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:
So if we were to enter into a Ron Paul world - or worse yet, a Santorum Sludge pit - and women who wanted an abortion must first prove that they were raped - um -- I wonder if a lot of women would make that claim just to get the abortion? No?
It is NOT anyone's decision but the pregnant woman, whether to give birth to a child or not. Once that fact is accepted, the tantrum of "but i dont like it that way" ceases, and then people can move on to things they CAN control, like making this world a place that welcomes and supports women and children. Just like I cant control whether a man decides to join the military and kill people in foreign lands, they cant control whether I decide the world is a place I want to bring another human being. Work on what you can control. We should ALL be pro-life, its just a matter of how we go about bringing that into effect. Not by force, never by force!
ok 2 things. "honest" in Old people talk can mean "genuine" So he is more than likely saying " if she was genuinely raped" i.e. if there is an actual rape that occured this is what happens...
And two, Your rights end where other's rights begin. And I cannot think of too many situations where we have the RIGHT TO KILL. Even the actual rapists don't get the death penalty, so why should the fetus? Emotional scars are nothing in comparison to the taking of a life. Are you kidding me???? Its no contest!
Librty for all... even the unborn.
i guess you are a conscientious objector?
A fetus is not a person! An abortion does not take a life, it terminates a potential life. (Could be Mother Theresa, could be Hitler.)
It is up to the person who has that fetus within them to make the decision whether it is better for the potential life to be turned into a living, breathing person, or whether to do so would result in any manner of misery for either the person bearing the fetus, or for the fetus itself.
You need to consider what all too often happens to fetuses that are forced to be brought into this world by mothers who are unable or unwilling to care for them. Living, breathing children can be subject to all kinds of abuse or neglect. Terminated fetuses do not suffering through such misery, possibly only a small amount of temporary physical pain. Sad to say, what they don't know won't hurt them. Also sad to say, I've known people who would rather have been aborted as fetuses than to have lived very unhappy lives of abuse and depression -- you can't just assume that any fetus born will be thankful in the long run.
Until you have a uterus and have to face the type of emotional upheaval that goes along with making the difficult decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, you have NO right to criticize or interfere with someone else's decision. It IS that simple.
Well since Lunar addressed your second contention, I'll address the first:
There was nothing in the premise of the question asked to Paul that would have prompted him to state "honest" rape unless he wanted to insinuate that women claim to be raped when in fact they are not. This is such an age old myth it's ridiculous that people would even pretend it's valid. Blame the victim much? Ron Paul asserted a position that didn't need to be asserted, that no one was contesting, and that wasn't relevant to the hypothetical. In doing so he left open ambiguity as to the genuineness of rape claims. Beyond this you are attempting to defend Ron Paul by giving this argument, yet you do not realize that saying "well Ron Paul is just an old man" makes him seem like he is UNFIT to be president. People, seriously, you need to STOP yourself before you try to defend this man and THINK for a second. When you try to excuse away or divert away from sexist or racist statements it makes Paul seem MORE sexist and racist, not less.
I have deep respect for you lunarmagpie, it IS that simple. All the bla bla bla about what particular circumstances allow a man to allow a woman to decide what to do with her own life/body is a huge whine fest, and a completely ignorant one at that.
Oh I get it John. Rape the girl, she aborts the offspring of that, then you sue her for wrongful termination of your parental rights because she doesn't want to look at the face of her rapist every day for the next 18 yrs. Classy.
Adam did not live live til God filled him with the breath of life. Therefore nothing that never breathed ever lived (aside from fish or amphibions.) The instant a fetus takes its first breath, it becomes a baby with full protection under the law. Funny enough, pro-life conservative Oklahoma and you can be sure other places has a terrible record for children being killed by their parents or guardians. It is part and parcel with high incidents of children living in poverty and uninsured, low per pupil investment in education, high rates of teen pregnancy, single motherhood, incarceration.
But none of those are topics that get conservatives excited like getting equal protection to fish at the expense of their mother. Curious.
Thank you Rachel. I am just amazed at how some people can be willing to sign our rights away. I always remember something I heard years ago, that any government that has the power to force you to have a child can also force you to NOT have a child.
This is a choice that has got to remain with the person who is ultimately responsible, and it's nobody's business but their own.
