is advocating for women so that women don’t have to do what I’ve had to do, and that’s grieve every year," she says. It’s not clear whether her pregnancy was the result of rape. 

Meanwhile, Washington congressional candidate John Koster is the latest Republican to venture out on thin ice:

"Incest is so rare, I mean it's so rare. But the rape thing…you know I know a woman who was raped and kept her child but gave it up for adoption, she doesn’t regret it. In fact, she’s a big pro-life proponent…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 the consequence of this crime, how does that make it better? You know what I mean?"

Margaret Hartmann tallies it up:

Fortunately for Koster, his comments aren't likely to cause as big a controversy as other Republicans candidates' remarks on the subject. "Rape thing," may be flippant, but it pales in comparison to Todd Akin's "legitimate rape," Richard Mourdock's belief that pregnancy from rape, "is something that God intended to happen," or Tom Smith's contention that the situation is similar to "Having a baby out of wedlock."

New polling shows Mourdock's campaign in a freefall from his rape comments. Weigel weighs in:

[Attacks against Republicans on their rejection of rape exceptions] work because voters are also skittish about the question of when life begins. Just this week, a national YouGov poll asked Americans when abortion should be legal. A full 67 percent favored some restrictions or total restrictions. A full 74 percent wanted to keep it legal in cases of rape or incest. Republicans are better off when then this distinction never gets explored.

Ed Kilgore makes a keen observation about the evolving debate over abortion: