Rick Santorum returned this week to some familiar territory: playing a starring role on liberal blogs that were outraged about something he had to say.
During a week that began with Martin Luther King Day and will wrap up with the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the former senator — who spends a good deal of time in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina these days — presented abortion as a civil-rights issue.
“Well, if that human life is not a person, then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people,’” he told Terry Jeffrey.
“Eye-brow raising comments,” is how Politico described them. (You’d think he’d said Chinese mothers are superior!)
Santorum further explained, when his comment became a much-blogged-about issue: “For decades, certain human beings were wrongly treated as property and denied liberty in America because they were not considered persons under the Constitution. Today other human beings, the unborn of all races, are also wrongly treated as property and denied the right to life for the same reason; because they are not considered persons under the Constitution. I am disappointed that President Obama, who rightfully fights for civil rights, refuses to recognize the civil rights of the unborn in this country.”
Rick Santorum didn’t invent this point. And Rick Santorum doesn’t need to own it. But during this week with its holiday and anniversary, during a month where we’ve seen horrific violence, during a month where we’ve talked so much about the importance of words, he’s using his voice to talk about something we really do need to be confronting.
None other than the New York Times has reported that “data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that black women get almost 40 percent of the country’s abortions, even though blacks make up only 13 percent of the population. Nearly 40 percent of black pregnancies end in induced abortion, a rate far higher than for white or Hispanic women.”
The paper of record did not get those statistics from Rick Santorum.
That black Americans are disproportionately eliminated by abortion — that black mothers find themselves in the position where they don’t feel like they have alternatives other than abortion — is a point Alveda King, director of African American outreach for Priests for Life and niece of Martin Luther King Jr., wishes Barack Obama would make. King told me last year that she thought the president was “missing an opportunity.”
So she tries to encourage leadership elsewhere. Last year, at the Bloody Sunday anniversary, marking the 1965 Selma-Montgomery march, she handed the formerly pro-life Jesse Jackson a video on the history of blacks and abortion in America. She says Jackson was noncommittal about watching it. She wants to see real civil-rights leadership here: “The president has a defining moment before him. The nation has become prolife. It’s evident. This is a tide. This is a time. It’s a conversation of energy. And the energy is with life.”
Last year, the New York Times appeared beside itself over a Georgia ad campaign talking about abortion in terms of a “black genocide.” Like Santorum’s comments, though, the ad did get people talking. As Michael New, a pro-life researcher and professor at the University of Alabama, told me at the time: “The fact that a disproportionately high percentage of abortions are performed on black women is not well known outside of pro-life circles. Neither is the fact that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was a proponent of eugenics. These pieces of information might be of interest to the black community, especially since many surveys show that African-Americans are more likely to describe themselves as ‘pro-life’ than whites.”
Yes, let’s be talking about that.
“Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe v. Wade] was decided,” Ruth Bader Ginsburg told The New York Times Magazine, “there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Now that’s something that should raise alarms: She let the eugenics slip show. It’s a nasty history that the abortion-rights movement has. One that this week, of all weeks, we could afford to talk about a little bit. Aren’t we all into promoting a less violent culture these days?
Earlier this week, I wrote about the culture of violence we’re not talking about post-Tucson. A culture of legal abortion is the elephant in the room as we talk about civility. (Philadelphia, anyone?) What Rick Santorum pointed to is at the heart of it. It’s pure denial not to confront it. We should be more uncomfortable with the reality of the situation than with his daring to say it.
Last year, when I was working on a piece on blacks and abortion for The Human Life Review, Peter Kirsanow, a lawyer and member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, told me: “Where the racial disparities in abortion rates are so pronounced, the subject is hard to ignore. Yet the black establishment has effectively ignored it. Not a peep out of those in the racial-grievance industry who talk incessantly about the slightest of racial disparities, whether real or imagined.”
And, as it happens, the “enormous difference” in black and white abortion rates is a topic that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which “is statutorily charged with investigating all forms of racial disparity in the country,” would naturally investigate. But abortion is a topic that the commission is specifically prohibited from touching.
