I got so swept up in the glacial pace of this weekend’s Nevada caucuses, I totally missed this:

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.”

Ron Paul has always been absolutely terrible on women’s rights, but: Seriously? “Honest rape?” Jessica Pieklo asks:

I guess I would start by asking Paul to follow-up on just what exactly constitutes an “honest” rape. What kind of evidence would we need to show a lack of consent? Does a woman need to have signs she resisted? How much resistance counts before a rape goes from being “fraudulent” to being “honest”? Can spousal rape ever be “honest”? What about other forms of familial rape? What exactly is the bright line here?…About that shot of estrogen. What exactly is this shot of estrogen supposed to do? Paul is purportedly an ob/gyn, so he must know a shot of estrogen won’t do a thing to prevent fertilization and implantation. So what’s that shot for?

I’m not sure what is the most dangerous aspect to come from Paul’s statements here: that is platform is built on a criminal disdain of women or as a doctor he doesn’t know his ear from his elbow.

I was going to write, “Ron Paul is the worst Republican candidate when it comes to women’s rights.” But then I remembered that Rick Santorum exists.

3 replies on “Ron Paul Proposes Useless Medical Procedure If a Woman Is a Victim of “Honest Rape””

  2. We get it: all the Republican candidates are ignorant, hateful sacks of shit. Instead of continuing to pick apart Paul and Santorum, why not write about any of the innumerable political/economic stories that have actual immediate relevance? Besides, if all we do is respond to candidates’ and politicians’ statements, then we’re allowing them to set the agenda of political discourse.

Comments are closed.