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.’


Related Stories:

Anonymous Hacks Neo-Nazis, Finds Ron Paul

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


Photo from Gage Skimore via flickr.


Steven W.
Steven W.6 years ago

I remember from the Republican debates Ron Paul say he was personally against abortion. His solution - get the federal government out of this area which is an area States are supposed to regulate as the people of each state see fit. In other words, women in Texas would likely not have the rights women in California would have. Or maybe they would. After all, so few people take part in our distant political process. Perhaps if their voices meant more and the struggle was close to home, they would stand up for their rights. My point here is, it does not really matter very much about his personal opinion since his Libertarian principles dictate that he would never cause any federal law concerning abortion.

Loo Samantha
Loo sam6 years ago


Pavanne H.
Pavanne H.6 years ago

I don't really know anything about him, but will do some research. But, just from what he said off the top is insulting and degrading to women to have to PROVE anything. Are there women out there who will cry rape when they weren't, yes. But, for the majority of women when they report a rape it is because there was one. And allowing the use of emergency contraception is better than an "estrogen" shot. Get into the 21st century please.

Cecile F.
Cecile F6 years ago

As a retired nurse I'm appalled by Ron Paul. I feel sorry for any woman that saw him as a patient. Can you image what his bedside manner is like? How about an 'Honest Doctor' Ron Paul' saying you don't like or respect women? These RWRepubTeaBaggers are getting on my last nerve.

Seth E.
Seth E6 years ago

Leave it to the Ron Paul apologists to be out of touch with facts and reality.

The point about the "honest" vs. "dishonest" rape hasn't been lost. The point is that by using that terminology, there is an assumption that a victim could be lying and must therefore prove that she really was a victim, and to require this is beyond repulsive when she's already had to deal with something as horrendous as a rape.

Also, an estrogen shot to prevent conception is a technique that has not been used in the medical community in the US for many years now, so "Dr." Paul doesn't appear to have even kept his brain wrapped around how his own field of medicine is practiced anymore.

The system is not "rigged" to allow only two parties; it has simply evolved so that third parties tend to be irrelevant because all they end up doing is splitting the vote for one of the major parties, making it impossible to beat the other major party in an election. Look at some of the countries with three or more significant parties, and you'll see how messy their elections can get.

Finally, a refresher on the Constitution might be in order. States are allowed, under the 10th Amendment, to enact laws when there is no federal legislation for any given issue, but this does not mean that all laws are only enacted at the state level, and the 14th Amendment affirms that when federal law is enacted, it overrides any state laws on that issue.

Dan L.
Dan L.6 years ago

Nancy P. - Wow, you really lost me at legislation to ban the video taping torturing animals. The federal government does not have the authority do so and is why Ron Paul voted against it. It is up to a states to ban something like that. There is no freedom to rape women in the libertarian vision as well. Individual liberty is the core value of libertarianism. So forcing someone to engage in a sexual act against one's will is what you want to believe is individual liberty. You cannot violate someone else's liberty for sake of engaging in your own liberty. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, he is a republican. He left the republican party after Reagan failed to live up to conservative values. He returned to the GOP because the system was engineered (rigged) to only allow two parties.

Dan L.
Dan L.6 years ago

"Honest rape" was in response to whether Dr. Ron Paul's view on abortion allowed for extenuating circumstances. A "dishonest rape" is where a person claims to have been raped in order to get a free abortion. Dr. Ron Paul also stated that he had no issue with administering a shot of estrogen within the window of conception (7-10 days) to prevent fertilization. If you're were confused by what Dr. Ron Paul meant by "honest rape" then maybe you should view the statement in its entire context. So recap for you slower than normal people. A "honest rape" is when a rape actually occurred. I know its impossible for some of you to wrap your brain around the idea that someone would actually lie to get free healthcare but it does happen.

Nancy P.
Nancy P6 years ago

I've been against Ron Paul ever since he was one of two Congress persons to vote against making animal torture videos illegal. Crush videos are pornography in which small animals such as kittens and puppies are crushed to death in pornographic acts. He thought this should be legal. Fortunately he was vastly outnumbered in the vote. Freedom to rape women and torture animals? If that's the libertarian vision, it's a sick one.

LM Small
Ann Khorite7 years ago

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.

Mark S.
Mark S.7 years ago

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.