VIDEO- Ron Paul: “If it’s an honest rape," go to the emergency room, get "a shot of estrogen.”


Via Raw Story.

I have a few questions for Ron Paul:

WTF is an "honest rape"? There are dishonest ones? Some rapes are more "honest" than others?

So if the trauma is too much for a woman to deal with, a woman who has been raped, and she finally brings herself to, is able to, make a decision about getting an abortion, you'd give the rapist the benefit of the doubt, rather than believing the victim?

And are you saying that a what you might consider to be a promiscuous woman would lie and say she was raped so that she could justify getting an abortion?

Are you suggesting that women are that casual about life-changing decisions like this?

"The people who LIKE abortion"?

"It's a tough one"?

Abortion is about a doctor's "handsome fee"?

Really, Ron Paul?

And where do you get off telling any woman what she can or can't do, what she should or shouldn't do, with her own body, her own life?

Is this what you call "small government"? Because, call me crazy, but your government intrusion into women's reproductive rights isn't exactly hands-off.

He's all yours, GOP. Welcome to him and his "movement", because I, for one, want nothing to do with this radical loon, ever.

"Young voters" take note. Please.

H/t: Shannyn Moore

  • guest

    Those shots of estrogen can throw a woman's hormones off for years. Why wouldn't a woman want to immediately run off and mess up her hormones and endocrine system (and possibly vomit for a day straight) immediately after the trauma of getting raped, even though it's just a security blanket and an action that could very well be unnecessary? Makes a lot of sense.

  • 66Betty

    And, incidentally, it is still legal in this country for a woman to seek and obtain an abortion for whatever her private reasons are. No woman is required to justify her decision, "honest rape" or not. The attitude that she should have to is very much anti-woman.

  • 66Betty

    No. The question is not when life begins. The question is when does a woman lose the right to autonomy over her own body. Any policy that takes that decision away from women and compels a pregnancy against a woman's will is anti-woman. It's about control, not "protecting life."  There are a number of so-called pro-lifers out there who become oddly callous about those lives once they are born, some of them the very people complaining about food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, and public schools.

    Please don't tell me "there is a lot more to the issue than [I'm] giving credit for." I'm very well-versed on this issue, thanks.

  • Some women DO lie about being raped. "who thinks lots of women like to lie about being raped" how the hell did you come up with this conclusion? were you watching the same interview as me?

  • "dis-honest" rape does exist, dont be so naive to believe it doesnt.

    And calm down and stop nit picking, this is an imaginary scenario for  a doctor who hasnt practiced formal medicine in over a decade. Maybe your hospital doesnt have estrogen but maybe mine does.

  • Sorry, what? We couldn't hear you over YOUR OWN YELLING.


  • Anonymous

    What about all his mumbling over whether "life begins at conception"... yes, he's trying to have it all ways, but eventually he's going to have to come down on whether even that 'shot of estrogen' is an early "abortion".
    Is he for the morning after pill or not, for example?

    the whole libertarian pose is inherently full of holes.

  • Durrp

    Except when the baby is a little girl.  Then it's not anit-woman.  Right? 😉  What you fail to see is the argument that the state is charged with the protection of life.  They are supposed to protect your life, for example, if you are being threatened.  So it all goes back to the question of.... when life begins.  I'm not choosing a side, I'm just saying there is a lot more to the issue than you're giving credit for.  Right to life is NOT anti-woman.

  • This comment confirms why I blocked you, Jeff.

    You essentially put the responsibility of perpetuating our Twitter "debate" onto me. Actually it was you who entered my stream, started arguing, and I responded. You continued to tweet me, often, and finally tried to cut me off by saying enough is enough, again, only after you were the one who kept tweeting me.

    In the very same tweet that you suggested the convo should end, you buttoned the tweet with more baiting. I don't use Twitter to argue, especially with people who do what you do: Make false assumptions (about things I never said), persist in beating a dead horse, passive aggressively needle and bait in order to provoke replies.

    Next time you might try listening, reading, understanding, and respecting the person you tweet.

    By the way, you may want to take a look at our TPC guidelines. If you bait our readers in comments the way you did to me on Twitter, you might find yourself deleted. Just a heads up.

  • it's obvious paul is trying to please everyone (he states it in the interview) so he doesn't want his views on the harder issues of abortion to be out (probably cause he'd lose some votes). ron paul also doesn't bring God into it, you do. and people who believe in God are not ignorant stooges. they exercise their free will and have minds just like all other people. stop dehumanizing them. i believe in God too.

  • MND

    The presumption that someone is innocent until proven guilty has nothing to do with it.  People who commit murder are also presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, but this does not mean that we assume someone is feigning being dead.  You are not good at logic, which I'm kind of unsurprised about. 

  • PyotrMihalitch

    What a horrible abuse of statistics. Setting aside the issue of Bayesian probability, which almost certainly dramatically reduces the likelihood of Dr. Paul's grandchildren being victimized, the fact that 1 in for 4 women is raped does not, ipso facto, mean that in a given population of 4 women, one of them is certain to be raped at some point in time. 

    I will not be voting for Dr. Paul this year, but I think it's fairly obvious to any objective and clear-minded individual what he intended to convey with his statements. Here's a hint: it was not that "some rapes are more honest than others."

    I think government has absolutely no business being involved in reproductive decisions, but let's not stoop to the level of misrepresenting others' positions and making specious arguments to discredit them. 

  • Anonymous

    I'm as offended as the rest of you about the odious term "honest rape", but I was equally disgusted by Ron Paul, a DOCTOR, actually suggesting this person just go in to the emergency room and get a shot of estrogen.

    Yeah, like emergency rooms routinely stock shots of estrogen, because people with broken bones and amputations and burns need estrogen.  

    And the likelihood is that it's some poor girl who has a minimum wage + tips job who doesn't have health insurance, so -- just like since Reagan forcing hospitals to take people without insurance, thus forcing them to bill insured patients more to make up the loss -- Ron Paul is just perpetuating a burden he should know better than to recommend.

    How about recommending the victim go to PLANNED PARENTHOOD, you stupid senile fool?

  • 66Betty

    Of course that's what he means. The problem with that is his underlying assumption that women are prone to lying about being raped. The further problem is that no woman should have to justify her reasons for wanting an abortion (or the morning-after pill) by having to prove herself a victim. The whole attitude is anti-woman, and THAT is the issue.

  • Yeah... Focus on minutia, not the incongruity of the #Libertarian Lie of "small" govt, nor the idiocy of a doddering old shit who can't comprehend how a major psychological trauma would mess-up his sputtering timeline Re WHEN it's "okay" for a woman to control THEIR LIFE.

  • Anonymous

    I agree with you GottaLaff on his attitude.
    I just thought in this particular example that he was talking about whether the woman was being honest or lying about being raped.

  • Did you really block me just for arguing this with you?  Sad day, I seriously enjoyed your Twitter commentary.

  • Yes, the meaning of the term is NOT in question. His attitude toward women, rape, abortion is.

  • Anonymous

    Much as I disagree with much of what Ron Paul stands for...I do agree with you that he was referring to whether someone was being honest about being raped or lying.

  • Im not even agreeing with or defending what he said.  Im just saying - he didnt imply that some rapes are "honest" or something.  I really take issue with people twisting meaning of what someone says - especially when that twist is as horrible as implying that ANY rape could in some way be honest. Thats all people.

  • Wow, "honest" rape.

    Sick man.

  • Windmarkbob

    I did volunteer work as a Court Appointed Special Advocate in the Juvenile Court, before I finally couldn't take it anymore because of my lack of intestinal fortitude and inability to cope with the overall hopelessness of it all.  Yep, 1 in 4 girls are sexually assaulted before they're 18, and 1 in 6-7 boys are also sexually assaulted before they're 18.  It's UGLY out there in society, and it all starts in the homes. 

  • Windmarkbob

    Glad to see I'm not the only one who that that was his "obvious" meaning.

  • Windmarkbob

    Not sure I understand the question, but the way I'm reading it they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.  In my prior posts, for clarification, when I used the word intent I was referring specifically to his "intended meaning" of those particular words, "honest rape," and nothing more.

  • Windmarkbob

    LOL - In a one-on-one conversation that's always easy to do.  Unfortunately, I don't think he'll clarify to anyone who, if I'm right, misunderstood his meaning.  Politically speaking, it's probably best if he just move on and not give those words and that topic any more air time associated with him.  Not like he's a candidate with any chance.  He doesn't bother me, but his cultish following seems to be everywhere, and they're effin' scary.

  • If he didn't mean what I thought he meant, then I'm sure he'd like to clarify his remarks... but I'm not holding my breath.

  • Watch the interview.  The sound byte is shocking and honestly he did a shit job of explaining what he was talking about but clearly "honest rape" means if the person is being honest about being raped.  Like not lying about it or accusing someone when it was consensual.  TPC usually takes a pretty honest approach to things but on this one you are clearly twisting what was said...

  • Windmarkbob

    GottaLaff, I don't think his *intent* was to be insensitive or dead wrong.  That would be a pretty silly intent for him to have, wouldn't it?

    But I do agree wholeheartedly about the pi$$-poor choice of words, and I'm convinced his meaning was regarding honest allegation, not honest rape.  Which for a politician it's probably bad to ever publicly concede that some allegations of rape are bogus, since we all want to believe that no one would ever lie about such a thing, even though we all have heard about it happening, and can imagine it happening for various reasons, all bad ones.

  • Windmarkbob

    Ron Paul is rarely coherent.
    I agree that rape is RAPE.
    But, we do have a presumption of innocence in this country that I, for one, am glad of.  Take for example the rape of the woman by the lacrosse team.  Oh, yeah, that wasn't a rape, therefore the allegations weren't honest, therefore, in poorly chosen words, that means it wasn't honestly rape, or an honest rape.  *uggh - they sound bad even when I'm typing them.
    I think his *MEANING* was obvious.  If in fact there was a rape, it was literally a rape, having met the definition, and there is nothing "honest" or "dishonest" about it, it just is, as an act of violence, theft, abuse, assault, etc.  NOBODY, literally nobody will deny that rape is rape.  It is also true that not all reports of rape result from a literal rape, and that was his simple meaning there.  That you say it isn't obvious, well, okay, maybe you missed it the first time around and it wasn't as obvious to you as it was to me.  Assuming that was his meaning, the only valid criticism of his use of those words is that they were poorly chosen because people will attack a meaning that wasn't intended, and any communicator, especially a politician, has the onus of making sure they're understood in the way they mean to be understood.  He blew it. But he didn't mean what you thought he meant.

    MND...I'm sorry, but you're wrong.  To assume the accused is guilty before a trial is human, but bad form, and thank goodness our justice system doesn't work that way.  I don't think that anyone who allows for the possibility that someone will lie about being raped (especially since we all know it has happened) means that they also think *LOTS OF WOMEN LIKE TO LIE ABOUT BEING RAPED.*   You jumped off the deep end with your attempt to quantify it that way.  You're speaking from your emotions and not your brains.  But that's okay, most people do it most of the time, and everyone does it some of the time, so I forgive you.  Gee, ain't I just so wonderful to do that?  😉

  • But was it his "honest" intent, or a "honest" gaffe?

    Sorry, but "The people who like abortion" pretty much says it all. It is all just the typical defamation of  "choice" as 'pro-abortion." 

  •  It's not obvious his intent was otherwise, if you listen to the rest of the piece. He's sitting there, picking and choosing, not following a coherent line of thought. And rape is RAPE - there are no qualifiers. If a man has sexual intercourse with a woman (or vice verse) and the woman did not consent or was in no condition to consent, THAT IS RAPE. If a woman claims to have had non-consensual sexual intercourse and it was in fact consensual, that IS NOT rape. There is no relative measure here.

  • guest

    if the women was saying she was mugged, you wouldn't disbelieve her the way so many people disbelieve women when they say they've been raped. i'd like to hear about "honest muggings" next. there needs to be a SERIOUS switch in the way people approach rape. the blame should not be on the victim. the responsibility to prevent rape should not be on the woman. men do the rape. (granted, a few women do too). why does the victim get ripped to shreds, while we sympathize with the rapist because of having this charge against him.

  • guest

    statistically, 1 in 4 women is raped. so if he has so 2 grandaughters from his 2 daughters, statistics say one of them will be raped.

  • No, I was not saying that at all. I was saying at the very least, it was bad judgment, a terrible choice of words, based on what YOU said, not what he meant. I think his intent was insensitive and dead wrong.

    I wrote that post as a response to content, not based on what could have been a gaffe. I think he meant what he said.

  • MND

    No, if your interpretation is correct, then there's another reasonable criticism of Ron Paul, which is that he's a closet misogynist who thinks lots of women like to lie about being raped.  It's just that that's also a reasonable criticism of you.

  • Windmarkbob

    Yeah, poor choice of words whether you're a politician or not.  I'll agree with that.  However, if we're going to attack a politician on what they said when it's obvious that the intent was otherwise, we're being disingenuous by creating straw men.  It's disappointing to me.

  • I tend to think Piers Morgan is a fatuous self-promoter, but even he looks better than Ron Paul.

    And Mr. Paul, no one is talking about aborting children after 6 months... you and your GOP cronies are using that as a scare tactic. The fact is, you don't want women to have any say in bring a life into the world, because by your belief, God commands it. Well I've got news for you - it's three thousand years later and we're not a bunch of ignorant stooges anymore. We humans can exercise free will and make up our own damned minds!!! And that goes doubly so for women! So take your misogynistic, parochial, misguided views and stuff where grass don't grow!

  • The Twitterverse would disagree.

    This was as bad a choice of words as Mitt's "Corporations are people" and "not concerned about poor people." His intentions may have been dandy, but this phrase was not well-chosen. At all. And that overshadows the rest, unfortunately for him.

  • Windmarkbob

    I think Ron Paul is a TOTAL whack-job, but even I know what he meant by the "honest rape" comment.  There are rapists out there who need to be caught and punished.  There are non-rapists out there who get wrongly accused of rape, whether because of some sick sort of "buyer's remorse" or because someone's sexual indiscretions became known, and rather than deal with how others would treat such libertine behavior, they falsely accuse the one they had consensual sex with of rape so as to try to continue being seen as a wholesome person by people the "victim" wants to maintain that reputation with.  There are reasonable criticisms of Ron Paul.  A lot of them, and a lot of them are biggies.  The use of the term "honest rape" in this context is not one.