The unequivocal core of her comments is correct—as serious, sincere pro-choice advocates admit. Cases of rape resulting in pregnancy are tragic and extremely rare. Vega hasn't voiced support for or opposition to an exception in those cases. She should clarify her stance.
Her "Akin-esque" comments are extremely equivocal and given the context sound like an attempt to talk down someone (obviously disingenuously) presenting themselves as a no-exceptions crusader.
Q: "I've actually heard that it's harder for a woman to get pregnant if she's been raped. Have you heard that?"
A: "Well, maybe because there's so much going on in the body. I don't know. I haven't, you know, seen any studies. But if I'm processing what you're saying, it wouldn't surprise me. Because it's not something that's happening organically. You're forcing it. The individual, the male, is doing it as quickly — it's not like, you know — and so I can see why there is truth to that. It's unfortunate."
She also benefits from not being a man like Akin was. Her response to the press, "I'm a mother of two, I'm fully aware of how women get pregnant." pretty much ends the discussion.
Don't expect Vega will have too much trouble winning a Republican district in November. Not a particularly remarkable candidate, though. Still Likely R.
As the article notes:
The only exception for which she voiced support was "rare instances where the life of the mother is at risk, and doctors have taken every measure to save the lives of both the mother and her unborn child."
She did not explicitly say she was against a rape exception, but in light of the above comment it can reasonably be inferred that she is against one, unless/until she clarifies it.
Also, although the district does have a slightly R Cook PVI, it really is a swing district; Biden and Spanberger both won by narrow margins in 2020.
