Associated Press
Ron Paul sat down with CNN's Piers Morgan the other day, and the interview led to this rather remarkable exchange:
MORGAN: You have two daughters. You have many granddaughters. If one of them was raped -- and I accept it's a very unlikely thing to happen -- but if they were, would you honestly look at them in the eye and say they had to have that child if they were impregnated?
PAUL: No. If it's an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room. I would give them a shot of estrogen....
There is, of course, a problem with the question itself. Morgan is working under the assumption that the daughters and granddaughters of prominent politicians are "unlikely" to face a sexual attacker. Reality doesn't work that way.
But it's Paul's response that's truly offensive. Victims of an "honest rape" should be allowed to go to the emergency room, but everyone else -- presumably victims of dishonest rape? -- should expect to have their reproductive rights curtailed under Ron Paul's vision of government power.
Indeed, the Texas Republican went on to say in the same interview, "If you talk about somebody coming in and they say, 'Well, I was raped and I'm seven months pregnant and I don't want to have anything to do with it,' it's a little bit different story."
I'll look forward to Paul or his campaign elaborating on what, exactly, "honest rape" refers to, but the implication seems to be that American women are not to be trusted when it comes to rape claims. In context, "honest rape" seems to be, in Paul's mind, the equivalent of "actual rape." Those who qualify as rape victims under this Republican's standards would be eligible for emergency contraception; those who failed to meet his standards would not. Who gets to decide? Apparently, Paul and other policymakers.
Paul, a staunch of opponent of abortion rights, is pushing a line that's tragically common on the right: women's claims are not to be taken at face value, and it's up to government to draw the lines.
That Paul claims fealty to libertarian ideals makes this that much more incomprehensible.
Leave a Comment:
People who believe that women will go through 7 months of a pregnancy for funsies and then decide they want an abortion so that they can fit back into their bikini in time for beach season are so breathtakingly misogynist that they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near women, much less get to dictate public policy surrounding their medical care.
Agreed. Late-term abortions happen to people who opted not to HAVE abortions because they chose to KEEP their baby. A late-term abortion is a heart-wrenching, horrible thing to face for people who had genuinely wanted to have a child, but for certain reasons can't have the baby. It's not a flippant, "You know what? I've changed my mind. I don't feel like being a parent anymore" or "Oops! My condom didn't work and I'm just now deciding I don't want a kid" sort of decision.
It breaks my heart that people who are genuinely LOSING a child, are being made to feel shame over it for the purpose of political debate.
I can't help but believe at the root of the debate is a "women are stupid" or "women can't be trusted" perspective or belief - which on its face is insulting and sexist. This is the only perspective that gets you to thinking there is a continuum defining the trauma or severity of rape, or the assumption that equates the choice to end an abortion is as profound and considered as what to have for dinner. It's beyond insulting.
and by the way, if you really want to make sure that all these babies are born instead of aborted, it would go a long way to take care of the mothers in the meantime, with care, support, accesss to health services, adoption services, contraception, eduaction - the list goes on. If "they" are not interested in supporting both sides of the equation, then STFU!
You're correct of course, Usedtobe. The misogynists know it, which is why they constantly try to steer the discussion to the "when life begins" red herring.
I guess what ever's not "honest rape" is "SURPRISE SEX" to Paul/Republicans.
You're puttings words into Ron Paul's mouth. He never said that. Unfortunately there are women who do do such deplorable things as abort a 7 month old baby for the wrong reasons. He should not be painted as misogynistic just because of other people's bad decisions. I am pro choice, but do believe there needs to be some humbling on the pro choice side to remember that we are talking about the right to take a life.
Really, though, anyone with a penis shouldn't be saying anything about the rights of those with vaginas.
Citations needed.
I guess its an honest rape if Ron Paul, MD, says its an honest rape. IOW, if the woman is beaten to a bloody pulp, then it must be an honest rape. If the woman looks just fine, and was threatened with a knife or a gun, then its a DIS honest rape.
Jessica Lange, even abortion doctors will not abort a 7 month old fetus, "Just because". They are late term abortioners because they know the fetus is defective, genetically unable to live, will live for awhile in pain, etc. The reason they are late term is because it takes months to find out that the fetus is badly deformed and defective. someone that does not want to carry a fetus to term is going to get out of that situation as fast as possible and as cheaply as possible. They aren't sitting around their house saying, "book store, grocery store, abortion, pick up dry cleaning. And I had a 7 month miscarriage (its really easy to scare little kids at the door on Halloween when you explode with blood everywhere). and the after pains were horrible. It was just like delivering a full term baby, except the baby does not help because its dead.
