Screeching into the ether what is likely to become a popular talking point of the Left, especially if Rick Santorum can translate his success in Iowa to other primary states, Salonran a piece yesterday entitled, “Rick Santorum is coming for your birth control.”
“It’s pretty basic,” the author, Irin Carmon, opined. “Rick Santorum is coming for your contraception. Any and all of it. And while he may not be alone in his opposition to non-procreative sex, he is certainly the most honest about it.”
Santorum is indeed honest about his opposition. And such honesty is more than can be attributed to Salon, and the usual suspects — notably, ThinkProgress and The Huffington Post — who have lined up to join in with Carmon’s hysteria. The primary problem with the line that they have taken, that Santorum wishes to use the White House to impose his religious beliefs on a reluctant America, is that it is patently untrue. It demonstrates well the habitual liberal inability to distinguish between the personal and the governmental, and to acknowledge that one’s legal opinions can be separate from one’s moral convictions.
Advertisement
Santorum’s true position demonstrates that it is eminently possible to argue for public policy that yields outcomes of which one disapproves, or vice versa; indeed, William F. Buckley Jr. famously argued that what “is legal is not necessarily reputable.” Presumably no one seriously considered this a veiled attempt from our founder to admit to a yearning for cocaine.
Buckley, as ever, is instructive here, although we might change his construction to “what the government can do, it should not necessarily do.” Yes, Santorum opposes Griswold v. Connecticut — which in 1965 struck down a law in Connecticut that banned contraceptives even for married couples — and considers that the decision invented a constitutional right that simply doesn’t exist. But while he may well believe that the states have the right to ban condoms and sodomy, that is not the same thing as advocating that they do so; to say nothing of the fact that there is no realistic chance of Griswold being overturned and, even if there were, the chances that any state would take advantage of the move is minuscule. (Prior to the decision, contraception was effectively legal everywhere.)
Speaking to Bill O’Reilly, the candidate put his position in blunt enough terms that the issue should be put to bed:
Well, the states have a right to do a lot of things. That doesn’t mean they should do it. Someone asked me if the states have the right to do it? Yes. They have the right to do it, they shouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t vote for it if they did. It doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to do it. As you know, Bill, you’re a Catholic, Catholic Church teaches contraceptive [sic] is something you shouldn’t do. So when I was asked the question on contraception I said I didn’t support it.
One would hope that this might close the case. But Igor Volsky of ThinkProgress was not satisfied. He noted that Santorum has “pledged to defund federal funding for contraception.” Well, one might ask: So what? Defunding something is not the same thing as banning it. On that logic, to refuse to appropriate funds for NPR is to ban radio broadcasts, and to defund the NEA is to outlaw opera. Even worse, Volsky writes, Santorum might “publicly address the ‘dangers of contraception in this country.’” If Volsky has a differing vision for the bully pulpit’s use, then he is entirely free to oppose Santorum should he become the nominee. But so willfully to conflate prohibition with admonition is little short of scandalous. In truth, Salon’s headline should read, “Rick Santorum is coming after judicial activism and intends to use his freedom of speech to try to win the public around to his convictions.” Then, and only then, would they and their acolytes be anywhere approaching that indispensable little thing we call truth.
— Charles C. W. Cooke is an editorial associate at National Review.
If states have the "right" to ban contraception, then New York has the "right" to throw Meredith Graves and her Tennessee CCW in prison for 3 1/2 years. Forget about a "right" to privacy -- all the foregoing are infringements on personal liberties, which is as I recall what the Constitution is supposed to protect.
Santorum: "One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."
The question is, do we want a president to be talking about the dangers of contraception and "how things are supposed to be" in the sexual realm? How much time/thought/attention should a president spend on this? How much time/thought/attention should a president spend on follow-up interviews, etc., when people take issue with his views on this subject? Isn't it telling that, as Santorum notes, "no president has talked ... before" about these issues?
Sen Santorum talks about contraception because reporters (in search of the gotcha moment) ask him about such things.
What is ironic is that Santorum is only reiterating well known teachings of the Catholic Church. It is still considered a grave sin for Catholics to use artificial contraception. Form a purely material point of view, this nation could sure use an additional 30-40 million younger workers (and taxpayers) right now.
Sorry, but if the right-wing is going to use the Rev Wright against Obama, the left will use the Catholic Church against Santorum (one might argue that the views of Rev Wright and the Catholic Church are equally out there). While I don't recall Obama ever parroting Rev Wright's views, Santorum has started talking about contraception.
I'm surprised that even fundamentalis Christians haven't jumped on this, like they have with Romney's Mormonism. I believe that evangelicals don't subscribe to the rigidity of procreative sex as long as it's between a loving couple in wedlock. I think, within marriage, evangelicals permit the kind of sexual fun that Catholicism outlaws.
And, no, most Americans do not want to have seven children - not that there's anything wrong with that.
So Catholic Church = Rev Wright in your mind. Good to know.
It does worry me that the more plausible Santorum looks, the more the majority's anti-Catholicism will be appealed to. And no, I don't mean the 19th century kind, I mean the modern kind - Catholics In Name Only = good, Catholics that actually do what their faith demand = bad.
You haven't really answered my question. Santorum said he's going to be speaking out on these issues as president. Even if you're right that he'd do it when asked (which I'm not conceding, and isn't what he said), the question is whether we want a president who's wading into those issues and sharing his views (whether or not they are "well known teachings of the Catholic Church"). Will Romney be opining on the "well known teachings" of the Mormon church?
