Political Animal
Blog
Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum, if he wanted to draw support from a large segment of the population, would stay away from the culture war. Everyone knows how right wing he is on social issues — the phrase “Man on Dog” appeared as his middle name for quite a while — and to be taken seriously as a national candidate, Santorum would be wise to focus on issues most Americans actually care about in 2011.
But Santorum doesn’t see it that way. It leads the former senator to go after, among other things, contraception.
Igor Volsky has this item today, noting Santorum arguing, on camera and on the record, that birth control devalues the act of procreation.
For those who can’t watch clips from your work computer, Santorum says, in all seriousness, “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country…. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
Santorum doesn’t just envision a role speaking out against contraception; if elected, he wants to defund access to contraception for those who rely on public assistance. Those wealthy enough to pay for their family planning would be able to do so, but everyone else would be screwed (so to speak).
But, wait, you’re thinking. Wouldn’t Rick Santorum’s approach lead to a massive increase in the number of unintended pregnancies, and a related increase in the number of abortions? The answer, of course, is yes, but don’t bother Santorum with details. He’s against abortion and legal, personal efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and doesn’t see the disconnect.
And to think this guy isn’t taken seriously as a major presidential contender.
Postscript: Just as an aside, at the debate last night, Santorum boasted that he, unlike every other GOP presidential contender, has won in a swing state. “[I’m] the only senator to win a state who was a conservative that George Bush lost,” he said. “Bush lost it by 5, I won it by 6.”
What he neglected to mention is that, when he sought re-election in 2006, he lost by a stunning 18 points — the worst defeat for an incumbent senator in a generation. Perhaps he forgot.
Facebook
Twitter
dilbert dogbert on October 19, 2011 4:34 PM:
Google had the right definition of Santorum. Not sure it is currently on top when searched but it should be.
Gummitch on October 19, 2011 4:39 PM:
Either he's in favor of unwanted pregnancies or he's really big on sodomy.
MSU on October 19, 2011 4:44 PM:
I'm curious if any reporter has ever asked Santorum if he engaged in pre-martial sex. If he'd ever used contraception or was with someone who had used it. Though I dislike him and his politics greatly, he doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who lies easily. Would love to see if there's any individual hypocrisy lying there within.
Werewolf on October 19, 2011 4:45 PM:
@dilbert dogbert:
Google search does indeed turn up the definition of santorum at the top. Clicked on it to help make sure it stays there ;-)
martin on October 19, 2011 4:48 PM:
Maybe if Santorum keeps spouting Catholic dogma enough it will stop the press from treating the Pope as some great moral authority.
Just hopin'
hells littlest angel on October 19, 2011 4:49 PM:
"It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
Sounds like he's gunning for a cabinet position in a Republican administration -- perhaps heading the Junior Anti-Sex League.
fostert on October 19, 2011 4:51 PM:
It's obvious why Santorum hates condoms. If gay men always used condoms, Santorum wouldn't exist.
liam foote on October 19, 2011 4:54 PM:
In keeping with current GOP trends, why not ban contraception for whites and mandate vasectomies and tubal ligations for everyone else? This would serve to somwhat stem the obvious demographic trends that the GOP finds so alarming.
ckelly on October 19, 2011 4:57 PM:
Santorum argues ...that birth control devalues the act of procreation.
Clearly, he's not doing it right.
Peter C on October 19, 2011 5:03 PM:
" in a sexual realm "
"realm"??? What millenia is he in???? Seems sorta feudal to me. Perhaps someone should see what he thinks about 'droit du seigneur' too.
A candidate for both "the small government crowd" and the "just leave that thing alone or we'll give you a ticket" crowd - I think the Republicans should run with it.
He makes the other contestants look sane, well, ... saner, well ... oh never mind.
atlliberal on October 19, 2011 5:19 PM:
"He�s against abortion and legal, personal efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and doesn�t see the disconnect."
If you are too poor to have children, then you simply are too poor to have sex. It takes a small government conservative to tell you when having sex is OK and when it is "not how it is supposed to be".
zandru on October 19, 2011 5:34 PM:
It Was Never Just About Abortion
There's this implication that the only people using birth control are unmarried individuals. That is, immoral women.
Mr Sanctimonius and the rest of the Love That Preborn Human Life crowd need to accept the fact that married couples use and need contraception even more than teenagers and other premarital sexers. It's difficult, even insane, to categorize the bedroom interactions of the legally-married as "illicit sex" any time the parties involved don't particularly want these interactions to result in pregnancy.
But that's the position the reactionary right has taken.
Now it's out there in public view. People can get upset about abortion. But CONTRACEPTION?!? The Republicans want to ban that? Are they crazy?
Mitch on October 19, 2011 5:43 PM:
Millions of Christians profess the same beliefs, and not just Catholics. If you are not married, you should not have sex. If you do not want children, you should not have sex.
They seem to ignore the fact that abstinence is, and always has been, a pipe dream. Very few people can live totally sexless lives, biology is hardwired against celibacy. A simple reading of history shows that before the advent of birth control illegitimate children were extremely common among all levels of society, at all times.
Heck, even King David couldn't keep it in his tunic.
But facts don't matter when you have faith. Millions of people have faith in abstinence (Perry, for example, "It works.") and are willing to use the government to enforce it.
Freddie on October 19, 2011 6:07 PM:
Mere words cannot possibly state how much I LOATHE this waste of oxygen. I was never so proud to be a Pennsylvanian as I was the night we finally tossed this jerk out of office. Ugh. He is 110% disgusting.
gelfling545 on October 19, 2011 7:20 PM:
Even if only republicans were allowed to vote this person could not win a presidential election. There just aren't THAT many deranged people with access to the polls.
sue on October 19, 2011 7:24 PM:
he's running for the wrong office-always has acted as though he'd really rather be the pope.
Theocratic idocy at its worst.
zandru on October 19, 2011 7:48 PM:
"If you do not want children, you should not have sex."
I'm assuming that Mr. Sanctorum just does it with his dog...
Padre Mickey on October 19, 2011 7:52 PM:
This is such bullshit. I'm an Episcopal Priest, and after our two children were born I had a vasectomy. That's what people who care about the planet do. I am so tired of Protestant Evangelicals and their claim to Christianity in the U.S.A.
iyoumeweus on October 19, 2011 8:10 PM:
An egg for every sperm because every sperm is sacred!
Punjabi Chholes on October 19, 2011 8:24 PM:
Santorum's problem isn't Protestant Evangelism; it's Roman Catholicism. As previous commentators have hinted, Santorum's views are nutty, but they're also completely consistent with Catholic dogma. He didn't come up with this stuff out of thin air.
DRF on October 19, 2011 8:29 PM:
Not exactly classic Republican small government. Does Santorum really think this is an appropriate function of the President?
TCinLA on October 19, 2011 8:34 PM:
While this may make Santorum look crazy to the at-large electorate who would vote in a general election, this position places him right in the Right's "mainstream." These people have been as opposed to Griswold v. Connecticut (the 1965 Supreme Court decision that people did have the right to access birth control and obtain information, which had previously under the Comstock Laws been "pornography") as they are to Roe v. Wade.
It's not just Santorum who's a nutcase here, it's all the other nutcases.
exlibra on October 19, 2011 10:24 PM:
I guess that's Santorum's jobs plan: armies of people making sure that nobody -- married or not -- has "protected" (ie using contraceptives) sex.
neil on October 20, 2011 1:47 AM:
Sounds like he's gunning for a cabinet position in a Republican administration .
http://www.ericbearing.com/
whatthefuckiswrongwityou on October 24, 2011 12:32 AM:
why does anyone even take this clown seriously
Zoxman on October 26, 2011 6:31 AM:
And the U.S.A. wonders why the rest of the world thinks they are nuts. Restrictions on the stupid must happen by peers.