Kirsanow also said to me: “The gap between the black abortion rate and the white abortion rate is about as large as the black single-motherhood rate and the white single-motherhood rate. [Sen. Daniel P.] Moynihan sounded the alarm over the black single-motherhood rate 35 years ago. Who will sound the alarm over the black abortion rate?”
Somebody has to do it. Apparently, right now, it’s Rick Santorum; good for him.
K-Lo, you must remember the consistency of the Left's rules for civility and analogies: they have two sets of rules that they apply consistently, one set for themselves, and one for conservatives.
Hence, one cannot question those who compare the agenda to normalize homosexuality with the civil rights movement, but one cannot possibly invoke the same movement when discussing the legal sanction for the murder of literally 50 million(!) unborn children.
It's perfectly acceptible for a Democrat to invoke the Holocaust to denounce the effort to repeal Obamacare, but it's beyond the pale to point the similarities between the ECONOMIC POLICIES of modern American progressives and Italian Fascists.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum expressed himself poorly, allowing the media to portray him as implying that blacks aren't really people.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBabies in the womb are actually treated as less than property. If they were property, the husband (or father) would have at least equal community-property say in whether his "property" is killed by the mother. He doesn't. If the mother wants the baby dead, she kills it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe mantra of the abortion rights lobby for years has been "Safe, Legal, Rare." In the Philadelphia story you link to it is "None of the above." What you have instead are officially tolerated illegal abortions with horrendous consequences for women and infants--the very "back alley" abortions Roe v. Wade was supposed to eliminate. If ever there was a case of "institutional racism" this is it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Rook, laying the blame at Santorum's feet for expressing himself poorly assumes that the media was acting in good faith. If they weren't, then it's entirely possible for them to deliberately misconstrue even those statements that are made elegantly and precisely.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum knew what he was saying (and to whom) and got the press to pay attention to his campaign in the process.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat Bader Ginsburg quote still floors me. Imagine it coming froma *conservative*.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWrote about this point a couple of years ago in a blog post.
Basically, it's a thought experiment. First, consider two neighbors in 1850s Tennessee who inherit property, including two slaves. The law establishes that both are property in order for there to be a real choice. Thus, the actual "humanness"--i.e., the question of personhood--is established by someone else with a vested interest in the decision.
Next, consider twin sisters living in New York who become pregnant at the same time. Likewise, for a real choice, the law considers both fetuses to be property. Likewise, then, the actual "humanness"--i.e., the question of personhood--is established by someone else with a vested interest in the decision.
The point of the piece is to set up clashing intuitions in the liberal mind. Santorum is already seeing how those people, for all their talk of nuance, don't like these kinds of hard questions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hope that this conversation develops in the near term, and then Sarah Palin makes a "controversial" comment on the subject. That would elevate the conversation to a higher level. The smack-Palin impulse in the media will override the institutional bias against coverage of the pro-life message and events like the March for Life.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum is well past his sell-by date. No surprise his discernment failed him yet again...or perhaps it didn't. Hard to believe that he wouldn't know that using "black guy" wouldn't inflame the left and prompt the right to defend him.
IMO, he's a guy whom we overvalue largely because he has quality enemies and uses rhetoric that pushes our "happy buttons". The idea that a guy who not only endorsed Specter -- but actively attacked Toomey -- is a principled and effective advocate for social causes stuns me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Rook - I think Santorum expressed himself brilliantly. Like the Man said, "brevity is the soul of wit," and these comments cut directly to the heart of the matter and lay out in very expilcit terms the nature of the abortion debate - human or not? One need not use 24-karat words make that simple comparison. Its the rhetorical equivalent of a kick in the nuts - not pretty but VERY effective.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI appreciate the point Santorum was trying to make, and you're correct that he's far from the first to make it. However, I think it's right that he's been called on his inept phrasing; he appears to be saying that no matter what Obama's experience, education, and faith have evidently led him to believe, his opinions should be guided by his "blackness" first and foremost.