The fetus' rights end where mine begin according to your statement.
Since a woman has the right to deny access to her body to any person at any time, in any situation, including denying the use of her organs to save another persons life (like bone marrow or plasma), than a fetus does not have the right to use her uterus against her will.
According to your own argument, a woman has a right to detach a fetus from her body since the fetus is encroaching upon the womans right to physical autonomy.
Since a woman has the right to deny access to her body to any person at any time in any situation, she shouldn't have a lot of problems with impregnation. That was way easy.
That's the brilliance of wedge issues, getting us all to fight with each other. The battle is not between the left and the right, the battle is between the inside and the outside. Let's not all fool ourselves into arguing about what Ron Paul meant or didn't mean while the government picks our pockets. Want to impress me with your Libertarianism? Let's talk about getting big money out of Washington, then I'll listen.
You can never really know what a politician will act on when in office, so knowing what his reasons are for mandating when a woman can decide on the health of her own body or not, has implications for what he will do in office. I do not expect everyone in politics to agree with my opininos, but the reality is that the powers of office will enable someone with such extreme views to impose those views on a great many people, so it is not a wedge issue, it is key.
If it should not have happened, there is choice for her. Not yours, his or whoever. Heartbreaking for me to even think about. One of the greatest guys I know is here and he was not chosen, the mother was by the father and he was morally condemned! Because of HIS decision, my mother and brother survived! and together they raised all of us! At least Ron Paul will fight for and do "due process". He gave an answer, he is not afraid, he is brave and so was my father! Quit tearing every word apart to agree that someone looks bad and get in there and fight continually for American Rights! Which, pro choice is, "CHOICE"!
if you really understand ron paul's stance on this then you guys would know to take his name out your mouth....what ron paul's position on this doesn't matter he gives the power to the people. He gives the power to the states so that whether your pro choice or pro life you have more power to influence your state. When you make this a national issue everyone loses.
Do people just not understand what abortion is about? Abortion is neither a state or federal issue. The United States Constitution gives it's people the right to privacy and that right extends to medical decisions. Abortion is a medical decision that is covered by the US Constitution. You have the right to an abortion because of the US Constitution. There are some laws that can be passed regarding health and regulation at the federal and state level, but abortion cannot be outlawed in the United States unless you fundamentally alter the constitution. People say they support Ron Paul because he defends the constitution, yet then this issue pops up and his supporters can't destroy the constitution fast enough. I, of course, don't ascribe this to Paul since he hasn't made this misspeak about state versus federal (at least to my knowledge- if I'm wrong on that someone correct me now ;-)). His supporters, on the other hand, seem to be living in this fantasy land where all we have to do is get rid of that burdensome regulation that makes abortion legal and leave it up to the states. Le sigh.
Fono, Paul's Libertarianism is an absolute crock if a woman's reproductive rights are decided by anyone else but the woman.
Absolute freedom unless you have a uterus. In which case you not only have to be medically cleared but you have to convince a law enforcement officer and a judge that it was a "honestly" rape before your reproductive rights are released to you. You keep the words freedom and liberty out of your mouth if yopu buy that crap as acceptable. Goddamn police state for women is what that is!
Ron Paul's comment is suspiciously familiar, kinda like, "The slut was asking for it."
Bravo Piers Morgan! It's about time people - including those in the media who should know better - stopped calling Paul a libertarian. This self-proclaimed champion of liberty fully supports the government's power to control a pregnant woman's body. That doesn't sound like liberty to me.
All you gay-bashing, anti-women's rights so-called "less government, more freedom" types, stay out of my bedroom! Stay out of my doctor's office! Leave us alone! Leave me alone! GO AWAY!
High five man!
So much information/misinformation on blogs. I'm not a RP supporter but am informed about politics/candidates. Also Pro-Choice-diagree much with RP but please try to engage critical thinking. Candidates do an interview (where every other response is interrupted) on a complicated/emotional issue and we think we know everything about what he thinks. He obviously botched how he worded it-he's not very good at this BTW. To those who question his medical training; he is a medical doctor (Duke MS)-he has delivered approx 4000 babies-many for no charge/charity. He has issued papers/research on many OBGYN issues. The interview was not a medical symposium and he was using lay terms. Entire groups of people are accused of mysogeny-quite an accusation for a OBGYN-does anyone have an example of something he's DONE (not said) to support this accusation? He is accused of all of "ism's"; any evidence of deeds? Yes, his newsletters are terrible, what has he DONE to prove he's anti-x? We had a US Senators who actually were in the KKK and one who at best should is partially responsible for someone's death. The person who said he's a fascist should look up what it really means-he's certainly not a fascist. Abortion is the tough issue for every person regardless of political persuation-it cuts accross all lines-R's, D's, L's-depends on when/how/etc. Regarding abortion being a "right" that's what the whole debate is about-should it be a right enshrined in the US Constitution (at the Federal level) via interpretation (not amendment). It was legal in 21 states (and on it's way to many more) before the R v W. If R vs W was overthrown tommorow it would still be legal in almost every state (I think). In many ways it made it more controversial because it federalized a moral issue-see Ruth B Ginsberg commnets on this. Many legal scholars-including pro choice scholars have stated the decision was shaky at best. The Fed was mentioned-no, we shouldn't investigate all the trillions in loans the Fed made to unnamed parties-that's a wacky idea? The person commenting on the Gold Standard obviously has no idea of how a gold standard works (many forms) or what it is and why we had a form of one until 8/15/71; 40+ years ago-you act like the gold standard stopped in the 15th century. Both Britian's (pound sterling silver) power then the US's after WWII were partially because we had a gold (commodity) standard; why do you think the US is still the reserve currency-partially because of the legacy of the Gold Standard (Bretton Woods version ended by Nixon). Yes-we're never going back to a gold standard; the politicians will never allow it and the power they'd have to give up; but it's not a crazy idea-especially after the 08' crisis of explosive/runaway credit-what fiat money systems can produce. Keynes endorsed a commodity (not just gold) backed money (Bancor)...RP is never going to be pres-he's to direct and unpolished. But I listen to him because of his predictions on the Iraq disaster-read some of his 35 questions about Iraq (http://www.rense.com/general29/irasd.htm) sept 02 (BEFORE we invaded)-it's as if he had a crystal ball with some of the questions; don't forget, it was hard to oppose the war back then, especially as a R. After I read this I relaized he must have some wisdom...
SCOTUS ruling on an issue does not federalize the issue. The only way a policy becomes federalized is if it's contained in federal policy. SCOTUS ruling on Roe vs. Wade stated that it was a constitutional right which meant that states had usurped their authority. This did not federalize the issue. *bangs head on desk* I swear people.
New topic: Pro choice for men
If a women wants out of a pregnancy then she need only get an abortion. The choice is completely up to her.
But if a man wants out of a pregnancy it's completely out of his hands. If the woman decided to have the baby without his consent then TOUGH @!$%#ING LUCK. TIME TO MAN UP AND PAY CHILD SUPPORT YOU EVIL HEARTLESS IRRESPONSIBLE BASTARD
A man should be able to get out of the legal responsibility to raise a child if he signs a legal document stating that he wanted the woman carrying his child to get an abortion DURING AND ONLY DURING the pregnancy. This opt out option disappears after the child is born. The only exception to this would be if the woman did not tell the man about the pregnancy until after the child is born.
When I hear pro lifers talk about late term abortion it pisses me and this why. Late term abortion can not be done just cause the mother does changes her mind. Late term abortions can only be done if the fetus is dead ,will not survive child birth or giving birth will kill the mother . That's it .no other reason .
there is a such thing as false rape, meaning that the girl lied about the man doing it and honest rape, he actually committed the crim.e Maddow is a dumb ass.
There isn't such a thing as false rape. There is such a thing as a false claim about rape, but there is no such thing as "false rape." Either it was rape or it wasn't. Since "honesty" wasn't an issue there wasn't any reason for Paul to include this in his statement. The fact that he did says a lot more about him that it does about anything else. Now did he misspeak? Yeah probably- but if you're a Ron Paul supporter you don't go about attacking other people for asking Paul to clarify his comments. Nor do you make wild assumptions about what it was that Paul could have meant. You ask for him to comment and give him the benefit of the doubt that he misspoke. That is the most cogent, rational reaction to have. Your response only makes Paul appear to be sexist and makes his followers either appear stupid or sexist in their misguided zeal to protect him. You aren't doing Paul a favor.
PS- if you're going to call people out on their intelligence at least get the correct person in mind. You calling out Maddow for something Maddow hasn't even issued comment on derides your intelligence, not hers.
I'm sorry but the writer in this article intelligence must be of a lack. by honest rape means by not of ones free will. people are allways looking for short cuts, and abortions are no exceptions. Stating that this procedure should be used only by immediate rape victims and not for a quick and simple way not to get pregnant by the boyfriend, should not be offensive at all. those who are upset about the statement honest rape remind me of those people who twist one phrase and turn it into something else completely. This article sickens me.
Because that is what happens all the time. Because you base this opinion 100% in science and not because your rampant desire to defend Ron Paul has blinded to you. Because women should be controlled except when they are raped, in which case we give them a pass because...ya know, the other time they were just irresponsible. Because you as the not-pregnant woman should be the one making the decision and this isn't hypocritical at all as a libertarian. And this is what disgusts you- the fact that people don't see it from your misogynist view point as opposed to seeing women as free thinking, conscious beings who have a right to say what they want. BTW who defines what is "honest" and what is "of ones free will?" Hmm? I suppose that girl you gave alcohol to so that she'd be more willing to sleep w/ you should be denied the right to an abortion because that was 'free will' and wasn't 'rape.' From your perspective it probably wasn't, but from hers? Le sigh. Seriously people stop trying to use sexism to defend what might have otherwise not been a sexist statement by Paul. You're digging your own grave here.
This absolutely proves that it's not about protecting the itty bitty babies, it's about punishing a woman for bad behavior.
If it's about protecting itty bitty babies, how those babies are created is completely irrelevant. If the fetus can be killed because the mother is an innocent victim, but not killed if the mother is a guilty whore, then it's the mothers morality that the legislators care about, and not the babies rights to exist.
What happens to men when they’re falsely accused?
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/how-false-rape-allegations-destroyed-me-and-my-family/
http://www.shrink4men.com/2011/08/24/false-allegations-in-divorce-and-custody-battles-the-personality-types-of-false-accusers-and-the-falsely-accused/
Poor men and their victimization. Because that's really what this conversation was about.
Sighs seriously. I am beginning to wonder if something wasn't put into the water to make people just nuts >.<
Uh yeah - Obama murdered some American citizens sans due process and signed off on legislation he promised to veto which allows the military to imprison you without charges and hold you indefinitely without trial. That's what you call an honest rape.
Whats the differencece between a Democrat and Republican... Bush,Obama whats the difference?
lol read this its really some funny stuff i could go on all night replying to all of the idiot comments given here give or take a few my grandfather in the late 60s preached the end of the world i laughed just did not realize how true he was ron paul ,obama newt ,sponge bob ,does not matter we are the country that murder the most people war ,pregnancy,rape,real rape or a 15 year old dressed in skimpy clothes let out of the house by her parents that way murders murder you can talk rights all you want but in the end hope all you free choice people have your best fire suits because i know where your going with the other 99% of this used to be great country
without proper punctuation you're just helping your uncle jack off a horse...
just sayin'...
Any allegation of assault, rape or abuse made by a woman against a man with whom she’s currently embroiled in a divorce and/or custody case should be immediately suspect—especially if there’s no concrete evidence and the accused doesn’t have a prior history of violence.
By the way, “because she says so” isn’t concrete evidence.
Many feminists argue that female false rape accusers should not be punished for their crimes, lies and the destruction of the lives of innocent men lest a legitimate rape victim be dissuaded from coming forward. Up until very recently, news outlets wouldn’t even disclose the names of false accusers in order to protect them.
Aren’t we supposed to protect the victims of crime and not the perpetrators of crime? The true victim of a false allegation is the falsely accused, not the lying accuser. Enough with the backwards logic already.
It’s more accurate to say that we live in a culture in which violence against men and boys is common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media condone, normalize, excuse, or tolerate all forms of violence against men and boys. Examples of behaviors commonly associated with rape culture include victim blaming, sexual objectification and rape-apologism and false rape allegation-apologism.
All he is saying is that he doesn't want to see women using abortion as a form of birth control. I agree' honest rape' is a strange term, but what he means is, if a women was genuinely raped, and it was clearly a violent crime and not consensual, she should go instantly to an emergency room, call the police. Not go for an abortion 12 or 15 weeks later and say, "Opps".
Ronpaul is running for the what? of where?
Seriously?
Our culture portrays rape as one of the most heinous crimes that can be perpetrated against women and girls.
Meanwhile, no one ever discusses adult male rape victims who, believe it or not, do exist and in far greater numbers than female rape victims. When a teen-aged boy is raped by an adult woman, for example, by a trusted female teacher, many people shrug it off and act as if the teen-aged male victim just won the statutory rape-molestation lottery.
The reality is that more men are raped every year in jail than women in the general population, which is a statistic you won’t see mentioned MSNBC, FOX, CNN, ABC??????. The number of U.S. female rape victims is approximately 240,000. Approximately 300,000 male inmates are raped each year in the U.S. We don’t know how many men and boys are raped in the general population.
However, if you combine that number with the 300,000, male rape victims far exceed the number of female victims.
And exactly how many of those 300,000 male inmates who are raped end up pregnant?
I applaud you for bringing the plight of male rape victims to light, but the conversation here was about something else entirely. Maybe you should work to give your topic of interest its own separate exposure -- trying to change the conversation by hijacking this thread really isn't helping either cause.
Hijacking thread? Seriously? How about MSNBC is taking out of context? Have you thought about that?
Again, I repeat...
Any allegation of assault, rape or abuse made by a woman against a man with whom she’s currently embroiled in a divorce and/or custody case should be immediately suspect—especially if there’s no concrete evidence and the accused doesn’t have a prior history of violence.
By the way, “because she says so” isn’t concrete evidence.
You in a bad divorce Burma? You think you are defending yourself by proxy somehow? If a woman falsely charges rape and it is proven, then there should be restitution for defamation.
But too many women get rtaped and never see justice to blame every woman or treat every charge as false unless they can prove otherwise. It is worse to treat every woman who comes forward as guilty until proven innocent is worse than injust. Might as well move to Iran or Afghanistan. Women know their place there.
What do you know about men who become the targets of false allegations of rape? Have you ever heard about innocent men going to prison for false rape accusations? I just want to be fair. This article is misleading...
Everyone in prison claims to be innocent so I'm curious at what difference you think this makes. But as the law stands one is innocent until proven guilty as in a trial so how many men have been imprisoned for a supposed rape without being convicted in a trial? I suspect very few....
Have you heard that most rapes are never investigated because they're not reported? And why because the victims are too hurt, shocked and ashamed by what has happend and because they fear folks like Burma will try and say they "deserved it" or won't even believe them enough to investigate....
Men need to be punished for raping; women need to be punished for making false rape claims. It is that simple.
Both are crimes. Both can destroy lives. If you don't believe that a false rape claim can destroy a life, spend several hours in doing some research..
Just FYI- this is a paper about researching the "rape culture of America"..
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html
They already are. No one challenges the reality that false accusation can and are made concerning any and all crimes I simply resent what seems to be you're suggestion that most claims of rape are false or that authorities should assume the accusation to be false for any circumstance other than those where evidence shows them to be false
I read the abortion portion of the transcript and it's just astounding how poorly reasoned and fallacious it all is.
From the notion of 'honest rape' to the notion that pro-choice advocates are happy to kill healthy full-term babies one minute before they're born. And ofc his supremely weird 'Shrodenger's Embryo' theory of permissible abortion... The notion that he hasn't really performed an abortion because he never looked in the box.
How many people on this blog actually took the time to watch the interview? I'd guess "not many, if any." Ron Paul answered a tough question pretty well. There was nothing in his answer to suggest he wants to change the law. Couple that with a very serious photo of Dr. Paul taken from some other interview or debate to make him look stern....come on....i'm pro choice but can still smell a rat.
Ms. Maddow is just stirring the pot like most of the mainstream media. Go look at Ron Paul's voting record on abortion instead of listening to this slanted nonsense. Paul's the only GOP candidate pro choicers should not be afraid of. You want fearand outrage? go read up on Rick Santorum's views.
And recall that Presidents don't make laws, they just approve or reject them.