Santorum Boasts of Funding Planned Parenthood

This is the guy all the Catholic neocons — of whom there are so many the term is almost a redundancy, I regret to say — tell me I am morally obligated to support. Here he is saying that he’s voted for public funding of contraception programs via Planned Parenthood.

I made a video for Catholics comparing Santorum to Ron Paul. If anything, I should have been much tougher on Santorum and his lousy voting record.

Share this post:Digg thisShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on Twitter
  • Anonymous

    We need to cut this, this isn’t worth sharing yet

  • jen

    Romney is maneuvering this into a brokered convention and removing credible threats of third party via his dangerous ‘gentleman’ tactic. 

    Romney-establishment-media-Obama are cutting this big spender, no vision-ideas, dangerous religious fanatic slack to give him national attention and sympathy.  No brutal attack ads and twisting a humane person into a crook that they never were on Santorum that Romney and media are capable of doing with anti-establishment candidates that would make changes, including to monetary system. 

    Media and his congressional colleagues are remaining mum on Santorum, other than saying Romney is not likable to set the stage for a Obama-Romney likability contest where neither have to run on track record and policies.

    Santorum / Bachmann are using vague platform of ‘family values’ to camoflauge what CNN calls ‘Christian Sharia Law’ or their agenda of mixing politics and faith to lethal levels.  (Bush and Obama have family that they value, and look where their family history got this country.)  This dangerous aspect of him is what leads Romney to be soft on Santorum.

    Romneycare as a ‘blueprint’ for Obamacare is not being described well or how gov’t decides who gets what medical care.  If Obama was gov of MA, he would have done the same exact thing that Romney did.  Both men think alike when it comes to problem solving in government as both of their records indicate.

    Santorum has only a couple of small achievements while in Congress.  He hypes up welfare reform and Syria sanctions.  What he did in Congress for healthcare is unclear, he certainly wasn’t a free market advocate at that time.  Did he really go against the Heritage Foundations’ recommendation of individual mandate to combat Hillarycare?  Other than a couple of small, fairly insignificant achievements in which he assisted, his voting record and of authoring bills is atrocious.  If someone could sum up his voting record in a few accurate, professional, non-brutal sentences that could serve as soundbites, that would take him down. 

    And, like Newt and virtually all former congressman, he used his contacts to peddle influence in lobbying and lobbying type jobs and connections to get on high-paying board positions – I thought this was the Romney definition of  a crook.  Yet, I only see one or so article on his post-congress experience.  With this kind of record and contacts, I don’t know how one can be an ‘agent’ for change if there is no experience in leading a revolution or being an integral part of one or being the leading advocate for something or other in his past.  I’ve only seen one opinion piece by Ed Rollins that Santorum is simply hyping up his congressional record.  Noone in debates has taken him on when he goes on and on about something he claims he did, but didn’t, like welfare reform.

  • http://police-state-watch.blogspot.com/ JTWilliams

    Ugh…Please dont post Sanitorium’s face on the website ever again. I just cant stand to see his goofy mug while surfing the web…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/William-Schooler/100003032488972 William Schooler

    Well moron is a word to and means something as well and Santorum is the representative of the idea or the freak show of such an idea.

  • Joel

    I am Catholic and I loathe Santorum.  Still I don’t understand why the “joke” is such a big deal.  

  • Nishant Jeyaraj

    Yeah, right. This from the guys who support the person who said “While Roe vs Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion in all 50 states would be equally invalid”. Ron Paul is pro-choice state by state. Someone should tell him states rights do not trump human rights.

    Sen.Santorum is bound by the US constitution where divine law is not directly violated and so is constrained to an extent by the “consent of the governed”, and it is permissible to tolerate a lesser evil like access to contraception without being guilty of material cooperation in its practice. It is not, however, at all licit for states to engage in slavery or infanticide. The states have no right to do wrong, they have a duty to do right, no less than individuals. 

  • http://tomwoods.com Tom Woods

    “Someone should tell him states rights do not trump human rights.” Translation: we should have world government, to enforce human rights everywhere.

    “Access to contraception.” That’s a laugh. Does that require him to vote for taxpayer funding of contraception? In order to support the grossly immoral Santorum, you glide right over the point of the video.

