Ron Paul and "Honest Rape"

I should preface this with my honest, completely biased opinion– I dislike and have always disliked Ron Paul.

I think some people who are Ron Paul supporters are very attracted by his anti-war stance, one of his many libertarian views for which he is famous. Others like his soft on marijuana position, though he doesn't think that full-out legalization is possible right now. Some people are repelled by the fact that he's signed off on racist newsletters, or just find his economic opinions. Depending on what's important to you, all of those are pretty valid opinions to like or dislike the man, as long as you recognize the whole picture.

On Friday, Ron Paul was interviewed (transcript here) on Piers Morgan about his life, his political views, and his election run, especially impressed with his popularity with young people.

(Video from YouTube.)

At one point, Morgan brought up Paul's stance on abortion. Morgan posed the dilemma that if one of Paul's five children or eighteen grandchildren were raped, would he force them to carry the baby to term? Paul simultaneously asserted that "life does begin at conception" and then went on a rambling tangent about the complexity of the issue (recognizing there are no clear lines, indirectly mentioning the morning-after pill) but ultimately did not come to a satisfying conclusion. He did acknowledge that "It's a tough one. I won't satisfy everybody there."

Regardless of the stumbles that he made on abortion, there was one moment of shockingly poor word choice.

MORGAN: But it's a dilemma that I am going to put to you. 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 or give them --

MORGAN: You would allow them to abort the baby?

PAUL: It is absolutely in limbo, because an hour after intercourse or a day afterwards, there is no legal or medical problem. 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.

Morgan did not go on to ask Paul to clarify on what he believed was an "honest rape." This poses a lot of awkward questions: what is "honest rape?" Moreover, what is "dishonest rape?" 

I'm not going to get into the ins and outs on the different opinions on when life begins.  But I think in this quote and this interview, Ron Paul is showing a dangerous disdain for rape victims. An "honest rape" is not just one where the girl is single and a virgin and a Christian, and she was held at gunpoint in a dark alley, and she didn't know her rapist (probably a person of color, knowing Paul). Rape victims can be drunk. They can be married. They can be male. They can be of any age, race, gender, religion, or socioeconomic class.

There is no such thing as an "honest rape" or a "dishonest rape." There is only rape, and the fact that people should not have to deal with its horrible consequences after the attack.

United States on LGBT People Around the World

For the entirety of my blog, I have been playing a sort of game with myself– how long can I go without making a post about LGBT rights? I have finally lost, but perhaps my readers will find it a winning topic.

On December 6th, President Obama issued a memorandum with seven points on protecting LGBT rights abroad, saying that gay rights were an important part of human rights and stating that they were a major part of the human rights and foreign policies of the United States. A short time after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a speech in Switzerland to celebrate December 10th, which marks both Human Rights Day and the signing of the Geneva Convention. She expanded upon President Obama's memo and also announced that the U.S. is making a $3 million "global equality fund" to support organizations who advance these goals around the world.

(Fun fact, which I didn't know before looking at Sec. Clinton's speech: Before the 6-3 Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas, there were still "sodomy laws" in place in thirteen states. Oh yeah, that was in 2003. 2003!)

The response to this speech was overwhelmingly positive. Dan Savage, creator of the "It Gets Better" campaign (and admittedly under fire for some controversial remarks about trans*-people) echoed the sentiments of many LGBT activists when he said "The check I was planning to write to Obama's reelection campaign just acquired another zero." Joe Solomonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBT rights organization, said that "Today's actions by President Obama make clear that the United States will not turn a blind eye when governments commit or allow abuses to the human rights of LGBT people." Clearly, some big names in LGBT rights are really happy about this new development in gay rights and foreign policy.

The favorable reaction shocked me. Sure, I'm glad that our administration is paying attention to human rights and gay people. But it seemed to me to be kind of a backhanded move concerning domestic politics. Remember, folks, President Obama supports civil unions, not same-sex marriage. This seemed like an almost hypocritical way for Obama to pander to the LGBT crowd without actually taking any decisive stance on the freedoms of his own citizens. The more that I think about it, of course this action is going to be popular– few people are going to say that they think defending human rights is a bad thing. But it really rubs me the wrong way to see an inconsistency between actions at home and abroad, especially when it is so obviously a tactic to get gays to the polls.

I hope that if President Obama is elected for a second term, he will take a more decisive stance on the rights of LGBT people in America.