Santorum Still Wants to Outlaw Contraception
Rick Santorum was interviewed by ABC’s Jake Tapper this week and he repeated his claim that the states should be allowed to outlaw the use of contraception, which the Supreme Court threw out in 1965.
I pointed out that Democrats say that one of the reasons Santorum lost in 2006 was because they say he’s more conservative than mainstream America. One issue was Santorum’s opposition to the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling that invalidated a Connecticut law banning contraception. Santorum said he still feels that a state should be able to make such laws.
“The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have. That is the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court, they are creating rights, and they should be left up to the people to decide,” he said.
“You shouldn’t create constitutional rights when states do dumb things,” Santorum said. “Let the people decide if the states are doing dumb things get rid of the legislature and replace them as opposed to creating constitutional laws that have consequences that were before them.”
If consenting adults do not have the right to decide themselves whether to use contraception or not — if the government has the authority to restrict even such a personal decision made in their most intimate relationships, a decision that affects no one else — then the whole idea of individual rights and limited government is rendered meaningless.
arakasi:
January 6th, 2012 at 11:15 am
I think that this is a perfect example of the observation: “Conservatives want to shrink government until it is small enough to fit into your vagina”
MikeMa:
January 6th, 2012 at 11:18 am
Meaningless – like Santorum will be in a few weeks.
raven:
January 6th, 2012 at 11:22 am
Use of contraception among relevant American women is 99%.
It’s 98% for Catholic women.
Why is anyone sane paying attention to Satanorum? He has nothing worthwhile to say, just a creepy antique religious kook from the Dark Ages.
To make it worse, we do have a huge problem in the USA right now. Clinton: It’s the economy, stupid!!!
All this rhetoric about contraception, abortion, creationism and so on are irrelevant side issues. We either get the budgets fixed, get the economy moving, lower the unemployment rate or we will never recover from the Bush Catastrophe.
slc1:
January 6th, 2012 at 11:23 am
Attached is a link to a Washington Post story on how political conservatives are suddenly finding Santorum to their liking.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/santorum-the-phenomenon-the-pundits-couldnt-see-coming/2012/01/05/gIQAGi4edP_story.html?hpid=z3
Included in this stupidity is one time sensible conservative Charles Krauthammer who apparently has now gone totally over to the dark side as he proclaims Santorum s worthy challenger. Krauthammer is a textbook example of Obama hatred delusional insanity.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-worthy-challenger/2012/01/05/gIQAGeRfdP_story.html?tid=pm_pop
It might also be pointed out that Santorum also favors making in-vitro fertilization illegal. I wonder what former Vice-President Cheney has to say about that, considering that his daughter Mary has had two children via that procedure.
raven:
January 6th, 2012 at 11:28 am
Santorum is a really creepy guy. His wife had a late term abortion for medical reasons. They brought the dead fetus home to introduce their kids to their dead sibling.
There is something really wrong with that guy’s head.
This is the best the fundies can produce to lead the USA?
Michael Heath:
January 6th, 2012 at 11:35 am
Once again we see a miserable failure by a reporter with access. Here Mr. Tapper puts the privacy issue into a favorite media frame, that of a horserace, what is and is not ‘mainstream’. A competent question that would have reconciled Santorum’s positions to the oath required to take the office he seeks would have the reporter instead framing the question in light of the plain language of the Constitution. Such a framing and response by Mr. Santorum would have informed listeners rather than serve once again for conservatives to successfully leverage their access to the mainstream media.
Mr. Tapper lobbed a softball and let Santorum emit his frothy mixture lapped-up mouth-to-ass by conservatives. That lusted-after concoction (sounds like cock) is not Mr. Santorum’s position on contraception; even conservatives know that wouldn’t get passed in the reddest of states, but instead so-called ‘states rights’. In fact Mr. Tapper initiates the states right mantra himself.
StevoR:
January 6th, 2012 at 11:35 am
@2. MikeMa : January 6, 2012 at 11:18 am
Assuming Mitt Romney doesn’t chose Santorum a shis running mate to bolster his conservative cred and win over the teabaggers who are into santorum.
hunter:
January 6th, 2012 at 11:36 am
We’ve now heard from the two extremes of the right — the no-government libertarians and the huge government religious fanatics — that it’s OK for states to discriminate against groups of citizens based on whatever a majority of the moment feels like, while it’s not OK for the federal government to defend those citizens based on Constitutional guarantees of fundamental rights.
Has anyone spotted any rational thought processes in that bit of doctrine?
holytape:
January 6th, 2012 at 11:36 am
What’s the difference between Santorum with a capital ‘S’ and santorum with a little ‘s’?
The little ‘s’ means someone got fucked and had some fun, the big ‘S’ means that someone’s going to get fucked and it won’t be fun.
peterh:
January 6th, 2012 at 11:37 am
@ #1:
In this case, wouldn’t a different orifice be more appropriate? Not enjoyable, perhaps, but then what associated with government is pleasurable?
gshelley:
January 6th, 2012 at 11:38 am
Sometimes I wonder which conservatives like Santorum, Perry etc dislike most, the 9th or the 14th.
The talk about “creating rights” implies that they think the constitution gives rights rather than recognises them.
StevoR:
January 6th, 2012 at 11:41 am
Argh. Typos. Sorry. Make that :
Depressing thought. No idea how likely that is but can certainly imagine Romney will want someone who is much further politically right-wing to “balance” (haha!) his percieved reputation as overly moderate and too liberal. If not the frothy one then maybe Perry or Bachman or some one like that to appease teh Xn xtremist.
StevoR:
January 6th, 2012 at 11:44 am
@9.holytape :
FIFY
Michael Heath:
January 6th, 2012 at 11:47 am
raven:
I think the fact his positions on this could never get passed aren’t necessarily hurting him given the state of the other anti-Romney candidates. As long as Mr. Santorum doesn’t reveal complete incompetency they’ll rationalize these as odd quirks which he could never pass anyway; therefore these “quirks” are easily ignored. The same can’t be said of Perry (idiot), Bachmann (delusional bomb-thrower) or Paul (dangerous wingnut) since their flaws are systemic rather than parsed to a few examples.
I disagree my assessment in the above paragraph accurately describes Mr. Santorum. This is merely how I can see conservatives rationalizing their support, e.g., his sweater-vest prop is a perfect validation point to my broader assessment. I instead think Santorum’s flaw is systemic and easily revealed if competent journalists with access existed and asked questions in light of the document politicians must swear to defend. However I can see how this rationalization would work not just within conservatism, but within other partisan and ideological camps as well given a similar set of candidate-types.
I don’t think Santorum can win the nomination, simply because he’s not raising money.
Quodlibet:
January 6th, 2012 at 11:52 am
gshelley says:
That’s an important distinction that is lost on most people. Thank you for articulating it so well.
It infuriates me that politicians so often take advantage of voters’ ignorance about how our legal and political systems work. In particular, I am annoyed when a presidential candidate promises to make changes to taxes, or impose specific laws, or other things that are not within the power of the executive branch. Too many voters take these campaign promises seriously and don’t consider what it would actually take to implement them. For example, Herman Cain and his ridiculous 9-9-9 schtick – I often wished that a reporter, or debate moderator, would follow up by asking “And if Congress does NOT pass the laws that would make your 9-9-9 plan a reality, what’s your backup plan? What would you do next?”
Those questions should be asked of every candidate who “promises” sweeping changes or changes that are not within his or her power to impose.
timberwoof:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
“What associated with government is pleasurable?”
National, regional, and local parks, forests, and wildlife reserves … which don’t make money, so the Rethuglicans want to lease them to mining companies and hotel chains.
Santorum is mad at Dan Savage for savaging his name. Savage did offer to stop equating Santorum with santorum if Santorum would stop vilifying gay people … but he won’t, so he won’t. Now Santorum is onto sex in general. I’m reminded of the college professor’s reply, “Fuck you, Republicans!”
Jeremy Shaffer:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
An opening to show that Santorum’s “state’s rights” rhetoric is simply opportunistic and obfuscating in nature rather than principled was missed here:
Santorum claims that the state should have the right to ban contraception if they want but Santorum has also stated that, if he were elected President, he would annul any and all same- sex marriages in the country regardless of their legal status in a given state. In light of these contradicting positions, I would like to see someone who won’t drop the subject so quickly have Santorum try to explain how his “state’s rights” talk means anything other than a “state’s right to do as it pleases so long as the state rightly does what pleases me”.
I imagine though that he would make some claim that the President is duely elected by the people but the SCOTUS justices are not. Sadly, it would probably never move beyond that no matter how tenacious the inteviewer and irrespective of it being set up that way in the Constitution for a very good reason.
Dennis N:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
The sense of security I get from not worrying about marauders coming to kill me in my home for food. Helps me sleep at night.
abb3w:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:16 pm
@2, MikeMa:
It seems more likely that the word “santorum” has become as much a meaningful fixture of the English language as “quisling”… to the dismay of people looking for information about the politician.
briandavis:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
@12 SteveoR:
Why would he want to do this? By the time he is selecting a VP he won’t be running in Republican primaries anymore. His worry won’t be trying to win over the conservative base. His worry will be getting enough moderates to join with the conservative base in order to win the general election.
dukeyork:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
We’re missing the subtext of conservative message.It’s not just that states have rights and corporations are people. It’s that ONLY states have rights and ONLY corporations at people.
Tualha:
January 6th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
hunter @8: The conservative notion of individual rights and limited government applies only to economics: they want low taxes, little or no regulation, no labor laws, and no government assistance for the poor. When it comes to social issues, they’re all for big, intrusive government: homosexuality illegal, contraception illegal, abortion illegal, adultery illegal, divorce very hard to obtain at best, and every woman effectively the property of some man. The apparent contradiction is resolved by realizing that in both cases, the powerful become more powerful, and the powerless (including women and minorities of all kinds) more easily exploited.
MikeMa:
January 6th, 2012 at 1:18 pm
I think briandavis is correct that Santorum offers nothing to Romney. Where else are the right wing loonies going to go? Santorum is a net loss with his theocratic messages. Romney will need someone in the center to add balance, like Obama.
Pieter B:
January 6th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Why doesn’t Santorum just distill it down to “If elected I will repeal the 20th Century”?
He also seems at times to think he’s running for Emperor, not President.
briandavis:
January 6th, 2012 at 1:31 pm
@24 Pieter B:
Is it that, or does he want to empower each state and county to be its own little tyrannical fiefdom?
exdrone:
January 6th, 2012 at 1:34 pm
Are we going to find out that Santorum wants to outlaw contraception because he wants to justify going bareback when he screws around?
ehmm:
January 6th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
For some historical context, here’s Dan Savage talking about the origin of “Santorum”
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DiG62Gh8ffbY&sa=U&ei=Bz4HT7KNHciggwf0q-CQAg&ved=0CCEQtwIwAA&usg=AFQjCNGvxWdq8T38mWjBe0fXCwWaYeRcrQ
NSFW.
fastlane:
January 6th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
I wonder, given the ‘exception’ for abortion that he was willing to make for himself (laws for thee, not for me), what, if any, nuances his stance on contraception might have.
I’m guessing in front of the wingnuts, he’s pretty much all or nothing.
My wife is incapable of having children, due to a childhood illness. However, she requires BC pills to regulate her cycle. Also, we don’t want children. If santorum o’ the frothy mixture would want to totally ban contraception, there are many women who would suffer, and not an insignificant number that could die, without access to that medication.
I hope he meets up with a rusty zombified porcupine.
D. C. Sessions:
January 6th, 2012 at 2:35 pm
I’ve always had very positive relations with the EMS personnel who serve our area. Just recently we had a really ugly afternoon, ending up with three ambulances and two helicopters. The crews on the scene, notably the senior paramedic, were fast and precise; the triage calls were eminently well-though-out without wasting a second.
Highway Patrol at several accident scenes have been courteous, professional, and have gone out of their way to be supportive while we rendered emergency medical aid.
The county recorder where I’m moving has been very helpful.
The new building inspector has not only been courteous but has gone out of his way to help us comply with code and good practices. He as made other suggestions that will save us money and make the new home even safer.
Should I go on? It’s really a very long list.
JustaTech:
January 6th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Gah. This guy. I don’t even have words for him. Hey Frothy-boy, if you’re so damn interested in medicine, why didn’t you become a doctor? Why don’t you insist on outlawing insulin? Kidney transplants? X-rays?
No, all you care about is that people who are not like you (women) are doing something that a man in a dress said was bad. Are you seriously going to tell your daughters that they must become Quiverfulls? Of course not. It’s always about “other people” and the sinful things they do.
What a waste of oxygen.
Pieter B:
January 6th, 2012 at 6:13 pm
@briandavis, #25
It’s both, as Ed pointed out. If a state or local government wants to legislate something that he agrees with even if it limits personal freedom, such as outlawing contraception, he’s cool with it. If a state or local entity wants to legislate something that he disagrees with, such as same-sex marriage, he apparently wants the imperial power to overrule it, since he said the other day that he would annul all same-sex marriages. He likened same-sex love to the love one has for a close friend or a relative like an aunt.
Michael Heath:
January 6th, 2012 at 7:57 pm
briandavis:
He’ll be nominating a trusted conservative name because turn-out of the base is usually a superior tactic relative to winning over the middle. “Leaners” are very loyal partisan voters as are most so-called independents, who either consistently vote for one party, don’t vote, or are uninformed voters. Of course the best of all solutions is to nominate a VP who conservatives love and moderates aren’t offended by, the best example would be Bush picking Dick Cheney, whose reputation prior to 2001 was mostly stellar.
tommykey:
January 6th, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Of course the best of all solutions is to nominate a VP who conservatives love and moderates aren’t offended
Jeb Bush?
Another who comes to mind is Sununu, the younger one who was a senator from New Hampshire.
bananacat:
January 6th, 2012 at 9:12 pm
This is relevant here and something everyone should know. According to Rick’s wikipedia page, he doesn’t consider his wife’s abortion to be an abortion. Now, I have no idea who edited it and it probably wasn’t Rick himself. But it’s essentially described as an induced premature labor where the “baby” simply didn’t survive. Of course the pregnancy was 20 weeks along so the fetus wasn’t viable, but I don’t think that Rick sees this as an abortion.
Catholics especially are good at twisting things around to deal with their hypocrisy. Rick’s wife didn’t kill that fetus; she just removed it from her body for an unrelated reason and then God himself failed to save its life. Intent is magic and the only thing that matters. You see this same thing in the way Catholic hospitals deal with ectopic pregnancy. They remove the ovary for the woman’s health, and if another “person” dies of it, it’s not their problem. This means that even in cases where the pregnancy could be removed but the ovary saved, they’ll still take the whole ovary. It’s better to do more damage with the right intent. It’s really fucking stupid, but I’m sure Rick does not see himself as a hypocrite or baby killer.
But this gives me an idea. Instead of calling it abortion, we should just call all of them induced premature labor that the “baby” doesn’t survive through. This could apply to any and all stages and I’d love to see how Rick would react to it.
eric:
January 6th, 2012 at 9:49 pm
Interesting idea, but it could reasonably be countered by a law based on intent. Yeah, those are squishy and there will be gray areas, but we already have intent-based criminal laws and courts know how to deal with distinguishing intent. (Consider libel and first degree murder; both have an intent component.) I suspect conservatives would be relatively happy with such a squishy law if it nevertheless greatly deterred women from getting legal abortions and significantly cut down on the rate of legal procedures.
slc1:
January 7th, 2012 at 6:48 am
Re Tommykey @ #33
Given his antics during the Terri Schiavo affair, I doubt that either the born agains or the moderates would be enamored with Jeb Bush.
tommykey:
January 7th, 2012 at 11:15 am
Good point SLC1. I had forgotten about Jeb’s involvement in that.
ear plugs:
March 22nd, 2012 at 7:35 am
ear plugs…
[...]Santorum Still Wants to Outlaw Contraception | Dispatches from the Culture Wars[...]…
the quilt shop:
April 14th, 2012 at 7:10 am
the quilt shop…
[...]Santorum Still Wants to Outlaw Contraception | Dispatches from the Culture Wars[...]…
Click Here:
May 4th, 2012 at 9:58 am
from truth. hence a good post pregnancy…
diet plan is one which has the right mix of proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals. since there are bound to be quite a number of changes after pregnancy the diet plan should keep this fact in mind. such drastic reduction in…