  • http://TheInterventionistParadox.wordpress.com/ Bharat

    TYT just released a video about this as well.
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2j5Rl8YQfg

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=147500531 Charles Pearson

    So Santorum is rightfully outraged when the government forces us Catholics to pay for contraception via the HHS mandate…but he has no reservations about the government forcing Catholics to pay for contraception via their tax dollars. I’ve given up trying to understand these people…

  • aDm

    so is he for contraception or not? oh, wait…it depends on who is asking the question, who he is speaking to and who he is trying to please in that particular moment. he is just so creepy…again, why don’t people see it?

  • Brian

    Man, I wish Ron Paul would just hammer him in the debates over this stuff.

    I mean just really stick it to him and never let up:  How it is not conservative, not moral, not constitutional, and not fiscally responsible for the federal government to fund this.  

  • Mike

    No ,the states are not little god. Duh. Better the states than the federal government though. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol-Pot, Mao. Get the idea? Hello?

  • jen

    Good clip on the ‘serial’ hypocrisy of Santorum.  The most impt being that after the Reagan years, he went publicy against Reagan.  Now, he is all over Reagan in order to get votes and move in whichever wind works at the time, like Romney.  Paul endorsed Reagan.  And, Newt (and not Santorum or Romney) were an integral part of the ‘Reagan revolution’. 

    When all said and done, Santorum squeaks by Romney by a decent margin to be a better nominee, though his extreme religious fundamantalism will scare many people off in the general in the absence of media cover ups.  Clearly, Newt is also better than Romney by a wide margin.

    It is ok for people to change their mind on a few things given they have a lot of good reasoning.  Unlike Romney who changes positions far too often and not out of his own reasoning, but only to take all mainstream positions for ‘political expediency’.  No, I do not believe he was is pro-life because he came acrosss stem cell article.  And, he has flip flopped on dozens of issues, other than abortion.  When asked to defend his extreme flip flopping, he just focuses on abortion and his rivals allow him to get away with it during debates, hence making Romney the nominee as voters cannot discern.

  • Laura

    Although I admire Dr. Paul, I don’t think he has the hutzpah to do what you want him to do.  I wish, but he has a hard time criticizing and calling these people on the carpet in a dramatic fashion, and THAT is the only way the audiences are gonna “get it”.  They’ve had too much numbing effect from TV violence, video games, movies, everything that they are just numb and NEED to be shook up in order to “get it”.  And, I don’t know how Dr. Paul can do it. 

  • Laura

    Like Dr. Paul said once in a debate~~the Republicans had the Senate and the House at one time~~and they could have moved R. v. Wade to the State jurisdiction and put an end to the whole thing, but~~~they never did.  So, all this is just rhetoric, nothing more…nothing less.

  • Nishant Jeyaraj

    Not quite. I am well aware I’m talking to the author of “nullification”, Dr.Woods, but with all due respect to you, I digress. 

    Especially since you’re Catholic, you should know this is about principle, and the civil law must comport with the moral law. Unless we fall into legal positivism, the States have no right whatsoever to permit child killing, and government has not merely the right, but the binding obligation to uphold so basic a tenet of natural law as the protection of children. States would have no right to permit slavery either, and government has the right and responsibility to effect that federal ban throughout its jurisdiction. “World government” therefore does not enter into the picture, but within a nation, one cannot have 50 different laws, especially unjust laws.

    Don’t get me wrong, Dr.Woods, I respect you, and with some fundamental disagreements about the Faith, I am still a fan of your work, but I think you frequently overstate your case, as above. As for me, I am a traditional Catholic and I wholeheartedly accept both Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae. But, approximately 80% of America does not believe contraception is wrong, and about 98% of couples have used it, so I’m told, with approximately the same proportion in the Catholic population. Much of Title X funding also goes to other health care centres and is used for other services. There is therefore no comparison.

    Coming to their records in general, there is no comparison. What matters to me is not electability, whether of Ron Paul or Rick Santorum, but rather implementation and bipartisanship. I don’t disrespect him, but fact is, Dr.Paul has sponsored about 420 bills and passed only one. I shall say no more.

    Sen.Santorum was instrumental in one of the most successful reforms in America, that of welfare. He’s been a staunch supporter of health savings accounts from the beginning, which is the best answer to the socialized medicine that is Obamacare. He was a member of the Gang of seven and the third ranking Republican in the Senate. He developed a “spendometer”. He fought for a balanced budget amendment long ago which would have prevented the current mess.

    One can support one’s own candidate heartily without misrepresenting another candidate. Here is the NTU’s (which “mobilizes elected officials and the general public on behalf of tax relief and reform, lower and less wasteful spending, individual liberty, and free enterprise.”) lifetime rating 

    ” On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-.  Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-.  Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50. 

    Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term.  None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span

    Among the roughly one-third of senators (18 out of 50) who represented states that — based on this measure — were at least as far to the left as Pennsylvania, Santorum was the most fiscally conservative. 

    In fact, considering the state he was representing, one could certainly make the case that Santorum was the most fiscally conservative senator during his tenure.”

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/was-santorum-senate-spendthrift_629850.html 

    God be with you, Dr. Woods.

  • Nishant Jeyaraj

    What Republicans should do in my opinion, Laura, is author the federal ban, or make being pro-life with no exceptions a sine qua non for Supreme Court Justice appointees. Elite support for infanticide is nothing new. 

    In the old world, Plato, Aristotle, Seneca and Cicero supported the infanticide of live born children. The way it ended then, not to mention how opinions changed, will be the way it will end now as well.

  • Nishant Jeyaraj

    Huh? If I understood you right, Mike, you’re arguing that federal authority can be abused, therefore it’s power should be limited, yes? The problem in my view is that this understanding defies the very unity and structure of a nation.

  • Michael

    You have to be born to be an infant, so this isn’t infanticide. Sen. Santorum has proven not to be bound by the constitution where divine law is not directly violated. Unless you think divine law encompasses the war on drugs, medicare part D, etc. Don’t you think that leaving abortion to the states is a lesser evil that is permissible to tolerate and doesn’t make Paul guilty of material cooperation? Or would you rather see it completely legal across the country?

  • David

     Why is national super-unity a desirable thing? What makes limited federal government a problem?

  • neocontrotsky

    Yet Republicans had the Senate, the House, and The President’s office and no such bill even came close to being passed.  Why not?

    Even just from a practical standpoint, handling abortion at the state level (as it was done prior to roe v wade, and as laws on violence is done) is far more likely to stop that practice than relying on the GOP in DC to do something. 

  • neocontrotsky

    Santorum has an absolutely atrocious
    record that is right up there in supporting big government with newt
    and romney.  For anyone who claims to even care about the constitution, cutting back spending, or limited government, a vote for Santorum is just about as credible as voting for Romney.  In fact, a good case could be made that it is worse than Romney. 

    The guy who voted to mandate a new entitlement program in Medicare Part D, or who voted for mandatory trigger locks at the federal level, or to explode the budget of the Dept of Education and increase its power with things like No Child Left Behind, voted to increase the minimum wage multiple times, the constant increase in tax dollars for amtrak, bigger and bigger budgets every year, constantly raising the debt limit, and on and on make it a joke for anyone to try and pretend this guy is somehow a support of limited government.   

  • neocontrotsky

    Not to mention his support for things like SOPA, which could very well result in sites like this being shut down, or the NDAA and Patriot Acts.  The fact that he lost his own state by almost 20 points as a sitting senator while attempting to say that the US risked being nuked if his opponent won is a pretty good idea of what non-neo con voters will think of him in a general election.  Even Newt would probably do better than Santorum, and that is saying a lot.

  • JackBenny

    I didn’t realize that Ron Paul had gone down the list of all 50 states and expressed his support of abortion in each case.  I must have missed that interview.  The debate, on this issue and all others, goes nowhere if the people who claim to support adherence to the Constitution can’t maintain consistency in that position.

  • Greg

    Santorum is probably the most George-w-Bush candidate from the bunch.  he will get the christian vote but i think USA is not ready for another creationist just yet…

  • Laura

    The only reason he will get the Christian vote is because the MEDIA refuses to bring out his religious contradictions and flip-flops!  Couple that with the fact the GOP fraudulently manipulate the election and the votes, plus make sure the Republican “base” know they are not to vote for Ron Paul, as they hate him.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Thomas-Gallion/100000355973736 Thomas Gallion

    I live in central Pennsylvania, so Santorum’s lies are nothing new. His support of Specter over Toomey should be enough to disgust any Catholic.It seems that the biggest faction of Catholic Paul supporters lies within the traditional movement, of which I am one. I’ve counted 3 of us in one small Fraternity of Saint Peter apostolate that have RP 2012 car decals. There are mainstream Catholics that are Paul supporters, but most are in agreement with FOX and the GOP on issues. The trads are old-school conservative/libertarian and are more in agreement with Buchanan and Dr. Woods in beliefs.

  • jen

    A CNN article points to facts that do not coincide with your overhyping up to Santorum. 

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/17/politics/santorum-senate/index.html

    Santorum has only received 3 endorsements from Congress, while Romney has received 77.  When Santorum’s colleagues are asked about him, they remain mum and do not say one thing or the other.  Essentially, Santorum’s career in congress was fairly bland with not much meaningful to come out of it.  They do not want to put their reputations on the line by speaking on behalf of Santorum. 

    If you fought so hard for the balanced budget amendment, why did you vote for several increases in the debt and has yet to lay out any type of economic plan?

    Such a high-ranking Senator you claim and yet he lost in 2006 and since has not held public office.  But, he uses his congressional experience to land lobbying positions and lobbying type positions on boards.  Of course, virutally all former congress members do this, but in this respect, Santorum is no golden boy working on behalf of the people.

    Santorums’ contribution to welfare reform was very much overhyped.  He assisted in that project and others like Gingirch and others were leads in welfare reform in the 90’s.  Other than a couple of smaller scale projects, Santorum has mainly negativity attacked to his record.  He does not have a bone in him that points to fiscal conservatism.  I don’t know where you are getting all these wierd grades/statistics from – media that is on his side for now has never mentioned it.

    Vast majority of the bills Paul introduced are what the people want and why they elect their politicians.  However, it is corrupt politicians like Santorum that have limited political will that stop good legislation from moving forward.  Paul introduced legislation to counteract the Community Reinvestment Act that was one of the core causes of the 2008 financial crisis.  When so many congressman benefit from crisis, it is easy to see why Paul’s legislations do not pass. 

    What I will agree on is that Santorum is a tad bit better than Romney.  Regardless, Santorum will not be the nominee – that is just the fact.

    fyi – I would be interested in seeing the details and blueprint of the bible theology that he would like to see implemented as he says Obama is not ruling from the bible.

  • jen

    I think abortion was made a political issue dividing people into a fake division of political parties by the vile elites in order to slowly bring about chaos that tear apart the country, and have people like Santorum try to bring radical faith into politics.

  • Mlalexand99

    And Ron Paul prescribes birth control including the abortion pill.

  • Catholic for Ron Paul

    For the record — there are just as many, and if not more, Protestant neocons.

  • http://twitter.com/RonPaulGoatee Patrick Hatten

    Yes, like most Protestants, Ron Paul does not have any problem with birth control. Rick Santorum voted to provide funding for something that he was against (and that the government should not be stealing money to fund in the first place). Ron Paul voted against giving Planned Parenthood any money even though he had no issue with contraception. Now, which choice do you think will lead to a diminished Planned Parenthood? I’ll give you a hint; it isn’t funding them through the government. 

    Also, because this irks me as well, what is the difference between the birth control pill and the morning after pill? They are both potentially abortifacients which do not allow for a fertilized egg to implant in the uterus (if Rick was truly against these things, again, he would not have given Planned Parenthood funding). If we ban one, we should ban the other. But then, I’m sure we will have to ban certain herbs that may bring about the same results. Or women with low progesterone levels should be forced to take supplements to stop miscarriage….I’m very pro-life, but I wonder where exactly you would draw the line? How about we educate people and take the state out of the issue (Planned Parenthood may have already gone out of business if not for special protections through the government (Santorum also voted to make it a federal crime to block an abortion facility)). 

  • Peelerjoseph0

    Paul doesn’t use the term states’ rights. He repeatedly states that only individual’s have rights. He uses the term federalism. His personal view is not pro-choice. He is morally opposes to abortion. He is correct that the federal government has no authority on this matter. It is a local issue. It’s something to be handled by local governments and state constitutions/legislatures. Those of you who want to nationalize the issue would have no where to turn if the national government banned abortion. It’s something you might want to think about.

  • Peelerjoseph0

    That Ron Paul can’t get other representatives to follow the Constitution isn’t his fault. You want to blame the guy who is sounding the alarm for the unconstitutional behaviour of others. Perhaps it is those who vote for those other representatives (you?) that deserve the blame. You can’t justifiably expect Paul to be able to force the others to obey the law. You’ve got everything backward. It’s those who don’t support his bills that would return us to a constitutional republic that deserve the blame.

    And I don’t judge legislators on how many new laws he gets passed. I give them credit for trying to repeal all of the laws already in existence. We have too many laws, and too little justice.

  • Peelerjoseph0

    Oh, you cite a big government neo-con rag as your source for fiscal conservatism? That’s rich!!

    Santorum doesn’t believe in a free market in money, banking, or interest rates. He voted against Right to Work. He helped expand regulatory bodies. He votes for prescription drug benefit. He vote for new departments and to expand others. He believes in a progressive income tax. He believes in subsidies, mandates, and public-private partnerships. He is hostile to truly free markets.

    In Santorum’s book “It Takes A Family” he identifies himself as a big government conservative. It’s a contradition in terms. He is a statist. He advocates numerous central planning measures.

    Perhaps you should cite non-neo-con publications. They believe in big government. They came out of the left and brought many of their progressive ideas with them. They are not conservatives.

    Real conservatives follow the Constitution. That document was a federalist one. Most laws were to be localized. Santorum is a centralizing nationalist. He doesn’t care about the 10th Amendment. He doesn’t care about Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. And he doesn’t believe in the primacy of individual rights. He speaks in terms of collective rights that don’t exist. He doesn’t understand liberty.

    Santorum has offered no real cuts. Where is the specific plan to cut trillions if his first term. Don’t cite baseling budgeting “cuts” either.

    That a statist like Santorum can pass for a conservative indicates how few understand the intellectual roots and philosophy of that term. I suggest you start by readin Russel Kirk–the intellectual godfather of 20th century conservatism.

    The reason that statist publications like Weekly Standard support Santorum is because he wants to nation-build and expand the empire. Empire and constant war are the worst kinds of statism.

    Santorum is not a conservative. Neither are you.

  • Lex Malla Books

    I’m a Mormon and I loathe Romney.  They’re both such big deals for the same reason Mormons everywhere wanted the Utah Jazz to win the NBA Finals or that one wiener to be America’s Idol.  For some it reason it validates and makes them relevant.  

    That and everyone is largely state-loving President-worshipers…

    Happy War Crim…I Mean Presidents’ Day
    http://thelibertyweekly.com/articles/archives/997 

  • http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

    I posted this in the American Papist’s  Facebook page, which supports St. Orum, and it seems to have been deleted.  If you can, like its page and report it if it’s deleted again or add a comment.

  • http://www.mises.org Murray Newton Rothbard

    I’m all for a one world government as long as it includes 7 billion sovereign states and a money supply regulated by god.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Casey-Beaman/503483162 Casey Beaman

    This video, and the one where he speaks against the folks calling for smaller government should just blow this guy away.  Who are the people still voting for him?  

  • http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

     And the post has been deleted again…   Thomas Peters doesn’t seem to allow the truth to get in his way.

  • Anthony

    Santorum makes me ill.

  • http://twitter.com/csawordsmith Mike Shaner

    Most Tea Partiers now support the inept war on drugs;
    many cringe at the thought of changing our foreign policy to one of peace and
    friendship. Some are even ok with the patriot act, and a few would even
    tolerate Obama-care as long as the title is changed to Romney-care. They seem
    to be saying: “I don’t use drugs nor should anyone else, so don’t allow
    it. I have nothing to hide and anyone who does should be monitored, so continue
    the patriot act. I don’t want to be forced to purchase a good or service but if
    I must it damn well better be a Republican doing the forcing. In essence, I
    want my liberty protected but not liberty in general.” http://www.oakparkrepublic.com/2012/02/occupy-wall-street-and-tea-party-by.html

  • Philipsieve

    Still, Raymond Arroyo coddles Gingrich.  Santorum practically calls PP’s favorite president, Hitler, but he’s helped what’s the SS death camp system of the last 30-some years?

  • jen

    Actually, the most like Bush-Cheney is Romney.  Santorum has improved a bit with libertarian seeds, while Romney continues to spit on libertarians.

  • Barbbtx

     The joke is a big deal because just the idea of abstinence offends liberals. What Fries said was akin to saying “keep it in your pants”

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/KBIWUSXSXHVVVZJWUJOML7OW64 Reform School budget

     
    Yet Santorum is unique.Santorum:  Our abortion was different
    “The doctors said they were talking about a matter of hours or a day or two
    before risking sepsis and both of them might die,” Santorum said. “Obviously,
    if it was a choice of whether both Karen and the child are going to die or just
    the child is going to die, I mean it’s a pretty easy call.”

    Rick Santorum is one dangerously confused denialist. The former Pennsylvania
    Senator and presidential aspirant is best known for his inability to associate
    his professed compassion for life at the level of the zygote, with the physical
    realities of human sexuality.  He has equated loving same-sex
    relationships to bestiality.  He is opposed to abortion under any
    circumstance. Almost.

    In October, 1996, his wife Karen had a second trimester abortion.  They
    don’t like to describe it that way. In his 2004 interview with Terry Gross,
    Santorum characterizes the fetus, who must be treated as an autonomous person,
    as a practically a gunslinging threat, whom the mother must murder in
    self-defense. Karen has had to justify her decision to save her own life by
    explaining that if she died her other children would have lost a mother.

    http://oursilverribbon.org/blog/?p=188

     

    In the 19th week of her pregnancy, Karen discovered during a routine exam that
    the fetus she was carrying had a fatal defect and was going to die inside of
    her. A long-shot surgery was performed that required cutting directly into the
    womb. It carried a high risk of infection and was performed not to save the
    fetus, but to reduce Karen’s complication while she attempted to go full term.

     

    :Once the Santorums had agreed to the use of antibiotics,
    they believed they were committing to delivery of the fetus, which they knew
    would not survive outside the womb.”

    They knew the child would
    not survive if Karen took the antibiotics. And they agreed to the antibiotics
    which induced labor. The Santorum’s knew that the antibiotics would induce
    labor and the child would die.  What is
    the difference between the morning after pill which causes the child to leave
    the womb and the antibiotics that Karen took? 
    The fact is the Santorum’s knew that the antibiotics would induce labor
    and the child would die. 

    http://early-onset-of-night.tumblr.com/post/6502308112/our-abortion-was-different-when-the-anti-choice

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/KBIWUSXSXHVVVZJWUJOML7OW64 Reform School budget

     
    Santorum:  Our abortion was different
    “The doctors said they were talking about a matter of hours or a day or two
    before risking sepsis and both of them might die,” Santorum said. “Obviously,
    if it was a choice of whether both Karen and the child are going to die or just
    the child is going to die, I mean it’s a pretty easy call.”

    Rick Santorum is one dangerously confused denialist. The former Pennsylvania
    Senator and presidential aspirant is best known for his inability to associate
    his professed compassion for life at the level of the zygote, with the physical
    realities of human sexuality.  He has equated loving same-sex
    relationships to bestiality.  He is opposed to abortion under any
    circumstance. Almost.

    In October, 1996, his wife Karen had a second trimester abortion.  They
    don’t like to describe it that way. In his 2004 interview with Terry Gross,
    Santorum characterizes the fetus, who must be treated as an autonomous person,
    as a practically a gunslinging threat, whom the mother must murder in
    self-defense. Karen has had to justify her decision to save her own life by
    explaining that if she died her other children would have lost a mother.

    http://oursilverribbon.org/blog/?p=188

     

    In the 19th week of her pregnancy, Karen discovered during a routine exam that
    the fetus she was carrying had a fatal defect and was going to die inside of
    her. A long-shot surgery was performed that required cutting directly into the
    womb. It carried a high risk of infection and was performed not to save the
    fetus, but to reduce Karen’s complication while she attempted to go full term.

     

    :Once the Santorums had agreed to the use of antibiotics,
    they believed they were committing to delivery of the fetus, which they knew
    would not survive outside the womb.”

    They knew the child would
    not survive if Karen took the antibiotics. And they agreed to the antibiotics
    which induced labor. The Santorum’s knew that the antibiotics would induce
    labor and the child would die.  What is
    the difference between the morning after pill which causes the child to leave
    the womb and the antibiotics that Karen took? 
    The fact is the Santorum’s knew that the antibiotics would induce labor
    and the child would die. 

    http://early-onset-of-night.tumblr.com/post/6502308112/our-abortion-was-different-when-the-anti-choice

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/KBIWUSXSXHVVVZJWUJOML7OW64 Reform School budget

     Karen Santorum’s had a six year love affair with abortion
    doctor 40 years her senior.  Interesting side
    note he was the doctor that delivered her.

     

    Dr  Allen said: ‘Karen was a lovely
    girl, very intelligent and sweet.

    ‘Karen had no problems with what I did for a
    living.’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087812/Rick-Santorums-wife-Karen-love-affair-abortion-doctor.html#ixzz1mxRkaDVC

     

    The detail in this story that seems
    to be grossing people out the most is that Karen, whose last name was Garver
    when she was living openly as the kind of fornicator she and her husband now
    claim is so sinful the government should work against you, was actually
    delivered by her boyfriend Tom Allen when she was born in 1960. I’m from a
    small town, so that probably doesn’t have the effect on me that it does on
    people who aren’t used to some of the uncomfortably close romantic
    entanglements people can get in. That this detail captures people’s attention
    suggests that we’ve become a little too inured to the hypocrisy of right
    wingers who carry on—and Rick Santorum is the worst—about how the
    government should restrict contraception access and teach abstinence-only
    because sex outside of marriage is sinful and how abortion providers should be
    subject to criminal penalties. It’s worth noting that when it comes to the
    black markets of the sort that conservatives wish to create around abortion,
    girlfriends and partners often get caught up in police stings, so if the laws
    the Santorums want were in place back then, it may not just have been Dr. Allen
    in danger but also a young Karen Garver. But even if not, since she lived with
    him for so long, she basically benefitted materially from “abortion
    money” he earned providing abortions, money that helped pay for her
    housing, if nothing else.

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002330023

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/KBIWUSXSXHVVVZJWUJOML7OW64 Reform School budget

     Clarification on different types of contraceptives and morning after pills.  Some pills prevent ovulation, thus preventing conception. Other pills prevent a conceived child from attaching to the womb via a hostile environment. 
    If a woman is raped and has been tested to see if she has ovulated or is pregnant, then there should be nothing wrong with any kind of pill that prevents ovulation.  Without ovulation an egg can not meet up with the sperm. Here is where Planned Parenthood and the others get it wrong.  They do not test to see if a woman has ovulated or is pregnant.  Also, consider the fact that sperm can survive up to seven days.  The pills prevent ovulation for up to 3 or 4 days.  A woman can still conceive and become pregnant if a second pill is not taken.   Planned Parenthood may not only be doing what it can to prevent a pregnancy (not conception) but is almost guaranteeing that a woman could become pregnant and need an abortion in the future. 
    If in a hospital where a woman goes and takes these two tests – pregnant and ovulated – she can actually make an informed decision on rather to take a medication that will prevent ovulation and thus preventing conception and pregnancy.  She will need to take two pills 3 days apart to prevent the sperm from reaching the egg.
    As a person that is very pro-life, in the case of incest or rape, I would approve of this.

  • Gary Halpin

    Hey Dodo (Santorum), yeah you should be ripped for public FUNDING of this.  You claim you are a fiscal conservative, but then you go fund stuff like this?  You’re a hypocrite just like all the others.