Don't be ingenuine. Our current President is constantly "sharing his views." He's been trying to mold a culture into his own image with "teachable moments" since 2008.
Don't be ingenuine. Our current President is constantly "sharing his views." He's been trying to mold a culture into his own image with "teachable moments" since 2008.
JPK, the "gotcha" moment is purely an invention of GOTP politicians embarrassed by hard questions.
Stating that states have a right to ban something is the same as advocating for that ban. Deny it all you want but denial of the facts doesn't change the facts.
"Form a purely material point of view, this nation could sure use an additional 30-40 million younger workers (and taxpayers) right now."
LOL. It's like the time that my Mom said to my wife and I, "You two have been married for a year now! When am I gonna get some taxpayers !?!........OOPS.....I meant grandkids........Did I say taxpayers??"
It's just peachy to defend Santorum on contraception, while the right wing media repeatedly ignores the many false accusations about Romney on things like $50 abortions, cap and trade, gay marriage, you name it.
It would be nice to see some clarification for Mitt, since he is the most likely nominee.
Santorum only thinks the states have the right to outlaw or ok something that he agrees with. They can outlaw abortion or sodomy but if they want to allow something, such as abortion or gay marriage, then suddenly states have no authority.
First your point is just ignorant. The problem with Gay Marriage is not that the States have the right to legalize it look at New York State no one is saying what they did to legalize gay marriage was illegitimate. Many people thought it was wrong or unwise but they had the right to do it. States have the right to do all kinds of stupid or counter productive things.
When authority is being questioned is when Judges take legislation that was never intended and never seen as allowing Gay marriage to suddenly decide that it does.
Next DOMA is about making sure that States that don't want to have recognize Gay marriage don't have to. It defends states.
Lastly as Santorum makes clear he is not trying to outlaw birth control.
I'm probably a bit younger than most NRO readers so I will be the self-appointed voice of my generation on this issue. Although we of Gen. Y are not completely unreceptive to social conservatism (particularly in regards to abortion) Santorum's rhetoric on contraception (and homosexuals) goes way to far for most of us. I simply don't see how it's the government's business (state or federal) what people chose to do in regards to this. Not only should it not be illegal, it shouldn't be an issue. Not only is it not the governments job to regulate it, it's no business of a government official at all (or anyone but the people directly involved, for that matter). If Santorum uses the bully pulpit to talk about contraception, it will turn young people directly away from the GOP. Giuliani said the the GOP has to get out of people's bedrooms. He is right and if the Right doesn't listen it will fade away.
I strongly agree. As a young ( 24 ) conservative, talking about homosexuality and birth control as key issues in an election as crucial to the future of America as this one makes my stomach churn. The Republican party is going to turn off younger voters with it's backwards-looking and dogmatic obsession with sex.
One of the ways that the contraceptive chemicals and devices work is to prevent the newly conceived human embryo from attaching to the lining of the uterus. You may hear the inaccurate term "fertilized egg" used to describe the living human embryo. But once fertilization has taken place, there is no more "egg." A new tiny person has been formed and is traveling on his way down the fallopian tube to enter and attach to the womb. Once there, this human being receives nourishment, and the growth hormone progesterone needed for survival. But, when the newly conceived human being is prevented from attaching to the uterus (womb), he dies in the first 1 to 7 days of life.
@Bill, your comment is downright scary in its total lack of understandin. We aren't talking about the morning after pill or anything that will terminate a pregnancy. It is called CONTRA-ception - it PREVENTS conception. If conception has already occured, then these "chemicals" you refer to aren't very good as contraception!! The Pill can also be used for regulating menstrual cycles.
Even social conservatives will tell you that when used "morally", artificial contraception is one of the best friends of a loving, committed marriage. Ironically, when a woman ovulates is when she feels most like procreating (wink, wink). Natural birth controls advises against relations at that time. Sort of misogynistic? No surprise there.
Steven, Did it ever occur to you that the term "contraceptive" is somewhat of a misnomer?
In a Q&A article by John Wilks, B Pharm MPS, at pfli.org/faq_oc.html (website of Pharmacists for Life International), he says “Research has shown that neither the progesterone-only pill nor the combined progesterone-oestrogen formulations always stop ovulation.” In other words, neither of the two pill formulations in use today always stop ovulation. He states that there can be a break-through ovulation “even though she always takes her daily dose of the pill, is not sick, and is not taking any other medications.”
In Mr. Wilks response to the question “How do you prove the pill acts as an abortifacient?”, he says “The answer to this question can be found by comparing the rate of break-through ovulation and the detected pregnancy rate. The ovulation rate has been reported to be about 27 ovulations in 100 women using the pill for one year. But the detected pregnancy rate is much lower at around 4 pregnancies per 100 women using the pill for one year. As you can see, there is a big difference between the number of women who ovulate (27) and the number of detected pregnancies (4). What has happened within the woman’s body to reduce the high ovulation rate to such a low number of detected pregnancies? I suggest that one answer to this important question is that pregnancies have begun, because ovulation and fertilization have occurred, but some of these pregnancies are terminated because implantation cannot take place. The pill has damaged the lining of the womb, stopping implantation.”
Follow
