-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Let’s take something I’ve been debating in the comments and hash it out here on the main blog: If Rick Santorum won the nomination, could he keep the Democrats from turning the election into a referendum on contraception?
The case that he couldn’t: Santorum holds a fairly unpopular view on the use of contraception. He holds it sincerely and has been willing to talk about it when asked. He also rejects the Griswold decision and holds a fairly expansive view of state police powers. The media is going to harp on these things endlessly even if Santorum can somehow be persuaded to stop talking about condoms and pills himself. And many people will conclude he favors a birth control ban as a matter of policy, even if the actual evidence they cite stops short of establishing this as a fact.
The case that he could: Most, if not all, the Santorum contraception quotes making the rounds predate his recent surge. They were from interviews before he was a major candidate for the nomination or before he was a presidential candidate at all. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Santorum seems to have avoided making the dangers of the pill a major feature of his standard stump speech.
Consider the politics of the HHS contraception mandate. While the poll results vary depending on how the question is asked, a large percentage of the public sympathizes with Catholic institutions’ unwillingness to subsidize contraception over their moral objections (almost certainly a higher percentage of the public than sympathizes with those moral objections). Secular conservatives and libertarians have opposed the mandate. Democrats have divided over the issue and the Obama administration has floated a compromise, while Republicans are mostly united.
That suggests that Democrats don’t see the mandate, at least, as an unambiguous political winner for them. It also suggests that sustained attacks on Santorum’s religious beliefs — especially if he doesn’t make personal contraceptive use a major focus of his campaign — could backfire with voters Obama needs. Of course, there is no guarantee that Santorum wouldn’t be the one who overreaches on this issue.
View all comments (62) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/15/the-contraception-election
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Dixon| 2.15.12 @ 4:28PM
The GOP has been dealt a royal flush by the incompetent, arrogant, liar, BO.
Let's hope they don't fold...it is gonna be a big pot and they can win it.
The cynical idealogue, Reid, is already setting the trap in the Senate to allow a vote on the repeal of the contraceptive/sterility/abortificient mandate so the lib/progs, BO and his cheerleaders in the LSMedia can change the debate to "See, those awful republicans want to deny all you women healthcare...they want barefoot and pregnant!
But the positioning should be:
If BO can force catholics to provide abortion pills...what else will they be mandating? Force insurance companies to refuse hip replacments for anyone over 60 years of age? What will they mandating for YOU and YOUR family?
Drek| 2.15.12 @ 5:18PM
Contraception is but the thin end of the wedge. The goal is to force Catholic institutions to get their hands bloody by providing abortion services. I think it was Ralph Reed who observed that 25% of all hospital services are provided by institutions of the Roman Catholic Church.
Can obamacare allow that much of a chunk of health care services to be provided by those antagonistic to the underlying radical secular agenda that undergirds all of obamacare?
I don't think so.
Former Governor Palin saw all of this right off the bat.
It's unAmerican.
JJ| 2.16.12 @ 12:09PM
And it starts with the abortion pill, that any girl can get, paid for by catholics and catholic institutions, without the knowledge of her parents. Its a cynical play by a corrupt president to show he is more powerful than the church.
Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 4:29PM
This shows why it should be Newt Gingrich and not Santorum as the nominee.
Gingrich would have started by saying flat out that the issue is about the fact that Obama is mandating people pay for abortions in violation of their religious beliefs. He would refuse to let the left get away with claiming it was "contraceptions."
JimBeam| 2.16.12 @ 8:20AM
Gingrich would have an even bigger problem with women than Santorum.
Better seven kids than three wives.
Drek| 2.15.12 @ 4:30PM
The answer to the question posed in your first paragraph is: NO.
For two reasons:
Firstly, because Santorum isn't remotely capable of shaping a countervailing narrative; and
Secondly, and far more importantly, because Santorum will ardently desire to wage such a battle, because he sees himself as at work in the fields of the Lord.
Santorum won't even have the political savvy to avoid such a fight.
In short, he'll too damn stupid to keep the attention of the public on jobs and the economy, gas prices and inflation.
People here, especially those over at THE OTHER MCCAIN, haven't a clue how zealous Santorum is about abortion, homosexuality and contraception.
Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 4:34PM
Which is one reason why I am glad that Gingrich has stayed in this.
Gingrich wouldn't let them get away with these word games.
Al Adab| 2.15.12 @ 4:35PM
Lets turn the argument around and suppose for a moment that the government issued a ban on say, circumcision for reasons of public health. How would the Moslems and Jews react to such a dictat? Being forced to do is not so much different from being forced not to is it?
Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 5:31PM
Santorum isn't good at destroying the left's narratives though, he plays right into them.
Gingrich would know how to turn tables on the Democrats and the media, Santorum doesn't.
Oldefarte| 2.15.12 @ 4:48PM
[1] IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS!!!!!
[2] IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPIDS!!!!!
Drek| 2.15.12 @ 5:13PM
Yes, it is.
But can we get a candidate who will make sure the attention of the public is focused on those two items.
Santorum will wander off the reservation, and start prattling on about contraception. Recall that one debate where he said that he was going to speak about an issue not much mentioned, and that wasn't abortion, wasn't same sex marriage, he was referring to contraception.
If Santorum gains the nomination, the Democrats will eagerly portray him as a religious zealot, and they won't have to use smears to do so, but his own words.
Has anyone here, or those over at The Other McCain, actually taken the time to read his book? Dan Quayle was right when he ridiculed Candace Bergen's character in her show, on the issue of single motherhood.
But that not how it was portrayed by our cultural betters.
I think the race should be about economic liberty, 10%+ unemployment, 20%+ underemployment, the longest rate of protracted unemployment since the Great Depression itself. Those are the issue we should be zeroing in on.
If we go with Santorum, ------- we'll be leaving those promising fields because Santorum will desire all of us to follow him into fields of the Lord.
Now Michael Medved, a guy who has been touting Romney, but who nonetheless completely agrees with Santorum on social issues. But even he finds Santorum a tiresome moralizer.
If the guy grates on us who sympathize with what he has to say, -------- how will he be perceived by those disinclined to pay attentions to his sermons?
Oldefarte| 2.16.12 @ 11:44AM
Agreed, great points! As a lifelong Catholic of many years, I can also tell you that the anti-Catholic factor will emerge sadly if Santorum becomes the nominee, if not naturally then by the hand of the radical Democrats in charge. I personally have always liked Ginguich [who has the political intelligence to possibly become the anti-Lyndon Johnson by be able to dismantle the governmental welfare state that exists presently and to tackle the economic/financial problems that you so rightly highlight], but he's stuck in first gear. Dislike intently Romney's liberal yankee characteristics, I favor his business accumen in be able to solve the government's defecit/debt issues that are bankrupting this country. Santorum is a one trick pony of religiosity and abortion and Paul's liberatrianism is a non-starter. We'll see!!!!
JJ| 2.16.12 @ 12:13PM
Romney will not solve these financials issues if he refuses to fire government workers. He has said that he will only put out a hiring freeze, which will do very little good what so ever.
Meanwhile he seems to have no concept of the freedoms that the big government is taking from us , so he will do little to limit the size and scope of government.
Anommynous| 2.15.12 @ 5:44PM
Is Rick Santorum going to ban contraceptives? No. Don't be stupid.
Is Rick Santorum right about the Griswold decision? If you're a conservative, the answer had better be yes. Griswold gave us "penumbras" eventually used to justify Roe v. Wade. Mark Levin explains in great detail:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_VuOI1tDb0
This isn't about contraception. With the atheist left, all roads lead to abortion. Don't you forget that.
Drek| 2.15.12 @ 5:59PM
I don't think any here deluded themselves that Santorum would "ban" contraceptives.
What they're worried about is that by his fixation on the social troika of abortion/contraception/homosexuality, he'll drive voters away from him, especially women.
I don't have any confidence that Santorum will stay focused on the economy.
Nick| 2.15.12 @ 6:20PM
Drek,
Mr. Santorum doesn't have a "fixation" on those societal evils. He just doesn't run away from them like the cowardly CINOs (Conservatives In Name Only) in the Republican party do.
Rick Santorum is the best candidate at defending the right to life principle. O'Romney is a flip-flopper and Mr. Gingrich is for embryonic stem-cell research.
Drek| 2.15.12 @ 7:30PM
Sometimes you pick and choose your battles. Now sometimes those battles get imposed upon you, and not at a time of your choosing. I get that.
But Santorum seems too eager on such issues, and that will get perceived by the electorate as a form of zealotry. Now of course the guy in the pews of Jeremiah Wright was and is a zealot, a radical, a real live saul alinsky radical.
But that's not going to be the fault lines if we go with Santorum.
A good chunk of the reason I prefer Gingrich is that he's good at defining battles, defining narratives, {such as his food stamp president quip}. Santorum is not good at that.
Oldefarte| 2.16.12 @ 12:20PM
This nomination process has gotten sidetracted onto religion and Catholic Santorum has led the charge as a one trick pony. The Democrats are licking their chops and no doubt politically instigated this healthcare fight concerning their WELFARECARE with the Catholic Church for a political reason. If Santorum is the nominee, expect the typical anti-Catholic counter-attack [multitudes larger than when JFK was the Democratic Party nominee in the 1960's], the NOW femi-Nazies etc to destroy and defeat Santorum. The Republicans simply cannot allow the Democrats to turn this election into one based upon religious issues, and correpsondingly divert attention away from their bankrupting this country with massive defecits/debt-economic issues; or Obama will be re-elected by a landslide!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anommynous| 2.15.12 @ 6:30PM
Are you kidding me? If you have watched any of the Republican debates, he has talked extensively about the economy and about foreign policy. He's the only one going after Romney on Obamneycare! He's not going to ignore these issues when going after Obama.
As for abortion and homosexuality, these are important issues where the Democrats have imposed their will via judicial activism. It is the POTUS, as I'm sure you know, who appoints justices to the SCOTUS. I think it's pretty important to know what kind of judges he'll appoint. If timid Republicans just refuse to fight the culture war, then we'll just keep losing ground bit by bit. This is not good for our society.
As for contraception, the only fixated people seem to be the Democrats who keep bringing it up. George Steponallofus was clearly fixated on contraception when he kept asking about it in that debate. I don't see any Republicans bringing it up.
Drek| 2.15.12 @ 7:26PM
Anon,
my understanding of Santorum, and his ways, goes way back before he got into the Senate. I'm from Pennsylvania.
Now the first thing is, ----------- you might be surprised to get this, but I agree with much of what Santorum has to say regarding all three issues, and in fact, I'm much more conservative when it comes to homosexuality. I had no prob with that being illegal, had no prob with them being banned from the military, from law schools, and still thoroughly oppose civil unions. And the idea of them adopting makes me just want to throw up.
Ok.
However, I know that I'm in the minority on that issue, and the younger generation, through cultural conditioning, has been acclimated to not even understand the argument made against those cultural breakthroughs.
Will I support Santorum if he gains the nomination?
Sure.
But those supporting him now need to understand that Santorum has a strong attraction to such issues, and seems unable to let that issue simply slip past him. Now I know he gets hammered with questions about such things. But part of that is because the media knows he has repeatedly gone off on those subjects, and they know if asked long enough, his resistance will break down and he'll start going off on them.
ACE and Drew Musings have quotes and video of him promising to raise the issue of contraception.
I mentioned on a thread over at The Other McCain that Santorum has advantages. But with those merits he also has demerits, and some seem simply unable to grasp that.
Oldefarte| 2.16.12 @ 12:26PM
Agreed, but I think it's more than that possibly. As a Catholic foather of seven, he's not only Catholic, but a crusading one at that [and abortion is his primary mantra]. Again IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPIDS, and if the Republicans allow him to become the nominee, with his solitary focus on religious issues, they'll lose for sure!!!!
Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 6:30PM
The real issue is forcing people to pay for abortions that they are opposed to for religious reasons.
Democrats know they can't win when people know what the real issue is, so they use a poll-tested word "contraceptives" in this instance.
Santorum is making the mistake of letting the Democrats get away with using the poll-tested words so they can paint him as being a sexist bigot.
Newt Gingrich would not have let them get away with using poll-tested words and would in fact slam the left for being dishonest with the American people.
Romney would side with the left like he usually does.
This is why Gingrich is a better choice than Santorum. He doesn't fall for these tactics, Santorum does.
Scott| 2.15.12 @ 7:51PM
Curiously enough, the "penumbras" argument actually has some merit to it (there's an argument to be made that it is something akin to the Court's approach to presidential and congressional powers). It's curious because the Court used the penumbras argument pretty much only in Griswold, abandoning it in favor of the substantive due process argument in subsequent cases like Roe v. Wade.
Anommynous| 2.15.12 @ 9:06PM
No, there's no merit to the "penumbras" argument. The proper rationale is original intent, and it is clear that the intent of James Madison when he wrote the Bill of Rights was that, under the 10th Amendment, such matters are to be decided at the state level.
And yes, the "right to privacy" "emanated" from the "penumbra" described in Griswold was indeed the hook the court used to apply their "substantive due process" rationale. From Roe v. Wade:
"State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy."
You see, the states' laws were violating the "right to privacy" affirmed in Griswold that is protected under so-called substantive due process. As for the concept of substantive due process, though, that concept (as used in Roe) also had its origins in Griswold, from the concurring opinion of Justice Harlan. So whether we're talking about the "right to privacy" or "substantive due process," we can look to the travesty that was the Griswold decision and see judicial activism at its worst. Rick Santorum is right to reject the Griswold decision.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 5:47PM
Apparently, Axelrod & Obama Have Calculated That It Would Be More Advantageous To Stick Romney To This HHS Mandate Tar Baby, Than Be Concerned About Giving Primary Advantage To Ricky Santorum.
"In December 2005, Romney required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, even though some Catholics view the morning-after pill as a form of abortion.
He said he was acting on his legal counsel’s interpretation of a new state law - one passed by lawmakers despite his veto - but he also said that “in his heart of hearts,’’ he believed that rape victims should have access to emergency contraception.
Some Catholic leaders now point to inconsistency in Romney’s criticism of the president and characterize his new stance as politically expedient, even as they welcome it.
“The initial injury to Catholic religious freedom came not from the Obama administration but from the Romney administration,’’ said C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. “President Obama’s plan certainly constitutes an assault on the constitutional rights of Catholics, but I’m not sure Governor Romney is in a position to assert that, given his own very mixed record on this.’’
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
GW| 2.15.12 @ 5:57PM
The adjective best describing Santorum is "paternal." "Naive" might be second best.
His social conservatism is to be commended. But the president's job isn't to unilaterally push his social agenda on everyone. It is to execute the laws of the land and to follow the constitution. Even if the Supreme Court ruled contraceptives could be outlawed by the states, I don't see the states doing this.
Santorum will win more votes appealing to religious liberty than defending Catholic doctrine, and this is coming from a social conservative.
JimBeam| 2.16.12 @ 8:26AM
I would agree with this post.
Santorum doesn't use contraception and he has had eight children with his wife, seven of whom are surviving. He and his wife are happy with this lifestyle. Good for them.
But this lifestyle is not for everyone and St. Rick seems to imply that it should be.
Likewise, Rick Santorum doesn't hate gay people at all. He doesn't think gay people exist. He just thinks that they are confused and perverted straight people and would be far better off if they were straight.
Naive and paternalistic.
Bill| 2.15.12 @ 5:58PM
Anatomy of GOP candidates:
Romney: New England, executive and private sector experience
strength: money
weakness: Romneycare
Santorum: Rust Belt, legislative experience
strength: PA is a swing state, social conservative
weakness: lost his senate bid in 2006
Gingrich: South, legislative experience
strength: great debater, his leadership as the speaker
weakness: women voters, money
Paul: Southwest, legislative experience
strength: libertarianism
weakness: foreign policy
My take: Gingrich, a solid conservative and needs to win the women votes and have money
Nick| 2.15.12 @ 6:21PM
"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."
- Written by Bill, yesterday, in the Time for Newt to Do the Honorable Thing thread:
http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403
You're a moron and a racist, Bill.
GO AWAY!
DRed| 2.15.12 @ 6:24PM
Amen
Scott| 2.15.12 @ 7:47PM
You left out Gingrich's biggest weakness: The man is an insufferable egomaniac, and when trying to get rid of an insufferable egomaniac, as we are, you don't want at best a lateral transition.
Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 1:40AM
Except in this case we want someone to have the backbone to tell the left to take a hike.
Oldefarte| 2.16.12 @ 12:30PM
ALL presidents are ego-maniacs. Please tell us one who was not so, and I'll name five who were so!!!!!!!!!
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 6:06PM
When Romney Was Governor Of Massachusetts.
" NEWS RELEASE
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: C. J. DOYLE
(617) 524-6309
CATHOLIC ACTION LEAGUE OPPOSES
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION BILL
The CatholicActionLeague ofMassachusetts offered testimony today before the Legislature's Joint
Committee on Public Health opposing the so-called Emergency Contraception Bill. This measure,
if enacted, would coerce Catholic hospitals and Catholic medical professionals into performing
chemical abortions by forcing them to dispense the abortifacient morning-after pill.
The Catholic Action League characterized the measure as "a heavy handed aggression against the
consciences and the constitutional rights of Catholics."
Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle stated: "This proposed legislation, if it
becomes law, will force Catholic doctors, nurses, and medical personnel at secular hospitals to
choose between violating their consciences or forfeiting their jobs. Catholic medical institutions
will be presentedwith the choice ofcostly litigation to contest this measure, non-compliance, which
is to say civil disobedience, or closure. The Catholic Church is the largest non-governmental
provider of health care services in the United States. If the Catholic Church is forced out of the
health care industry, an oppressive burden would be imposed on the already strained health care
system in the Commonwealth, which ultimately would have to be borne by the taxpayer."
"The free exercise of religion is guaranteed by both the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and evenmore broadly, by Article II ofthe Declaration ofRights oftheMassachusetts
Constitution. The jurisprudence ofboth the United States and the Commonwealth have long held
that the exercise of religion consists not only of the liberty to worship, but the right to act in
accordance with one's religious principles."
"At a time when society professes to celebrate the values of tolerance, pluralism, and diversity, it
is astonishing that such an illiberal, authoritarian, and constitutionally defective proposal is being
contemplated against Catholics."
-30-
Rockerbabe| 2.15.12 @ 11:30PM
No one likes being lied to with regard to legally permissible treatment options. This business of withholding treatment information is a form of lying and NO one should ever be lied to by their MD, RN, SW, etc. Lying is a sin and violation of the commandaments. Telling a women her legally permissilbe options does not mean she will automatically choose abortion or Plan B or artifical contraception. It means, she has been made aware of the range of choices available to her.
What is really laughable is all of the male posters writing about a topic they will never have to endure, make decisions about or witness for the most part. Men have little clue and I mean clue about what women want, need, tolerate or even desire. And you think all of this verbage about contraception is going to make the option go away? I don't think so. 98% of women in this country use artificial contraception at some point in the reproductive life; I doubt all the teachings of the catholic church will change any of that. Most of us just ignore the clergy and their hateful ways with regard to women.
I would like to see the little blue pills so many of the men [with and without ED] be taken off the list of permissible meds. I would like to see men be discriminated against with regard to healthcare benefits and medical treatment. I would like to see men being deliberately not told the truth about legally permissible options with regard to healthcare issues. NO ONE likes being lied to; you fellas should know this already. Or are you like those women-ignorant priest and haven't got a clue? Stay away from my contraception and I will stay away from your little blue pills.
Nick| 2.16.12 @ 12:37AM
Take your man-hating, anti-Catholic diatribes over to huffpo, skank.
JJ| 2.16.12 @ 12:18PM
This is an example of anti-male bigotry Rockerbabe. Yes we men do have to deal with abortion. When a woman decides to kill our child it affects us.
No body is stopping you from getting a contraceptive or from killing you unborn child. But because of your religious bigotry, you insists that we must pay for it. Then when we say know you launch your petty mean spirited attacks.
Rockerbabe| 2.15.12 @ 11:33PM
Discrimination against women in terms of employment related benefits is not a value.
Discrimination against women in terms of employment benefits is not tolerance, pluralism, diversity or anything else.
It is say women do not get parity with men if they work for a religious organization with the bad attitude that the catholic church has with regard to women and their needs.
You know, contraception and birth control are two phrases that appear NO WHERE in the bible. So catholic teachings on this issue have more to do with ignorance, hate and disrespect of women that anything divine.
JimBeam| 2.16.12 @ 9:09AM
Have you ever read the Catholic Church's teaching against contraception and about women or are you just making assumptions?
The Catholic Church's teaching against contraception:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_fat.....ae_en.html
And what the Catholic Church really thinks about women:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_fat.....em_en.html
JJ| 2.16.12 @ 12:20PM
Somehow I think rockerbabe needs no birth control. Her nastiness would be enough to render any male impotent.
RJ| 2.15.12 @ 6:36PM
While the Obama mandate of free contraception is another illustration of government forcing its way on the daily lives of citizens, the GOP should not be distracted from the main issue of this election: The increasingly dictatorial and corrupt government has choked our economy and damaged our society. Government spending and regulations must be reduced for the economy and freedom to grow.
Innig | 2.15.12 @ 6:38PM
By far the most troubling aspect of the recent firestorm of attacks against the Obama administration is the apparently widely accepted idea that religious beliefs must be allowed to have a determinative effect on the health care coverage available to Americans. A teacher at a Catholic high school or a nurse at a Catholic hospital, opponents of the rules argue, should not have contraception or sterilization needs covered by their group health insurance plan because, even though it may be beneficial to their health (and they may not even be Catholic), it is deemed morally wrong by the Catholic church.
Scott| 2.15.12 @ 7:43PM
The most troubling aspect is that people think this is about the rights of the recipients. It's about the rights of the people being made to pay for it.
Rockerbabe| 2.15.12 @ 11:38PM
Why is it, that anything that improves the life of the average women is morally wrong? So say the men of the catholic church. A church with a very long history of murder, rape, torture, imprisonment and theft by taking from women. Now the church wants to intrude where it does not belong and continue its long history of discrimination of women in the workplace with regard to employment benefits. How unAmerican! I think all women who work for catholic institutions should take their skills and talents somewhere else - where they will be respected and valued on the their own terms.
Nick| 2.16.12 @ 12:27AM
Don't let the doors hit you in your backsides, "ladies".
Take your anti-Catholic calumnies somewhere else, harpy.
Nick| 2.16.12 @ 12:33AM
Innig,
Medical insurance is NOT a right.
No one is entitled to free health care.
The Catholic Church and Catholic organizations can't stop people from using contraceptives. They shouldn't have to pay for them.
Pay for them yourselves.
Scott| 2.15.12 @ 7:42PM
Whenever asked about contraception, Santorum could explain that, as a Catholic, he's opposed to it, but that he wouldn't do anything to stop someone from using it, nor could even begin to do anything about it unless 5 justices dropped dead during his time in office. And then conclude with "Look, I know we've got a guy in the White House now who thinks he can simply impose his will on the American people in defiance of the Constitution, custom, or common sense, but I'm not Obama; that's why I'm running to replace him."
Nick| 2.15.12 @ 8:20PM
Scott,
I'm pretty sure that I heard Mr. Santorum say pretty much the equivalent of what you have laid out. He said that he was against contraceptives and that it was a state issue, but, that he wouldn't support a state initiative to ban them.
I disagree with him on the last point, by the way. I would support states banning contraceptives, like many did before Griswold v. Conn. (1965). Not that long ago, really. Two years before I was born.
Bill| 2.15.12 @ 7:59PM
Nick is convicted child molester. Watch out!
Nick| 2.15.12 @ 8:12PM
"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."
- Written by Bill, yesterday, in the Time for Newt to Do the Honorable Thing thread:
http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403
You're a moron and a racist, Bill.
GO AWAY!
Ole| 2.15.12 @ 8:26PM
Santorum probably has seperate beds in his bedroom like in those 1950s and 60s sitcoms.
JimBeam| 2.16.12 @ 9:11AM
I doubt it. He and his wife have had eight kids!
JJ| 2.16.12 @ 12:23PM
Heck my wife has never used any contraceptives, thus being one of the 2%. We are quite happy with no children.
Murmur | 2.15.12 @ 10:59PM
Good lord. This week it's contraception, next week it will be another tactical distraction, and by giving it so much ink you are letting them control the narrative away from the main issue; this election is a referendum on Obama. The left knows that's a loser and is doing everything they can to change the subject. And the right is playing right into their hands.
Here's an idea, a lede to precede every discussion on any topic, something along the lines of... in an obvious attempt to divert attention away from Obama's job performance Democrat ____________ addressed the issue of ________ today...
Tactical distraction isn't the best they have, it's ALL they have. Call them out on it.
Rockerbabe| 2.15.12 @ 11:40PM
For dems, voting for Obama is just fine; some may hold their noses while they do it, but he will be supported all the same.
For a dem to vote for any republican, means we will have to done a haz mat suit and a high level respirator to vote red. No thanks. I don't kin to be discriminated against because I am a women.
JJ| 2.16.12 @ 12:29PM
dems will not hold their nose voting for Obama. That would require them having original ideas and opinions. That is not allowed if you are a dem.
And the dems need the rest of us to pay for all of their nonsense. That is their real fear. That we will get enough power to stop all this nonsense. Then heaven forbid, they would have to start taking responsibility for their own lives.
Oldefarte| 2.16.12 @ 12:38PM
"I'm a woMEN"? Is that akin to Barney Franks' I'M A MAN possibly??????????
G. | 2.16.12 @ 5:28AM
The USA spends $13 billion /year for the expense of its unwanted pregnancies
For every $1 spent on family planning, the USA saves $11 per dollar. ( Trussell, PhD, Princeton University Office of Population Research )
TO prevent Abortions and Maternal Deaths:
SOLUTIONS:
1) Prevention by education is the most practical solutions for preventing unwanted pregnancies, In a culture where sex education is lacking, the government has to step in, and teach basic principles to prevent social disintegration.
2) Sex Education Parental, or to a lesser degree, institutional education is the solution to prevent AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases.
Due to lack of knowledge in family planning, in 2002, the World Health Organization registered 46 million reported abortions worldwide, 20 million under unsafe conditions.
In Japan and Sweden, where sex education is part of the school curriculum, have a much lower incidence of communicable diseases, unwed mothers, maternal and infant death, rapes and abortions than the USA !! THe rate of promiscuity in Japan is an order of magnitude lower than in the USA, so the concept that sex ed wioll create promiscuity is FALSE.
JJ| 2.16.12 @ 12:26PM
Margaret Sanger would find you very "refreshing".
Mark Anderson| 2.16.12 @ 12:49PM
You are correct, Santorum hasn't learned to lie well enough to be elected. Why don't you send him the conservative stealth book on this?
randyinrocklin| 2.16.12 @ 1:41PM
Santorum and Romney will both lose to Obama. Our best hope to beat Obama was Rick Pery, unfortunately the dumb REpubs got their candidate picked by the media again. Lets hope the Establishment Repubs Karl Rove, et al is wiped out once and for all.
Roxie Powell| 2.19.12 @ 11:38PM
It surprises me that women are not more inflamed over the fact that the Contraception question is wholly in the hands of old white males. Pius XI was age 72 in 1930 when he produced his encyclical and Paul VI was 71 when he did his in 1968. Gee, how could they possibly care one way or the other?