Rick Santorum dismissed Santorum super PAC donor Foster Friess’s contraception comment on MSNBC (“Back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn’t that costly.”) in an interview last night, saying he wasn’t “responsible” for everything his supporters said.
“The bottom line is my position is very clear,” Santorum told Fox News host Greta van Susteren. “I’ve had a consistent record on this of supporting women’s right to have contraception. I’ve supported funding for it.”
Santorum said he had “deeply held beliefs” on the issue of contraception, but noted that he didn’t look to the government to impose his moral views.
“Only when there are real consequences to society or to the rights of individuals do I feel a need to speak out,” Santorum said. “And that’s why I do on the issue of abortion because we have another — we have another person involved in the decision.”
“But the issue of contraception, that’s not the case,” he added. “It’s something that people have a right to do in this country. And it certainly will be safe to do so under the Santorum presidency.”
Friess has written an apology on his blog for telling the joke.
OK, I'm confused. We're *for* federal funding of contraception now, per Rick's explantion?
So I think I have this straight but someone correct me if I'm missing something: 1) contraception is bad and the states can outlaw it 2) Santorum would *not* outlaw it (how dare you insinuate that!) and in fact is in favor of the federal government *funding* it 3) However, if any religiously affiliated organization can be shown in any tangential way to be funding their employees' contraceptives (the Sisters of Mercy seem to be in a particularly impossible situtation), we have descended into a tyranny of epic proportions.
I wish the people telling me how I should think and live could be clearer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wish the people actually issuing all the directives for their moral views to be mandatory law everywhere would do two things:
1) Actually read the Constitution;
2) Respect the rights of people with whom they disagree, and respect our fundamental rights, even if they don't exercise them personally.
You are all wet on your point #1.
No!
The Supreme Court of the United States, in its decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut (Constitutional right for married couples to use contraception), and Eisenstadt v. Baird (Constitutional right for non-married adults to use contraception), has legislated an amendment to the Constitution which outlines a fundamental right to use birth control.
Both decisions were precursors to Roe v. Wade, which the Court viewed as a logical extension of the first two rulings.
So, neither Rick, nor any other pol, has any wiggle room on the issue of legality.
As for #2, see #1.
#3: You have a newly-minted definition of "tangent", I see. Funny how the English language, as is, is not equipped with sufficient words for liberals to make their arguments.
Requiring all employers to offer insurance policies is not a "tangential" matter. Nor is it "tangential" to basically write the policy they all must offer.
And if the policy is MANDATORY, and it MUST cover contraception, that's pretty DIRECT, Miriam Webster.
Typical of a Jersey Guy, it's your ilk that keeps ramming its directives for their moral views to be universal law in all 50 states down everyone's throats.
I'm guessing your unwillingness to actually read the Constitution causes you to blame others for that which is done with your approval.
Now, pass the cheez-wiz, hair-spray, and two-tone jeans!
You can keep the obnoxious attitudes and ugly-sounding voices.
And you can shove your hypocrisy up Senator Boxer's (______________).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo much in your reply, but I'm fascinated by a couple points. Is it your view that what is constitutional or allowed is what the supreme court says it is? Because that seems to be what your saying. I'm surprised if it is. Second, are you saying that Rick has not argued that states can ban contraception? If not, then what's the argument about? You've been following the news right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNice to see that Santorum is taking my advice (wink).
More seriously, he has to get off birth control and social issues in general. He doesn't need them to get social cons. He's already got that vote and nobody's gonna take it away from him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat does he mean when he says "I've supported funding for it" ?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum has supported funding for the Title X Family Planning Program, which includes contraceptive disbursement (and often sends money to Planned Parenthood to that purpose.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, that's conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe has voted in favor of Title X, under which the government subsidizes contraception to low-income and/or uninsured persons.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis could work very well to Santorum's favor if he can make it contrast with the left's mania for imposing its preferences by executive or judicial fiat, rather than waiting for, or even respecting, the democratic wish of the citizenry.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRighto!
It dove-tails perfectly with ObamaCare generally.
He will use this to highlight Obama's disdain for the democratic process.
And he can go further:
"A bureaucratic regulation, which forces religious philanthropic organizations to violate their conscience, is why this monstrosity of a health care law was so vitally important as to be rammed through with literal bribes and kickbacks against the fervent desire of the American people that the project be scrapped?"
"Does Obama really believe that, unless Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army are forced to pay for their employees' contraception, that we'll have a pandemic birth control shortage?"
"Ladies and gentlemen, if he honestly believes that, it displays worse judgment than he illustrated when he hurried through a half-trillion dollar loan for a solar panel company that was already bankrupt."
"And, we haven't even gotten to his utter disdain for the American Constitution, which no president before him has ever more routinely ignored ..."
The speeches write themselves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat are his opinions on the IUD, which prevents a fertilized egg (person) from implanting? What are his opinions on the morning-after pill, which also creates an inhospitable environment for a person to implant? What are his opinions on RU-486, which induces a miscarriage (chemical abortion), of a person with even more cells than a fertilized egg? Will he allow these three forms of what I assume he considers as the homicide of a fetal person to continue?
I think the nomination of Santorum will result in a defeat more impressive than that of Goldwater.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe opposes abortion. So to the precise extent that the things you mention are abortion, he opposes them (as the other candidates do). As for allowing abortion to continue, none of the candidates has any choice about that at present.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut most conservatives would support rolling back the regulations -- not legislation, regulations -- from the Clinton era FDA that okay'd RU-486 in the first place.
Despite the moralizing from the supposedly secular; despite the caterwauling from the amoral preachers, decisions such as those are highly controversial.
Not only because 1/2 of society is pro-life. But a great many among the 1/2 who are pro-choice don't want to pay for it, don't want the government actively encouraging it, and don't want the government making it easier to achieve.
And that is the root of the fallacy that the pro-life position costs votes. Most Americans respect the pro-life position, and agree with pro-lifers on funding issues and access issues.
They may even personally sympathize with the pro-life view, despite their approval of the insurance policy hedge that is Roe v. Wade.
The reverse is not true of the pro-choice position: 1/2 the country thinks it's murder by a fancy name with fancy lab coats and sharp scissors and heavily sucking vacuum tubes.
So, most of the people who vote on the issue of abortion vote pro-life. It's not even close -- 3:1, for the past 20 years or so.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf these issues have anything to do with "women's health", which they never have, anyone with a conscience should be opposed to making the IUD readily available.
I suspect he's for rolling back the FDA's decision to allow marketing of RU-486.
"I think the nomination of Santorum will result in a defeat more impressive than that of Goldwater."
I think you exaggerate the magnitude of Obama's looming defeat. By a few states.
I mean, I've taken WA off the list of battleground states. But NJ and OR are still on it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhew! That's a relief. I thought he was for mandating having five or more children per family.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA better question for him: does he believe the federal government has the power to ban it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, the man was in Congress for two decades, and never said as much.
A question for you:
Did you fret like this when George W. Bush, the most pro-life president in history (for all we know -- it wasn't a political issue until 1972, when progressives made it one), was busy securing the GOP nomination?
And, notice abortion had literally nothing to do with the erosion of EITHER Bush's popularity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSurely you meant:
Santorum: Contraception Would Remain Legal if I Were President
William F. Buckley is rolling in his grave.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe fact that we're talking about this probably means we're already doomed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat depends:
Are you a "Democrat"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse