Ron Paul, What Exactly Is An "Honest Rape"

Just in case there was any question, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is no friend to women. The latest evidence came during an interview on CNN where he told Piers Morgan that only in cases of “honest rape” would he consider abortion acceptable, and even then, he would just advise the woman to go to the emergency room for “a shot of estrogen.”

“Honest rape.” So, where do we begin?

I guess I would start by asking Paul to follow-up on just what exactly constitutes an “honest” rape. What kind of evidence would we need to show a lack of consent? Does a woman need to have signs she resisted? How much resistance counts before a rape goes from being “fraudulent” to being “honest”? Can spousal rape ever be “honest”? What about other forms of familial rape? What exactly is the bright line here?

Assuming we get some clarity from Paul on the parameters of “honest” rape, I’ve got a few logistical questions also. I’m assuming part of the investigation into whether or not a rape was “honest” would include an exam to collect evidence to support or negate the claim — a rape kit. We will need to have this evidence processed and processed QUICKLY in order to make sure we get that shot of estrogen in time. In order for that to happen, I’m assuming Paul is going to make sure that local law enforcement is fully funded and staffed to process those rape kits. How will this expansion of law enforcement be funded? And what about those women who don’t live in close proximity to a hospital or clinic? Do we have law enforcement come to them with doctors?

About that shot of estrogen. What exactly is this shot of estrogen supposed to do? Paul is purportedly an ob/gyn, so he must know a shot of estrogen won’t do a thing to prevent fertilization and implantation. So what’s that shot for?

I’m not sure what is the most dangerous aspect to come from Paul’s statements here: that his platform is built on a criminal disdain of women or that as a doctor he doesn’t know his ear from his elbow.

Take Action: Tell Ron Paul victims of rape are not ‘dishonest.’

Ron Paul: Immigration Won’t Be Solved By Barbed Wire, Guns

Read more: 2012 election, abortion, estrogen, rape culture, Ron Paul

Photo from Gage Skimore via flickr.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Ann K.

1:00PM PDT on Mar 19, 2012

MARK S: sexist much? "knickers in a twist," really?

By the way -- we understand perfectly well what Ron Paul is saying and we hate it.

You're not helping him.

send a green star

Mark S.

6:40PM PDT on Mar 18, 2012

I think you guys may be getting your knickers in a twist over semantics. Haven't heard the interview but I'm willing to bet Ron is saying if a woman has ACTUALLY been raped (i.e. "has honestly been raped and isn't just making it up") , then he considers abortion acceptable - as opposed to a woman who may have had an accident with a stranger and doesn't want to go through with a pregnancy. Given there's no such thing as an honest or dishonest rape as rape is an inanimate verb which, though immoral, has no moral life itself.

9:16AM PDT on Mar 18, 2012

Ron Paul is supposedly "Libertarian," and supposedly puts personal liberty as his highest priority.

Not true. He believes in liberty only for 49% of the population -- the men.

For women, he believes in forced childbirth. There's a word for a woman forced to be pregnant against her will, and that word is not "citizen." It is SLAVE.

Ron Paul, Libertarian? Ha! for less than half the country, maybe. Remember, if women are forced to have unwanted children, men are forced to support those unwanted children. Not much liberty there, either, Mr. Paul, is there?

William B.

7:33AM PDT on Mar 15, 2012

‘Honest Rape’, wow, show how despicable and moronic the Republicans really are!

Past Member .

6:42PM PDT on Mar 14, 2012

Who is this crazy man who could even use a phrase like "honest rape"?

criss S.

7:14PM PDT on Mar 13, 2012

Thank You.

Seth E.

12:07AM PST on Mar 1, 2012

continued from previous post:

Aside from that, what about Obama could you possibly interpret as him NOT respecting women? The policies he's supported that allow them healthcare and equal pay? The fact that he has an extremely functional family with a wife and two daughters?

How exactly is he trying to bully? Telling others to respect the rights of individual people, even if that means having to get laws passed to keep them in line? If you think it's wrong to stand up to corporations and other institutions, such as religions, that try to impose on individuals, then whose side are you on? The people? Or the powerful organizations?

I'm not even going to touch the "no-fly zone" thing because I have a feeling it's something you invented.

12:06AM PST on Mar 1, 2012

continued from previous post:

Last, and honestly, least, Sandy E., First, the word is "climate", not "climent", but since I got what you meant, even if you didn't spell it right, don't forget that the sword swings both ways; how about the climate during the previous administration, under Bush? You know, the one that got us into the financial mess by deregulating the hell out of most industries so that they could be operated strictly for the profit of those controlling them and not in the interests of their customers or the public, ultimately leading to the collapse that actually started before Obama ever took office. The one that got us into the first two of those wars, which were, incidentally, run absurdly less efficiently than the third, which Obama had wrapped up within weeks. The one that erased a budget surplus greater than any this country has seen, running it down to a budget deficit that only continued to decline under Obama because spending had to increase, to compensate for the crisis Bush got us into, including spending on the bailouts and social programs to help all the people who lost jobs, not to mention the spending to continue the wars, and because revenue fell when so many people lost their jobs, no longer having income to tax, and because the wealthiest were still allowed to keep the extra wealth Bush granted them while he was in office.

Aside from that, what about Obama could you possibly interpret as him NOT respecting women? The policies he's suppo

12:04AM PST on Mar 1, 2012

continued from previous post:

Funny thing about you allegation of venom is that some of the most vile of it comes from those supporting your boy, Ron Paul. Then again, if he's serious about half his policies, a simple analysis of their potential results would show him to be a horribly malicious person. If you think I'm simply calling him names, then you should probably read my arguments against him again.

Last, and honestly, least, Sandy E., First, the word is "climate", not "climent", but since I got what you meant, even if you didn't spell it right, don't forget that the sword swings both ways; how about the climate during the previous administration, under Bush? You know, the one that got us into the financial mess by deregulating the hell out of most industries so that they could be operated strictly for the profit of those controlling them and not in the interests of their customers or the public, ultimately leading to the collapse that actually started before Obama ever took office. The one that got us into the first two of those wars, which were, incidentally, run absurdly less efficiently than the third, which Obama had wrapped up within weeks. The one that erased a budget surplus greater than any this country has seen, running it down to a budget deficit that only continued to decline under Obama because spending had to increase, to compensate for the crisis Bush got us into, including spending on the bailouts and social programs to help all the people who lost

12:03AM PST on Mar 1, 2012

continued from previous post:

By the way, the estrogen shot was still never "proven" to be accurate on Paul's part. For one, offering a shot instead of a pill to a rape victim might as well be raping them all over again. Additionally, under the Yuzpe Regimen, doctors used to administer both estrogen AND progesterone, not estrogen alone, but for some time now, this method has been changed to just progesterone because it is more effective and has fewer side effects than the combination of the two. Therefore, the estrogen shot he suggested treads the line between outdated and a load of crap. If anyone needs to apologize about the estrogen shot aspect of the story, it's Ron Paul, not the writer of this article.

Also, which DOE is it you would like to eliminate? Energy? Education? Or the one Rick Perry forgot? Both DOEs serve legitimate purposes, and to think eliminating them would solve problems is absolutely moronic. Cutting either would create far more problems with corporate interference into both that are currently held at bay by the government oversight these agencies provide, and this far outweighs any gains that could be made by eliminating them to cut costs.

If you want to enslave a population, take away their right to public education, which makes it only available to those who can afford it. China is a great example of this where there is a massive underclass of people stuck in poverty while their wealthier citizens are the ones prospering.

Funny thing about