First of all, I would challenge you to describe what a "wrong" reason is for a late-term abortion and then give me an example of that actually happening IRL in the US. This cannot come from a chain letter you got in your email.
Let me explain something to you: If I walked into a doctor's office and said "I want to abort this baby I've been carrying for 7 months because I'm bored of being pregnant" no doctor in the world would perform that procedure because they would be afraid of being sued afterwards: Any woman who would decide on a whim to terminate a healthy pregnancy in the third trimester is obviously unstable enough that she could turn right around and sue the doctor later on. Women have to jump through incredible hoops to get reproductive care that isn't anywhere near as dire as a late-term abortion because doctors are afraid of lawsuits.
In other words, you're full of crap.
@Willow--I completely agree. The only other reasons I've heard of such late term abortions taking place included a 9 year old girl who'd been raped by her father and didn't know where or how to get help. Giving birth to the child, given that she wasn't fully physically (not to mention emotionally) developed yet, likely would have been severely physically damaging for her. Is that a "dishonest" rape then?
That is the Sharia position on women as well. Who says Muslim and Christian fundamentalists can't agree?
Right ... that's why we had to make it a law that new-born babies can be dropped off at the local fire-department, rather than in the dumpster out back. If you blame only men for rape, who do you blame for the infanticide? This is a complex issue, it has plenty of guilt to go around, and women have the upper hand under our current systems of equality, given their natural abilities. Men can be rapists, but generally the second and third trimester abortions are consensual couplings that the women then later decide against.
I think the current law, which make's it increasingly difficult for abortion as pregnancy progresses is fairly justified and allows for enough gray area that minors or the mentally incapacitated can be brought before a judge to determine the best course in each individual case.
Women have the majority of reproductive power, a natural fact, thus they must bear most of the responsibility. If they wish to have uncontested power to terminate any pregnancy at any time without repercussions, then they must accept basic laws to keep them accountable. If you are raped, you must report it to the authorities, before having an abortion. If you are not raped, and just want an abortion for personal reasons, then have it in the first trimester, use plan-B or other contraception. When you wait 3-9 months, there is something wrong with your decision making ability, or you are too immature to be having sex in the first place.
When young women use their sexual powers to manipulate the economic/political systems for their own advantage, and extort their lovers for favors and money, using the threat of the potential child or rape accusations as leverage, I don't have an easy answer. If it didn't happen Clinton wouldn't have been impeached, John Edwards would be President, and my sixteen year old wife would still be pregnant.
Are you serious? You talk about people being too immature to be having sex and then you tell us that you have a sixteen year old wife? Did you mean daughter? How the hell old are you?
Men are just victims in everything aren't they?
Nothing for it but to subjugate them and them keep them home on pain of death. Lest they bring shame to their family and ruin a good man's reputation.
I think RP means that an actual rape occurred. Not the "I got so wasted one night, made stupid decisions, had unprotected sex with some dude and I'm going to call it 'rape' " kind of rape.
Wow. The stupid needs a shovel.
Look, setting aside Paul's default position for his *own granddaughters* is that they're lying harpies out to ruin good men...
How does this distinction matter one damn bit in a debate about abortion unless you literally believe that dirty sluts SHOULD be punished with babies? Abortion for "honest rape" is the exact same procedure for abortion for getting drunk and having unprotected sex with a guy you regret later. The end result is the same. Why gild the lily?
You're almost there with regards to 100% woman-hating misogyny. Don't let a little thing like an actual rape victim tug on those frayed heartstrings and make you actually consider the woman being forced to carry a pregnancy to term. Soon you too can take the default position that all women, no matter how much you care about them, should assumed to be lying sluts right off the bat. You're so close. You are so close to the "Dr." Paul way of thinking, it must be hard on you to be so close and yet not quite there.
Ah yes. There's no such thing as "date rape" just buyers remorse. Le sighs. Seriously people?!
@Mighty Ponygirl- Ding ding ding!
This is just plain nuts, Michael. You are assuming, sans information, that the only possible reasons for late-term abortions involve character flaws in the woman who is pregnant. Apparently it has never occurred to you that there could be perfectly valid, medical or circumstantial reasons. There could be complications threatening the mother's life which don't manifest themselves until late in the pregnancy. Or there could be signs that the fetus is unviable that weren't evident early on, or simply weren't caught at an early date. There could be other compelling reasons. Pregnancy is a chancy, dangerous process. Basically, you are ignorantly and presumptuously assuming that abortion is primarily a voluntary thing, almost a whim, rather than a decision made in response to an exigency of some sort (which it nearly always is).
And your claim that women have all the power is just laughable. If women did have unquestioned control over their own bodies, we wouldn't ever have discussions like this. Everything you said is just a manifestation of baseless male grievance.
TV weather girl Heidi Jones admits lying about rape in Central Park - but avoids jail in plea deal
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2006437/Former-TV-weather-girl-Heidi-Jones-admits-lying-Central-Park-rape-mystery-man-plea-deal-escape-jail.html
There are false claims of rape -- those of my fellow feminists who deny that are the sort who are convinced the world runs on their 'script' and according to the logic they worked out, despite reality. (This is typical Republican behavior, but we have enough people on our side that share it.)
But these incidents usually come from one or more of five causes -- if anyone knows of other reasons, I'd appreciate hearing them -- and none of them involve requests for late-term abortions. The woman can be, literally, crazy, i.e., delusional. (This type might ask for an abortion even though she was not pregnant -- and in some of these cases might even still be a virgin.) She may have a different type of thinking disorder, the type that makes her need the attention -- perhaps the explanation for the linked story -- I'd want to look at a more reliable site than Murdoch's Mail before I commented. She might be angry and seeking to punish the man -- it is a cliche of anti-feminists, and happens much more rarely than they think, but it does happen. However, if a woman attempted to get an abortion at a late-term to punish the man by 'killing his kid' no doctor would go along, and most would report her if her motives were obvious.
The woman might be trying tp blackmail the man -- or even a number of men -- but while she might ask for 'money to get this taken care of' there's no reason to think she'd try to use the extorted money for that purpose, and no reason at all to believe any doctor would grant her request if she did.
Then there is the sad case of a young woman who has consensual sex, but because of the strictness of her environment -- or the identity of her partner, e.g., a man of another race -- she can't admit it and makes up the rape story to explain her pregnancy. Again, this would lead to either an early abortion request -- in the unliklihood of her strict parents giving her room and privacy enough to seek one -- or the more unlikely case of them agreeing -- but not a late-term request. The same for some of the 'one-in-a-billion' cases we can dream up -- since some women actually have not realized they were pregnant until gving birth, we can imagine someone 'waking up' just a little earlier -- but your imagination needs stretching too far to imagine a doctor consenting.
There is one case where I can imagine a request for a late-term abortion on no other grounds than rape being granted -- if a woman has been held captive -- or legitimately terrorized -- from the impregnation until she is rescued seven months later. (And that, of course, would involve a true claim and not a false one.)
Other than that, the question of whether a woman might lie about being raped is truly irrelevant to this discussion.
Granted. Sometimes women lie about rape. When it has been proven, there needs to be a civil penalty asigned for character defamation.
But rape is still all too common, and most women never see justice.
It's a lot more comprehensible when you recognize that Paul's "libertarianism" begins and ends at the Federal level. He's all for effectively repealing the 14th Amendment and giving States carte blanche to be as oppressive as they like.
And that would apparently include being exempt from the 13th Amendment as well.
"...presumably victims of dishonest rape? -- should expect to have their reproductive rights curtailed..."
Paul, like most GOP'ers believe that "women" are like children and in their narrow world-view an "honest rape" would be that of a "virgin, who was saving herself for marriage"! So all other women - single, divorced, widowed, gay - you all enticed your rapist and therefore should bear "the shame" of allowing yourself to be raped!! Far from being a "Libertarian" it sounds more like "Taliban, Christian style"!!
For a real Libertarian, running for the Libertarian Party nomination, take a look at Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico.
"That's right ladies, abortions are only available for cases of "honest rape." So, remember, when you get raped, it's very important that you remember to get a receipt."
You know, you can't have a perfect solution, you can't legislate for all possibilities any more than you can legislate for a single one. You can outlaw abortion, but it doesn't fix the problem. If anything it will make it more horrific with scared and traumatized women resorting to underground or homemade solutions. Think of stories of back alley abortions of the '50s and '60s then amplify that in the internet age. What the hell are we thinking?? Is there ever going to be a time, or a law that women will only get an abortion for the "right reasons??" Hardly, especially since my right reason may not hold water with someone else. I maintain, and the examples above and below support that no woman makes this decision on a whim. and once done lives with the effects for years to come, maybe even a lifetime. There is no perfect solution in a democracy: Free speech has Fred Phelps, a social safety net has welfare cheats, free markets have insider trading, government of the people, by the people and for the people has citizens united. It's an imperfect world.
This is a minor point in context of the notion of "honest rape", but do we know if Ron Paul's medical knowledge is up to date? Isn't progesterone the hormone one takes to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, not estrogen?
Braco Barbara! You're absolutely correct. Despite using his doctor title in front of his name, Paul is as much of a physician as is my Golden Retriever.
Yes, you're right. For example, Plan B used to be estrogen & progestin (when it was two pills). Now that it's a single dose, it's progestin only. But it bugged me too. He's referring (yet again) to something that's medically inaccurate. He probably doesn't even know the terms "Plan B" or "EC". Sort of like he doesn't know (or refuses to admit) that 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester, so his statement of a 7 month pregnant woman wanting an abortion because of rape is his own sensationalism of the topic.
He definitely has experience as an OBGYN, but this is during the sixties before his long congressional career. So while it's understandable he doesn't know all the updated medical standards, he shouldn't make claims that suggest otherwise.
Progestin inhibits ovulation, not implantation. But yeah.
If you look at the tape, Ron is about to correct himself and say progestin, but he barely says "p.." when Piers Morgan promptly interrupts him. Which he does throughout the entire interview. Ron never really gets to answer in full sentences.
No, progesterone is given to keep a pregnancy going, so estrogen would end it.
Nearly everything Ron Paul says is "bullpuckey" (to use Rachel's fave on-air crude word) it's hard to keep one's head from spinning off into another dimension whenever he opens his mouth. Whether it's so-called "honest rape" to decrying the Fed and demanding a return to the gold standard or essentially repealing the 14th Amendment, Rep. Paul has such a distorted, other-worldly view of what America is all about it is frightening that this man sits in Congress let alone is a candidate for president.
We've truly sunk to new lows when a Ron Paul is taken seriously by anyone; not that many years ago (like when he was writing his racist newsletters), he would have been viewed as part of the lunatic fringe and widely ignored.
taking it out of context..oh ya and the racist letters...keep listening to msnbc and cnn,fox...and vote for Romney...lol.The Fed..oh ya thats not important !!!wow...one of the biggest scams in history and theft in history but ya Ron Paul is a cook.Thats why your money is going to be used at toillet paper soon..lol...Kepp listening to cnn and fox,msnbc..ill be using you r money to wipe my ass with soon.
The fact that he immediately distances himself and his family from the potential situation is evident by his use of his phrase "that individual" when the question asked pertains to his daughters.
The hormone is called progestin (progesterone), not estrogen. The definition of rape is: The crime, committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him, esp. by the threat or use of violence. It's not about reproduction - it's about VIOLENCE, which is a crime. I pray to all the Gods that Paul is not given an opportunity to run for President. He's obviously misinformed and too old to change.
The definition of rape now in use by the FBI is : "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." Gender is no longer mentioned.
-- Edit: @fiascom, I didn't see your comment stating exactly this :)
FWIW, the Justice Department's definition of rape is changed to make it gender neutral:
"Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
Actually, the FBI formally redefined rape very recently:
"On Jan. 6, in a long-awaited decision, the FBI rewrote its official definition of rape. Instead of being defined as "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will," the federal definition of rape now includes all genders of victim and attacker. It also includes rape while the victim is incapacitated, and statutory rape.
ETA: well, I was a little late on the draw with this one
he's a nut job. if the news would simply ignore him and quit having him on tv to spew his hate speech , he'd crawl back into the crack where he was.
Funny.......your comment is much more hateful than anything I've heard come out of his mouth!!
Most of the comments on Ron Paul are all taken out of context.
In conservative-land, rape is very over-reported because of victims who lie about having been raped and victims who, because of their conduct, were asking for it, and therefore what happened to them was not rape. The conduct in question includes things like dressing in a sexy manner, drinking in public, flirting, allowing oneself to be alone with a man, and being verifiably not a virgin. So creating exceptions to a general prohibition against abortion on grounds of rape is, in their view, creating an exception wide enough to drive a truck through.
I recently had to consider if I could go thru with an abortion. There were signs that I may have had an ectopic pregnancy, which would have been high risk at a minimum and potentially life threatening towards the end of the pregnancy. I have said in the past that I could never personally have an abortion, but after much soul searching, realized that I would have the procedure, rather than risk my son growing up without a mother. Knowing that the majority of abortions are performed on women who already have children, I wonder if these same thoughts apply to them.
Of course, the reason for my comment is to point out that Ron Paul does not believe I am capable of making this decision myself. If his views on abortion became law, I would not be able to have an abortion because the pregnancy could threaten my life, I would have to wait until my life actually WAS in grave danger, and by then it could be too late.
My reason for deciding I would have had the abortion (I did not have to, as it was a different medical issue causing my symptoms) may not be the same as other women who decide to have an abortion, but every woman who makes the decision has her reasons. I do not believe this is a decision that any woman takes lightly, but it is a decision we should be permitted to make. Anyone who threatens to disrupt access to safe, legal abortion threatens the lives of women and the children they already have.
You have made a very thoughtful and courageous comment. I agree with you 100%. Thank you.
Cora11 has just provided the most lucid personal example on the issue of rape and abortion and what the anti abortion wonks don't want their "followers" to know. A woman just about never contemplates abortion as a casual decision.
She knows the demons she faces for her entire life. To be against a woman's right to choose trivializes the decision process.
excellent points, and moving testimony.
I would only add to "being against a woman's right to chose trivializes the decision process," but also marginalizes the woman as well.
Bravissimo -- and if you live in a district with a Republican Congressman, I wish you'd feel free to go to his (or her, some of the worst pregnancy-forcers are women) next Town Meeting and tell that story, just to highlight why some women choose abortions.
But I'd also like to remind people -- especially my fellow Democrats -- that abortion is a right, not a 'gift' we bestow on 'some unfortunate girl who got pregnant through rape, incest, ignorance -- of contraception or of her own medical problems -- etc.' Yes, a woman who gets raped has the rigt to terminate the pregnancy, but because she is 'a woman' not because 'she got raped.'
She has the right because she has it concerning any pregnancy. The rape victim has no more or less right to an abortion than does the wife who cheerfully and deliberately got pregnant and then, two months later, re-evaluated her family finances and decided she couldn't steal her older children's college fund to support this fetus, were it born, or the wife who has learned things in those two months that have caused her to hate her baby's father -- her husband or not -- and not want the constant reminder of him.
In fact, when we shudder at something like 'abortion for sex selection' -- which disgusts me too -- we have to remember that a right isn't 'given' to someone who will use it well. It is something that a person has and continues to have whether they use it well or badly. (Fred Phelps still has his right of free speech, as badly as he has used it.)
We've allowed Republicans to 'frame the issue' and they've done so good a job of it that our responses sound weak, sound like we "really" agree with them that abortion is a Bad Thing, but we are pleading that 'special circumstances' merit an exception.
When is the last time we heard a Democratic Candidate begin his statement with "I believe Roe v Wade was a good decision, I agree with it and will defend it"?
In fact, this is another place where we -- yes, youse guys -- can play a part, if we live in a District that is Republican or closely mixed. (I don't. My Representative is considered possibly the safest Democrat in the Country.) Go to a Candidate's meeting, or if you've elected a Republican, to a District Meeting, stand up, and simply ask -- as close to these words as you are omfortable in announcing -- "Do you agree with me that Roe v Wade was rightly decided, and are you willing to defend it.
Think about the possible negative cosequences, and make sure you can deal with them, but there'll be positive ones too. You'll get at least a handful of women coming up, praising you for your courage, and saying how they believed it too, but didn't dare say it. And that's when you remind them their vote is secret, and suggest that, despite the Democratic weakness, their party isn't dedicated -- on all levels -- to reversing the decision.
"Democrats, Reclaim the Dialogue" (which may become my standard signature here)
Prup
Thanks for sharing your story.
Prup, I so completely agree with you. A lady I knew many years ago had an abortion and the decision to go ahead with the procedure broke her heart and soul. She was married (her husband was with her) and they had 3 kids. Her husband was out of work because of a disability, because they had 3 young kids she couldn't work full-time but had a part-time job. They were doing okay because they (like me) are Canadian so medical needs weren't an issue but still, his disability and her salary was just enough to make them ineligible for welfare. At any rate, they agonized about having another child and came to the gut-wrenching decision that they simply couldn't manage it. Part of that was the fear that if their other 3 children were left wanting because they had a fourth to feed and clothe that they would end up losing their kids to the foster system.
How in the name of all that's holy does anyone feel they can look down on people like these and call them names and try to shame them to score political points?
Corra11-I am confused. You take a stand about aborting your pregnancy due to an undiagnosed Ectopic pregancy and then state that you had the abortion anyway, but it wasn't Ectopic. Why did you not start with the facts? You are Pro-Choice and chose to have an abortion. I find this insulting to anyone that has had an Ectopic pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancies don't have a choice. Stand behind your decision. Don't open with something you have no idea about...
At no point did she claim that she had an ectopic pregnancy- she stated that she had to consider an abortion because at the time she was faced w/ that decision they thought she might have an ectopic pregnancy. Later on it was found out she had something else which was causing her symptoms and this is why she did not have an abortion. But the point of her post was that every woman who makes the decision has her reasons. You can't use narrow black and white terms to define when or why or if an abortion takes place. You then, TGL, completely ignore what Cora has stated so that you can make the assinine statement 'don't open w/ something you have no idea about.' Of course a. she didn't nor did she insinuate as much, but b. you then denigrate everyone who makes a decision about abortion by saying that some choose it and some don't. Which, of course, is not true and was the entire point of Cora's post. How about you don't make comments like that unless you're willing to keep people in context?
Life, tell you what. You make that decision when you have a pregnancy that may or may not be ectopic.
I don't get where you are coming from. She was there. It happened to her. It was her decision to make, and she told us why she chose as she did.
And you are slamming her for, what? Not being omniscient?
Tend to your own goddamn uterus.
I would bet that Ron Paul thinks wives cannot be raped by husbands, so an "honest rape" is done by a stranger.
Paul went to medical school in the 50s, and marital rape first became a crime in the 70s. Given his other whackadoodle views, I'd be not at all surprised if he disbelieves in marital rape.
And he is 76 years old, he walks like a man with Parkinson's disease, and people just lead him around to the podium, where he gives his speech. I think he's going to become "elderly" quite soon. His responses to people around him is slowed. He went to medical school in the 50's. and imagine how medicine has changed in the last 60 years!
So, rape is "a very unlikely thing," Dr Paul? Really?
Statistically, one in four women is sexually assaulted by the age of 18.
Plus, it's believed that nearly half of all sexual assaults go unreported.
It is a travesty that this man calls himself a physician; he's a misogynist
who lives in fantasy land, and he is no "Libertarian."
To be fair, it wasn't Ron Paul who said the rape of his daughters and/or granddaughters is very unlikely. That was the person asking the question.
I think that was just an effort to soften the question so he'd answer it, personally. I have a hard time believing that the person asking it actually believed it, but maybe that has more to do with my want to believe that someone couldn't be that naive.
I'm really enjoying Steve Benen's postings to TRMS blog.
Just the design alone is so much more comfortable, and somehow the feel has returned to the CARPETBAGGER days. There and here, I felt I was entering a conversation among friends -- even a few who disagreed entirely. At WM -- as good as it was for Steve to get the job -- I always felt like I was writing a 'letter to the editor.'
So, if a woman comes to her Dr. after consenting to sex and claims she has been raped, and wants pregnancy prevention, the Dr. gets to decide whether she is lying or has really been raped, and only those who have really been raped get the pregnancy prevention service - those who have had consenting sex are refused and must bear a child, if a pregnancy results, even if the child is unwanted as a "punishment" for a lack of virtue? Is that what Mr. Paul is saying? OMG! And what about the "morning after pill" that is widely available instead of a shot of whatever might prevent implantation? And he supports the "personhood" thing, which means that all these pregancy preventions, if there is a mere hint of a fertilized egg being prevented from coming to term, are proscribed. So he is saying it is o.k. in cases of "honest (real) rape", but not in cases of consenting sex, which means he gets to punish the woman if she is less than virtuous. If his theology is "pure", he would say "a life is a life". What a hypocrite!
To repeat my comment -- more briefly -- from above. Don't fall into the Republican trap. You are assuming the only reason a woman would want an abortion after consensual sex is because she was being promiscuous -- just like the GOP hopes you will. A happily married, totally faithful wife can get pregnant after consensual sex, even celebrate the pregnancy, then react to changed circumstances -- or to anything -- and decide to end it. (I can think of many 'good reasons' like a parental illness or changed financial circumstances, but she doesn't have to justify her reason -- to me or to the state. That's what 'having a right' means!)
Democrats, Reclaim the Dialogue!
Prup
Republicans have made it clear that their concern for children begins with conception and ends with birth. Pregnancy seems to have become a punishment for having sex. When it comes to feeding and educating these children, the Reps say ""you're on your own"
As soon as they are born, they should start looking for a newspaper carrier job. Because when they start school, they will become janitors. You know, the pull yourself up by your bootstraps, because Uncle Sam is not going to help you out at all. lol
That's sad, but not new. Men in high places have had a lot to say about women and rape, and rarely are they on the side of the victim.
I find it interesting that nobody seems to notice that this so-called women's health doctor doesn't know that you don't get "a shot of estrogen" for emergency contraception. Ron Paul is a fail on both "honest rape" and what constitutes the Morning After Pill.
The more I think on this, the more amazed I am at Paul's commitment to misogyny.
Most people who follow the "women lie about being raped" philosophy as their jumping-off point for talking about the political implications of rape will usually at least allow that their family (their daughters and granddaughters) are the good girls who would never lie about something like that. That it's "other women" who do stuff like that.
The question posited to Paul was one of your daughters or granddaughters is raped. And his jumping off point was "well, if she isn't lying through her teeth..." meaning that of COURSE she's assumed to be lying, but in the off-chance that she isn't...
It really makes you wonder what sort of father/grandfather Paul is, that his defacto position is that his girlspawn is just as lying and treacherous as any random woman not necessarily "raised right." Thanksgiving must be a real treat at the Paul house.
This is why most of Ron Paul's young male supporters are male. (And I suspect a majority of these live with their parents.)
I have a step son who is 36...he moved in with us last Sept. and is not working or contributing to the household...he's an avid Paulite and we argue about politics all the time. He basically hasn't got a freaking clue about supporting himself. He's been married twice. Emma, you hit the nail on the head!!!!
It seems to me that many of you are being more hateful and judgmental than Ron Paul ever was in his comment. It is reactions like these that don't invite and honest conversation on a very important subject. I am pro-choice, but 90% of these comments have been just as ignorant as most of the pro-lifers you are speaking of.
I smell pretend-liberal troll. Anyone else smell troll?
Yes.
Jessica, Ron Paul is a puppet of the John Birch Society; one of the most racist organizations in the world. Not to mention they are all looney tunes, floride in drinking water is a communist plot and all that.
So the issue you here is women's rights and Ron Paul. Mistake me if I am not correct but I feel in the case of Ron Paul he is probably the best "conservative" choice. Look at Newt, Romney. Really guys? And Obama.... a liar dressed up as a slick talker. We know that he has continued to strip our rights with recent bills that could allow us to arrested an jailed in military prisons without charges or hearings. Obama also helped make it harder for the people to obtain the morning after pill, now a woman has to go get a doctors note... yeah so there may be a lot more abortions now. No one is talking about the real problems and instead choose to point out and hone in on things that in the great scheme may not be make or breaks to the planet or our species. The reality is no one who is running would be great or perfect, but I personally like a lot of points Ron Paul makes regarding the governments role on a federal level, the IRS, taxation, and money. Gold standard is over and no way no body could ever bring it back, but at least then we had something behind our money that gave it value, currently currency is just paper. There are a lot of valid points made by Ron Paul but sadly many people are too brainwashed so they won't bother to listen or hear. And it would mean people would have to realize all this @!$%# about terrorism is hype and falsities broadcast on the television and made into a bigger thing then it is. He is all about ending these stupid wars and that is more then Obama, Romney, or Newt have to offer! For goodness sake if Obama was the answer what the hell was the question???Ron Paul may not be perfect but he surely is a better conservative option then a mormon or a polygamist!
You're not correct about Ron Paul. From his facist, xenophobic, anti-gay newsletters to his mysogenist view of what constitutes rape to his views on civil rights, voting rights and health care, the man is as much of a walking disaster as Romney, Gingrich and Santorum. None of them have any sense of what America is actually all about.
Actually this has been true since the early 2000's. The fact that you didn't notice until now says more about you. The bill that was passed was pushed by Republicans in Congress who insisted that because PBO is so 'weak' on terror we had to make the current executive orders in place regarding detention of American citizens into law. PBO either had to veto the entire defense bill or pass it w/ this one provision. I don't agree w/ the provision nor did I agree w/ the executive orders about indefinite detention. This outrage has been going on for about 10 years now. If we're going to hold PBO accountable for his part in this role we have to be honest about that part and to what extent, not hyperbolic and ignoring the context.
Er no. Plan B is available over the counter to anyone who is over the age of 17. The FDA reviewed the pill in a comprehensive, long term study at the request of the government and the company who produces Plan B. The FDA found, in it's study, that you could release the pill to minors under the age of 17 w/o prescription because the pill would not cause lasting physical harm to younger persons. Prior to this study Plan B wasn't available OTC for people under the age of 17 w/o prescription. After doing this study the FDA decided it would remove it's recommendation that the pill come w/ a prescription and instead would recommend that it be allowed to anyone OTC. The HHS and PBO said no. The law was not changed at all under PBO; PBO just refused to change the law. Again I do not agree w/ this decision, but if we're going to attack him for it we have to get our facts correct about what we're upset about and why.
I'm sure you were trying to be sarcastic here, but making fun of people because of their faith or their sexual lives really isn't appropriate. That's kind've the whole problem that we're having w/ Ron Paul....
Consider yourself mistaken!
Ron Paul did not write the racist sections of the newsletters, a ghostwriter named John Powell did. Do your homework ;-)
but he did read them and approve them to go out IN HIS NEWS LETTER
or is he that incompetent?
homework is all done.
LOL
Jesus christ, can't men back off our body already? Who died and left them in charge? wtf, I'm so sick of them.
once again, are the republicans insane, or just insanely evil. Ill take both options and cover all possibilities
Isn't the point of Pro-life the that it is a baby the second it is conceived? So, then it should not matter if the person was willing, had a "fake" rape or an "honest" so called rape. Stupid.
Ron Paul's comments/agenda is insideous and reprehensible..a real travesty of justice. It painfully shows the real lack of empathy and characteristically callused conflict the GOP has in how Women's rights are addressed. The obvious double standard reeks of religio-political rhetoric that divides our Nation.
I'm kind of disappointed with this blog. I watched the interview and did not take that at all from it. He mentioned the "honest rape" and getting a shot of estrogen the next day as opposed to saying one was raped seven months ago and wanting the abortion. He's not the smoothest guy but he's honest.
Of course every party/politician is going to have opposition but Ron Paul is different. It used to be the Democratic Party that stood up for Civil Liberties and now there's only one. I know this is falling on deaf ears but our country is in debt, we can't afford to be these wars, our currency is devalued and your freedoms as an American is jeopardized. Take a look at him with an open mind, there is a reason the Neo-Cons don't like him.
What I don't think you understand about the "honest rape" comment is that it implies a belief that women will lie about being raped in order to receive an abortion. And if abortions were only available to women who had been raped, then women would indeed be willing to lie about it in order to get access to a safe abortion if they needed one.
Le sighs. You really should read other people's posts before commenting. Your comment about the 7 month pregnancy thing has already been addressed. Ron Paul was taking a completely unrealistic scenario and using it to address a realistic issue. People already addressed this- you do not come across as more intelligible by repeating a point that has already been debunked.
And just what civil liberties is Our Savior Paul standing up for? Are you really claiming this on a post discussing a bald-faced statement by Paul that he supports taking rights away?
How can you say 'let the states decide' is 'defending civil liberties' when it was the necessity of federal action that overcame the states' actions in defending segregation. In fact the whole point of the 14th Amendment was to make states defend our rights -- it wasn't until the twenties that the states were even banned from infringing on freedom of the press, the forties until freedom of religion and speech was guaranteed -- read the "Jehovah's Witnesses' cases for examples.
And Paul's craziness is no better shown than in his 'gold-bug' ravings. Remember, they would mean that the sum of the entire currencies of the world would be limited by the total amount of gold in the governments' possession. Realize, first what the total of all the gold ever mined comes to -- look it up -- then realize that there are only four ways a government has of increasing its supply of gold. It can drill for it -- can't pay the private citizen for drilling because that way you are just exchanging gold for gold. It can steal it -- NOW I see why the sudden fascination with pirates, because again they would be -- or start -- as government agents. It can do it the 'old-fashioned way' and start a war and steal the enemy's gold mines. Or it can confiscate the citizens' holdings -- again, buying them is merelt 'trading gold for gold.'
Prup
(who states he is responsible for no comment appearing under his name referring to Ron Paul. I have hired someone to write them and post them without looking at them, so if there is anything offensive, blame The Other Guy. /snark)
If uterii are govt property then so are women and therefore have no civil liberties to defend. Even Ron Paul subscribes to this view.
Otherwise he is a massive hypocrit who is not to be taken seriously in his rap on personal liberty. Not that he should anyway.
Even Barry Goldwater was pro-choice on Libertarian grounds.
Everybody is missing the worst part in all of this. A woman who is a victim of a violent crime must convince (most likely male) authorities that she has been brutalized in order to get a shot of progesterone. Women, in effect, are treated as guilty until proven innocent when they are the victims!
This is just grotesque no matter how you slice it.
We have "dishonest" rape now? Who knew! Clearly, America marches on! I swear, where do we find these people?
March on, indeed.
Ron Paul's comments on rape are totally in character to his thinking - which is inconsistent. He talks individual rights and fights againts government controls and then seems to forget that women should have this option - in relation to pregnacy. Of course, it is a mistake to frame this discussion only in terms of women, since men (and boys) are also raped - with prisoners being an obvious example. The question of rape (women and babies add the major concern) is an historic and worldwide discussion forced into abortion politics - hard to have since there is the added sexual/puritanical/commercial corruption to the subject. "Society" in terms of TV, etc., which "objectify" women and sex, well, try getting around this to the human pain and violation.