From a new op-ed by Rick Santorum, via Politico:
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has unilaterally decreed that all employers, including Catholic and other religious employers, who offer health insurance to their employees, must offer sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs and contraception.
…
This is not the first time that elected officials have trounced on the fundamental right to religious freedom. In December 2005, Governor MittRomney required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.
He said then that he believed “in his heart of hearts” that receiving these contraceptives – free of charge – trumped employees’ religious consciences. Now, a few years later and running for president, his heart isstrategically aligned with religious voters opposing this federal mandate.
The actions of President Obama – as well as the actions of then Governor Romney – raise some questions. From where do we receive our fundamental human rights? Are they given to us by the government–whether that government be State or Federal? Or, as the American Founders insisted, are these rights endowed upon us by a Creator?
Full piece here. As David French detailed in a Corner post a few days ago, Romney vetoed the bill that forced Catholic hospitals to offer emergency contraception, but that veto was overriden by the state’s legislature.
The “in his heart of hearts” quote appears to go back to a 2005 Boston Globe story on the subject:
State Public Health Commissioner Paul Cote Jr. said in an interview Monday that his department felt strongly that the new emergency contraception law did not compel all hospitals to provide the morning-after pill.
Romney said earlier through communications director,Eric Fehrnstrom that he supported the department’s ruling because it respected “the views of healthcare facilities that are guided by moral principles on this issue.”
Asked yesterday to elaborate on that position, Romney said simply that the law was the law and that the state had to follow it. The governor characterized his own beliefs about emergency contraception this way: “My personal view, in my heart of hearts, is that people who are subject to rape should have the option of having emergency contraception or emergency contraception information.”
UPDATE: “Governor Romney stands with the Catholic Bishops and all religious organizations in their strenuous objection to this liberty- and conscience-stifling regulation,” e-mails Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul in response. “He is committed to repealing Obamacare entirely. On his first day in office, Mitt Romney will eliminate the Obama administration rule that compels religious institutions to violate the tenets of their own faith.”
“We expect these attacks from President Obama and his liberal friends,” Saul added. “But from Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, it’s a clear indication of desperation from their campaigns.”
It looks like Santorum is playing a little loose with the facts, but that happens in political campaigns.
The question I have is why would Santorum want to set himself up as the guy who would deny emergency contraception to rape victims.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt seems Romney was playing loose with his heart of hearts. I don't get Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat a monster this Romney is!
Personally, my feeling is that if my daughter shows up in the hospital a few hours after being raped, the most important thing in that situation is that the conscience rights of the hospital workers be protected.
This is about their immortal souls, after all! Why, the act of pushing a pill across the counter (thus indirectly "killing" a small ball of cells) could have long-term, far-reaching consequences in the lives (and afterlives!) of these poor hospital workers.
It's a small price to ask of the mother-to-be that she birth and raise a child who is a product of rape. Why would she be so selfish? Why can't she think of the poor, defenseless hospital workers? If she really feels that she needs to take that pill, then she ought to choose a little more carefully when (immediately after being physically assaulted and sexually violated) she decides which hospital to patronize.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSince Obama and Romney believe in the Saudi Arabia form of government where the King supports blaming women for being raped, and religious fanatics help keep the king in power, I think it is right for Obama and Romney to play contraception politics.
[sarcasm]After all, if a girl is raped by her brother, she must be to blame. Punish her by making her live the rest of her life looking into the eyes of the child of her rapist. Make her have the kid and raise it---by her self, uneducated and in poverty. Or make her have the kid, put the kid up for adoption and wonder about the kid for the rest of her life. She should not be allowed to forget that she was raped. No matter what![/sarcasm]
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse(and afterlives!)
You mock. We see where you're coming from.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd so Santorum shows his real colors:a disingenuous demagogue whose groove is to use social conservatives by misleading them in order to get ahead himself.
Someone should call him on his attempts to lie and change the topic from his character, and make him answer the questions regarding his purported residence in the Pittsburgh area and the payments made by that school district to educate his kids living in DC.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere is the precision of the Catholic hospitals' ideal position? They offer emergency contraception if, after testing, fertilization has not occurred. Since fertilization can take two or three days, prompt treatment after rape means that the victim can force herself into a off-schedule period, if she has not become a mother in the meantime.
Being forced to offer emergency contraception to a woman who tests positive in a pregnancy test is what's wrong with the picture.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Heart of hearts"? Is that an indication that he has more than one or that his belief on the outside is different from his belief on the inside?
I'm surprised to see Romney disintegrating so quickly. He looks a lot less inevitable in the primaries than he did a few weeks ago, and not at all in the general.
I hope he gets it together before Bob Dole starts laughing at him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBravo to Santorum for again doing the best job of pointing out that Romney takes away our ammunition this fall. He supports Obamacare and he did something similar to what HHS is doing now. This will be a huge issue this fall and we can't afford to have a candidate who can't attack Obama on this issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's not true.
As governor, when the state legislature was doing the very thing Obama is doing, Romney vetoed it.
There's plenty of viable areas of attack for Santorum to go at Romney. He doesn't need to make false ones up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDG, read the actual article. Romney VETOED the measure.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe vetoed the measure and then said in his "heart of hearts" he agreed with the measure. You Romney defenders have some explaining to do, no? Don't you even wonder at a man who vetoes something he believes in in his "heart of hearts"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHardcastle, you don't have to lie to disagree with Romney about the morning-after pill. You do need to lie to claim that Romney agreed with the measure he vetoed. (Why would he veto the measure if he agreed with it?) All Romney said was that he believed that the morning-after pill should be available to rape victims. Since that can be done without requiring Catholic hospitals to provide the pill (rape victims could get the pill from another source), all that can be legitimately claimed is that Romney said that the morning-after pill should be legally available.
If you disagree with Romney that the morning-after pill should be legal, fine. Make that argument. Santorum might agree with you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe's not playing loose with the facts, he is lying. He could have weasel-worded it: "Under Governor Romney, Massachusetts . . ." which would be misleading but technically true. But Romney VETOED the bill, which was then overridden. So Santorum is just lying.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow is it a lie? The veto was overridden. The bill became law. Romney as governor, implemented the law. That is a fact.
What steps did Governor Romney take after the passage of the law to restore religious liberty? Where's the leadership on the issue on his resume?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid you even bother to read the article, or just Santorum's version? Romney not only vetoed the bill, but he backed the health department's policy that not every hospital need to provide the service (meaning the catholic hospitals were exempt). No catholic hospitals were forced to provide anything that countered their religious tenets, and Santorum is flat out lying through his teeth. There is no basis in fact at all for what Santorum is claiming. Read the article again, this time with a desire to learn what actually happened.
How would Santorum have handled this situation any differently? He wouldn't have, other than not stating that his personal view was that rape victims ought to have access to emergency contraception, because we know Santorum would prefer the victim to carry the child. Did I mention that Romney backed the health department's policy that the catholic hospitals did not need to provide the contraception?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe vetoed it. What would you have him do?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know, maybe explain himself? Why did he veto the measure if he agreed with its proponents?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're not usually this obtuse.
Romney vetoed the measure because there was no conscience exception to protect the religious liberties of (among others) Catholic hospitals who might object to providing emergency contraception, even in the case of rape. I do not see how that is inconsistent with a personal view that a victim of rape should have the option to access emergency contraception.
In other words, Romney was trying to be respectful both of others' religious beliefs and the treatment needs of rape victims.
The reason for the uproar over the HHS rule requiring insurance to cover contraception, sterilization, etc., is not because most people oppose contraception, but because most people oppose the federal government's trampling on First Amendment rights.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRead Chris-2-4's post below if you think I am so obtuse. I say that at the very least, Romney is opaque.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse