Ron Paul Quote of the Night

With all of the talk of his racist newsletters, I almost forgot about his horrible positions on women’s rights:

On the eve of Saturday’s Nevada caucus, Ron Paul sits down with Piers Morgan for a revealing interview, during which the Republican from Texas shares his views on rape and abortion: “If it’s an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room, I would give them a shot of estrogen.”


  1. If I’m a victim of dishonest rape, would he give me a shot of progestin? Because that’s what the morning after pill actually contains. I’d want the stuff that works.

  2. That snide “honest” remark aside [it’s not a medical professional’s obligation to make a judgement in that respect], it seems that administering estrogen can prevent conception, depending on what stage of the monthly cycle a woman’s body is at:

    Quote: Combinations of estrogen and progestin work by preventing ovulation (the release of eggs from the ovaries). They also change the lining of the uterus (womb) to prevent pregnancy from developing and change the mucus at the cervix (opening of the uterus) to prevent sperm (male reproductive cells) from entering.

  3. Yeah and how likely is it that an abuse victim is going to walk past their attacker and saunter over to the ER right after being violated like that? Not every rape victim is attacked in the parking lot on their way home from work, many of these women (or men) live with their abuser.

  4. Synonyms for “honest”

    above-board, authentic, bona fide, conscientious, decent, direct, equitable, ethical, fair, fair and square, forthright, frank, genuine, high-minded, honorable, impartial, ingenuous, just, law-abiding, lay it on the line, like it is, no lie, on the level, on the up and up, open, outright, plain, proper, real, reliable, reputable, scrupulous, sincere, straight, straightforward, true, true blue, trustworthy, trusty, undisguised, unfeigned, upfront, upright, veracious, virtuous, what you see is what you get

    Christ, what an asshole.

  5. So, let’s imagine that he is actually offering emergency contraceptives to women who have been raped. The first problem is that limiting access to “honest” rape victims means that women have to either do without the contraceptive, or they have to walk into a hospital and declare that they have been raped. For many women there is still a very real stigma attached to being raped, or they perceive danger in calling attention to that rape (for example, your abusive boyfriend might kill you expose him). Moreover, the possibility that she might be declared as a dishonest accuser hangs over her head- perhaps without physical evidence, she can be declared a liar and charges brought against her. So, you have the primary problem of limiting access to “legitimate” rape victims.
    A secondary problem is the plight of the “dishonest” rape victim. Let’s just go ahead and assume he meant that the woman reporting the rape is dishonest. If she wasn’t raped, and has a need for emergency contraceptives, how likely is it that she might attempt to falsely claim rape? If she does go in and falsely claims rape, will she be forced to proceed with a rape investigation against her will? Will she be forced to falsely accuse an otherwise innocent partner? If that partner is found to be innocent, will she face charges, herself?
    The tertiary problem is deciding who will determine what is an “honest” rape, and what is not. How much tax-payer money will go toward tracking down and declaring which rapes are real and which rapes aren’t? How much time goes into this process? Is it a psychologist, a doctor, a police-officer? Each of these people would have wildly different approaches to the problem, and each could come away with a completely different take on the same scenario. Emergency contraceptives only have a short window of time- most work for only about 3 days, the max is 5. I can’t get a good follow-up about an improper parking ticket in 5 days, so I don’t feel comfortable having to wait for a government worker to decide if I was raped or not.
    Does the public get to know who has made “dishonest” rape claims? Does the woman have to go back to her community both pregnant and ashamed? Rape is one of the few crimes that already allows for victim-blaming, how will the numbers of “dishonest” rape claims continue to support this problem? Will the pervading idea that women lie about rape create a bias against women, so that the investigation into the legitimacy of rape becomes even more strained?
    All this kind of attitude does is make further attempts to limit a woman’s freedom and autonomy by limiting access to emergency contraceptives because they are more difficult to obtain, more expensive to the tax payer, and open to fraud. It seems to me that if you are the kind of guy who is running as a pro-personal freedom, anti-government waste, and anti-fraud, you’re working in the exact opposite direction of your cause by supporting this.

  6. It’s been my experience that conservatives tend to err WAY on the side of punishing the guilty. For example, when it comes to welfare they consider it much better to risk letting someone starve or end up homeless if by doing so you can guarantee that someone who doesn’t ABSOLUTELY NEED help cannot possibly get a dime. When it comes to the death penalty, they consider it much better to risk executing an innocent person if by doing so you can guarantee that an actual guilty person cannot possibly go free.

    And, of course, when it comes to abortion it’s better to risk lifelong heartache and trauma for someone if by doing so you can guarantee that no one can possibly get an abortion just “because they feel like it”.

    Then they rationalize away their own cruelty by convincing themselves that the vast majority of people actually fall into the latter categories. Innocent people don’t get convicted of murder. Welfare recipients are just lazy and don’t actually NEED any help. Women get pregnant because they’re sluts who can’t keep their legs closed, not because their legs were pried open against their will.

    Sure, they’re willing to admit that on very rare occasions there’s at least a possibility that there is actually a legitimate problem, but that’s by far the exception rather than the rule. Besides, sacrifice like that makes them martyrs, and isn’t that really the highest honor achievable in this life anyway?

    1. This exact thing is what is exasperating about the “founding fathers” and “original intent” rhetoric that is so common in Republican circles. The Constitution was written to protect the innocent, even at the cost of sometimes allowing criminals to go free. It seems, as with all of the other documents they say they love, they have cherry picked the convenient parts and ignored the rest.

    2. Part of the problem is the just world hypothesis. For these conservatives, people get what they deserve. Believing that the poor are lazy and weak and that rape victims are sluts and liars goes hand in hand with believing that the rich are rich because they are virtuous and deserve to have more than everyone else and the fact that they are rich proves it. It’s easy to punish the victims and the innocent when their predicament alone proves they’re bad people.

  7. Could he have been attempting to make a distinction from statutory rape, which can be consensual in many cases? He should have worded it better. But as an atheist and a person interested in philosophy, I don’t find abortion, purely as a normal form of birth control, as a morally tenable position. Rape and incest and health of the mother are all exceptions, which are not within the main argument. Is killing an unborn child out of convenience OK? Its not a political wedge issue for me, but I do feel strongly about it, mainly due to the influence of my wife.

  8. I suppose that it is possible that he was making reference to statutory rape, but I would bet my bottom dollar that he is not, but rather making a distinction between a violent, obviously non-consensual rape, and FakeRape (aka date rape, statutory rape, “hey, that slut was wearing a skirt” rape, and “drunk bitches don’t count” rape). I read the transcript, and the conversation begins about 2/3 of the way down. ( Based on the conversation, we’re not talking about 16 year old girls and their 18 year old boyfriends (which is the only form of statutory rape that I could imagine that would fit into both “consensual” and “statutory”).
    I don’t consider Plan B to be abortion. Technically, it slows or stops the movement of eggs and sperm to prevent the two coming together. It’s only a theory that the drug thins the lining of the uterus to prevent attachment- there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that Plan B kills a zygote, only that it prevents sperm and egg from meeting- much the way that birth control works. I know a lot of us didn’t get a very good sex ed lesson, but the time between sperm meeting egg and ejaculation can be many days. There is the “abortion pill,” and that basically just forces the lining of the uterus to shed, taking the zygote with it.
    I think the idea that women run around killing children out of convenience is a total myth. I’m sure there are a few women who might- perhaps in the same way that there are men who run around shooting people in the face because they are allowed to own guns. Abortions are physically difficult, emotionally strenuous, and financially disastrous. My birth control pills cost me about $360/year assuming I get them through Planned Parenthood, but an abortion starts at $500, and that’s for a simple first trimester D&C. If I were to have a later term abortion, we’re talking about thousands of dollars. Beyond the cost of the procedure, there are wages lost, and for many women, major travel expenses. No one is skipping through the forest, banging all the dudes, and aborting all babies like a hobby.

    1. Plan B is definately not an abortion, it stops the sperm from implanting. Where I live, you still can’t get that because people here think it is abortion. When you say that women having abortions out of convenience is a myth, are you saying that over 95% of abortions are for purely medical reasons (or rape/incest)? I don’t believe that notion.

  9. I’m shocked that a man that spent his professional career ensuring that women have healthy offspring and delivered 4000 plus children into the world is against aborting a fetus.

    I’m not the most pro-life guy or anything, but I can understand his point of view. I have watched the interview and I did not hear any accusatory tone in his voice about raped women and blaming them.

    But on this blog its like fighting the currents of the ocean to try and explain that Paul is no sinister boogieman.

    1. Listen, I’m pretty sympathetic to people who hold unpopular opinions on this blog. I’ve experienced my own share of “dudes, seriously” moments ( This is why I do not use the thumbs down function excepting the obvious case of trolling; a contrary opinion well considered and well presented is not a bad thing.
      But, the problem with Ron Paul is not that we all hate him for his character (“sinister boogieman”), but rather we take issue with his minority-hating, woman-oppressing, gun-loving, faux-freedom-loving, gold-standard-obsessing, economically-ignorant, advantaged-indulging positions. These things cannot be looked over simply because he has a slightly more rational view on drugs and war.
      You might not hear the accusatory tone in his voice, probably because you aren’t a woman. I’m not going to insult your intelligence and imply that you are incapable of sympathy or empathy, but I think your comment shows that you weren’t employing either when you made that statement. The very idea that there is a distinction between an “honest” and a “dishonest” rape, and that Paul is in any way capable of judging between them is promoting the idea that women are willy-nilly running around faking rape. Sure, there are women who have lied about it- but there are also people who lie about home invasions for insurance fraud, and you don’t hear any politicians blathering on about “honest” burglaries. We live in a society that starts by blaming a woman before the rapist, and to even give a nod to that (much less openly mention the distinction of “honest” vs. “dishonest”), is a slap in the face to anyone (not just women) who have faced sexual assault.
      And, to address your first sentence, I am a little surprised that he has such an unwavering view of abortion. Surely we understand that women do not have third trimester abortions because they just fucking love killing viable babies. At that point, you have to actually birth that baby. So, if you have to go through labor, at that point, it’s easier to carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption. If it’s embarrassment that leads you to want out of your pregnancy, too late: everyone can already see that you are pregnant, and knowing that you aborted will only make it worse. Dealing with the physical aftermath of a late-term abortion can be worse than simply delivering the baby at full term, so there’s no selfish advantage there. In fact, if it’s an issue of money, that would make late-term abortion silly, too. Those can cost almost as much as (or more than) a normal delivery, except if you don’t want the baby, it’s not impossible to find someone to adopt the baby and cover the cost of delivery.
      So, why do women go around aborting these “9 pound” babies that Ron Paul keeps talking about? Because they are so severely disabled, developmentally challenged, unhealthy and dangerous to the mother’s health that delivering them would be cruel and dangerous to both mother and child.
      I would think that in the years of his practice, that Ron Paul would have come across these cases and managed to develop sympathy for the women facing this heartbreaking decision. I’m shocked that he continues to see no reason for abortions, and I’m confused that an intelligent man with direct experience would be so unable to glean even a morsel of understanding of the plight of women in their struggle for reproductive autonomy.

      1. Faux-freedom? I’m afraid I have to take issue with this. Sure I’m perfectly aware that many don’t agree with many of his issues but this is clearly a misstatement.

        Lets juxtapose to a current political figure that certainly on this board would have a more popular point of view and that is politically correct.

        Under our current system women can have an abortion legally.

        Under our current system we no longer have the right of due process if suspected of the crime of terrorism.

        Under our current system we can be detained without access to a lawyer.

        Under our current system criminal suspects who are citizens are now assassinated without trial or even evidence presented to the public.

        Under our current system the entirety of the United States is now considered a battlefield.

        Under our current system the government can look at your health, financial, telephone and email records in the name of national security without a court issued warrant.

        Under our current system of debt financing and bailouts for the rich millions have lost their jobs.

        Under our current system millions have lost their homes.

        Under our current system peaceful protesters are being assaulted by the police.

        Under our current system the dollar has lost most of its value compared to that silly gold object.

        Under our current system gasoline has not increased in price due to scarcity, but our purchasing power has declined.

        Under our current system the government picks winners and losers in business not the free market.

        Under our current system we commit acts of war on a daily business without the consent of the people through their representatives.

        This concerns did not go away when Bush left office, did they…

        But I suppose if you aren’t pro-choice or pro-Israel you are a racist, woman hating bigot that isn’t allowed near public office.

      2. I can’t reply to you directly, peeps, it looks like you’re too deep in the thread. But this is a response to you.
        What I mean by faux-freedom is that Ron Paul’s brand of freedom only benefits people who already have a great deal of freedom. His brand doesn’t seek to level the playing field, but rather to do away with the refs in a might-makes-right brand of libertarianism. This, on the face of things, looks really free. I went through a phase of life where I thought that this was the definition of freedom- on my land, I can do what I want, damn it!
        However, this is faux-freedom, because all it does is enslave the poor and weak to the wealthy and strong. He might espouse dialing back police and military efforts in the name of freedom, but I can see a direct relationship between that action and the overpowering of the weak by the strong. Yes, I would like to see less invasive and aggressive tactics by police, but I also would not want to live in a place without their jurisdiction.
        I notice that you say “under our current system” and I assume you mean “under our current president.” I hope you understand that we don’t live in a parliamentary system where voting in a new power means re-writing the government.
        I would consider the “have abortions legally” to fall under the category of freedom. I know that there are a lot of people who don’t, but this argument has been made so many times, there’s no use hitting it again.
        I too have a problem with the degradation of due process for citizens and lawyer deprivation, and I’m ashamed that our constitutional lawyer president has allowed this to continue.
        I have no knowledge of citizen assassination without trial. Please provide a reference.
        In any modern country, an attack on the land is considered an act of war, so yes- the land of the US can be considered a “battlefield” if under attack. However, I don’t think that the sensationalist language presented is useful or even accurate in describing the idea.
        I, too, am disappointed by the complete disregard for the warrant process- especially given who completely easy the system is. This was an overreach of power that needs to be amended.
        Our current financial system does have a lot of problems. I don’t take issue with bailouts, but I do have a problem with our government handing out money without the strings that could have been put in place to defend the economically disadvantaged. For example, we could have told the banks that got giant bail-outs that a condition of the loan was that the bank had to lower interest rates for new borrowers, they had to allow people to refinance loans at lower rates (including underwater mortgages), student lending should have been revamped, and foreclosures had to be halted in favor of payment plans, no matter how low. I can see a value to not letting huge corporations totally tank- I can’t even imagine how bad it would have been had all of those banks had gone under- insurance companies would implode trying to cover the banks, the federal government would have had to pay out even more for FDIC accounts, millions would have lost access to the pathetic dribble of credit that we do have, and I don’t think that even a 15-20% unemployment rate would be out of the question. Bailouts suck- but we could have made it not suck.
        Under our current system, millions have lost their homes, and I can’t imagine how much worse it would be without the handful of federal programs and watchdogs that have slowed the process. Those banks don’t give a flying fuck about their borrowers who can’t pay- and there would be a whole lot more foreclosures if the lending industry had even less enforced regulation.
        Peaceful protesters are being assaulted by the police, and it’s a damn shame- but President Obama, just so you know, has no jurisdiction in local police stations or state sheriffs offices.
        I’ve commented on Cynical-C before about the foolhardiness of the gold standard, here’s a link to the discussion if you want the fuller version: . The shorthand: gold only works as a backer for cash if it is a stable and recognized standard for all currencies, and is not subject to the ups and downs that other commodities face in the market. We could back our currency in any item of value (from titanium to Barbie dolls), and use their relative value to determine the value of our currency just as well as gold. In fact, given the instability of the gold market as of late, it’s an especially poor backer for a stable currency. Gold isn’t some magic thing, it’s the shiny shit that people who don’t understand modern economics use to distract other people who also don’t understand modern economics.
        Gasoline price fluctuations have a lot to do with supply and demand (and I assume that’s what you mean by “scarcity.”) It’s not just that oil can be pumped directly from the earth and into your car, it has to be refined- and that process is expensive and fragile (as evidenced by the damaged post-Katrina). Moreover, the price of gas is directly related to the price of oil being traded on the commodities market. It’s not fair to claim that you’re pissed about the market not being free enough, and then also complain that shit is expensive because people, on the free market, have decided a value for a commodity. In case you are wondering, gold is traded in the same way, and if it were, say, employed to back a major currency, you can bet that there would be more instable trading of that commodity and we could see our dollar value fly around the way gasoline prices do.
        I wouldn’t necessarily say that the government picks winners and losers, it does choose to bail out companies that threaten the economy as a whole with collapse. I do subscribe to the idea that we need a metric shit ton (it’s more than a regular shit ton) of regulation. Businesses are only there to make money, and they will fuck over anyone who gets in the way- and it’s the government’s job to provide a check to that behavior. The free market only works if people start off with level footing, equal assets, open knowledge and a firm set of rules that they must obey, lest they be ejected from the game.
        Congress authorized our wars, so you must be talking about Pakistan. That is going to piss me off at the exact second we stop spending money on them or actually invade them. None of those actions were illegal, so I can’t make too much noise.
        You are correct, getting rid of Bush didn’t magically solve all the problems. However, you’re living in lala land if you think for half a second that Ron Paul will do any better.
        And finally: the nugget I’ve been waiting for:

        But I suppose if you aren’t pro-choice or pro-Israel you are a racist, woman hating bigot that isn’t allowed near public office.

        PWN #1: He’s held office, so obviously this isn’t even close to reality.
        PWN #2: Treating women with respect and dignity in allowing them the freedom to do what the hell they want with their bodies shouldn’t even be a question. How do you even rectify any other personal freedoms with believing that I shouldn’t be able to decide what happens to my own body?
        PWN#3: Not supporting Israel has nothing to do with his racism or bigotry. His obvious and unrepentant attitudes toward minorities is why he’s a racist. And you know what, I do think that being a racist should disqualify you from public office. If you can’t treat, or even think of the citizens that you represent fairly and with a balanced view, you shouldn’t be anywhere near office. I mean, if I were a giant man-hating witch, it wouldn’t be fair at all for me to be in charge of men. If you aren’t even fair-minded enough to understand why open racism and sexism is wrong, then you shouldn’t be able to run a fucking banana stand, much less the most diverse country in the world.
        In summation: you can take your Ron Paul and continue to pretend that he’s fit for office. He’s not going to win, anyway. If we’re all really lucky, he’ll get plenty of money, run as an independent in the general election, and spoil the shit out of Mitt’s glorious wet/pipe dream.
        PS. Sorry to Chris for the extensive comment.

  10. I liked your blog better before you got all political. When are you going to post some dirt on the nobel peace prize winning commander in chief? Personally I don’t want to vote for any of them, so I probably won’t.

  11. Many of the issues I have right here with our current erosion of freedom, by they way it appears many, not all, but many Democrats, liberals and folks on the left are curiously silent about these abuses now that Bush is out of office.

    Warrentless searches
    Secret prisons
    Indefinite detention
    Secret evidence

    And the coup de grace

    Assassination of US Citizens

    Federal Reserve issuance of credit coupled with government requirements on mortgage loans were the reason behind the economic meltdown and Wall Street was a complacent party, after all they received the bailouts…

    If they had hired a decent lobbying firm.

    Others weren’t picked as “winners” and melted down, Lehman Brothers, WaMu for instance, they weren’t “too big to fail” but Goldman Sachs and AIG were??

    Follow the money, we don’t have a free market system, its a system of bribes, payoffs, bailouts and corruption mixing government elites with Wall Street elites, doesn’t matter what party is in control we get the same result.

    As for consent of congress for our foreign adventures, this is patently illegal.

    Ron Paul introduced a declaration of war against Iraq as mandated by our constitution. He had every intention of voting against his house resolution, here are his words…

    It is mandated by our laws that we go to war only based on the people’s wishes through their representatives, the “authorization” granted to the Bush was hardly a declaration of war and similar excuses have been used for militarism in Kosovo, Vietnam, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Korea, Panama and on and on.

    I’m not saying I necessarily disagree with all of these military actions, but not a single one was authorized constitutionally.

    As for oil prices, yes, as with any good simple supply and demand do effect price, but so does the purchasing power of our dollar which has nothing to do with scarcity and everything to do with speculation…

    When tied to the price of gold oil remains stable versus the dollar, simple graph for this one

    All I have for today, off to the libertarian fantasy land for now

Comments are closed.