That is, quite frankly, an unbearably stupid thing to say, if for no other reason than that needlessly invoking race obscures the original, valid point. Had Santorum gone with his second formulation first (that Obama, instead of fighting for civil rights for some, should fight for civil rights for all) this wouldn't be an issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe'll never be able to have an honest debate in this country if we have to worry that every word we say will be intentionally misunderstood by our opponents. Mr. Santorum wasn't making a negative comment about Mr. Obama's race, he was making the point that a man who knows first hand about inhumanity, incivility and civil rights violations has no business making such a horrid comment. And that's especially true given the fact that candidate Obama admitted during the 2008 campaign that it was above his pay grade to determine when unborn children are entitled to be treated as human beings.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen our first child was born, my wife shared a room with a new mother (who happened to be black) who had decided to put her newborn up for adoption. I have tremendous admiration for this young lady and all mothers (including my birth mom, whom I have never met) with the character and courage to make this decision.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm sorry, Lopez seems to have either misunderstood what Santorum was saying, or she is purposely misrepresenting it. She casts his remarks as an attempt to speak to the problem of a disproportionate rate of abortions in the black community (a real problem that deserves discussion). But even a cursory analysis of Santorum's statement shows that this is not what he was doing.
Santorum was clearly saying that the idea that a black man would think to make a judgement on someone's personhood (as recognized by the constitution) is offensive and surprising, given the fact that the constitution once designated black people as 3/5 of a person. In other words, Santorum is suggesting that any black person should know better than to take the position that an embryo is not a person because that debate over personhood is comparable to the debate over the personhood of black people. This comparison between the unborn and black people is very common in the pro-life community, and that is obviously what Santorum was drawing on.
Santoum's statement has absolutely nothing whatsoever to to with the question of abortion in the black community, and Lopez's suggestion that this is what he really meant to discuss is not credible. It's one thing to assert that Santorum's statement has merit (and there is an argument to be made there), but by pretending that he did not say what he manifestly did, Lopez implies that what Santorum actually said is indefensible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"“The fact that a disproportionately high percentage of abortions are performed on black women is not well known outside of pro-life circles.”"
Are performed on? That phrasing is unnecessarily victimizing. Whether pro-life or pro-choice you have to admit that nobody is forcing black women to have abortions. They have choosing to have them on their own. The only question is, why are they making this decision? Is it due to poverty? Poor birth control eduction in the black community? I am not claiming to know the answer but to vaguely suggest that there is a eugenics plot afoot is disingenuous based on a single fact.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTaking into consideration all that I've read here so far, it seems to boil down to these two questions:
1. Should a human being still gestating in the womb be considered a "Person" or "Property" in the eyes of the US law? If the answer is "a Person", then the law must change. This is, by definition, a "human rights" issue.
2. Is there a concerted effort in the US to throttle the propensity of specific genetic traits, such as skin color? If the answer is "yes", then it is very disturbing for a society that supposedly promotes "equal opportunity".
I find is quite absurd that these two question still even exist! We all bleed red. We are all defined by 23 chromosomes, ~3,000,000,000 DNA nucleotide pairs. It is our Sociology that is dooming us, not our Biology. Until we come to terms with our sociological deficiencies, we will never be rid of the "Prejudice" these two questions represent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen Albert Einstein realized (no doubt through a logical thought process) that if he stayed put, he would be killed due to his race, he moved out of Germany.
I wonder how many smart people have moved out of the USA for the same reason. What we are left with here are the ones who have hope and change, but no brains.
Fortunately for the USA, Einstein helped us invent the Bomb. I wonder what those other smart guys in this century are helping to invent. Maybe new agriculture methods to feed their populations? They will certainly have plenty of land to farm once they invade this crippled country and burn the deadwood.
So sad. I see it happening right before my eyes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusek1oik: "When Albert Einstein realized (no doubt through a logical thought process) that if he stayed put, he would be killed due to his race, he moved out of Germany. I wonder how many smart people have moved out of the USA for the same reason."
Um...none? There is no ethnic cleansing in the United States of America. What are you even talking about? That's an outrageous accusation against this country.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAn historical fact: the 3/5th Compromise in the Constitution was a fallacy of the complete personhood of slaves. That abx is a 'civil right' has no ultimate grounds for standing, and was legislated from the Bench. In both instances, the underlying principle was 'who holds the Power?'===not who is in fact a human being.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse