Just one more thought on Santorum’s contraception “scandal.”
You know, Democrats say all the time that they’re “personally opposed” to abortion but then say they can’t legislate that belief. This is, of course, ridiculous in that you can’t believe killing another person is wrong and say that shouldn’t have an effect on the law. But regardless, everyone in the media seems to think that position is hunky-dory.
But when Santorum says he’s personally opposed to contraception but won’t legislate according to that belief, everyone freaks. Why?
Because everything a conservative says is only valuable to the media insofar as it rates on the freakout meter. If they can pretend to be freaked out, they report it.
Here’s the thing -if the media actually believed that a Democrat like Bob Casey were actually personally opposed to abortion, they’d go after him. But they know just like we all know, that Bob Casey doesn’t give a hoot about abortion at all. He knows that pretending to be opposed to it personally is good politics in Pennsylvania because he can fool some pro-lifers into supporting him and pro-aborts will support him because they know he’s lying to the rubes.
But the thing about Santorum is that they know he’s not lying. That’s why Santorum freaks them out.
February 16, 2012 at 8:23 pm
They freak out cause he does not lie. They are so use to being liars and hearing liars that a truth speaker makes them verrrry uncomfortable.
February 16, 2012 at 8:34 pm
Consider what you just pointed out there for a moment. "Personally opposed, but…" is the recipe for moral disaster, right? Why does Santorum use it?
Barb
Fiat Voluntas Tua
February 16, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Barb,
No one seriously believes you can outlaw everything that is wrong. There has to be a substantial public interest, for one thing. We are so far from people understanding that society is substantially damaged by birth control that legislating against it would be, at this point, foisting our religious beliefs onto a very perplexed secular society.
Killing a human being is rather more black and white, isn't it? Who, really, doesn't understand this? It is rather a question of pretending not to understand because it stands in the way of what they value most – absolutely unfettered ability to pursue unlimited material success, status, and power. Deciding who can be legally killed is a defining moment in the life of any society in a way no other question can ever be.
February 16, 2012 at 9:03 pm
Barb,
He probably uses it because he's not going to make any headway in legal measures to restrict it, and he knows it. Instead, he plans to speak out against it from the "bully pulpit," as it's called. That's a valid way to handle the issue. The problem with the majority of those who use that line is that their actions don't correspond to their supposed opposition. By contrast, Santorum, assuming he is telling the truth (which I will assume for now, in the absence of an apparent political reason to make such statements) plans to handle the issue in the most effective way he thinks he can.
February 16, 2012 at 11:08 pm
Personally opposed but…. is the exact way Bush 43 and the republican majority USED the abortion issue. They got us to vote for them and did NOTHING to stop it. Republicans can't end abortion because they wouldn't have the scare tactics to herd us into voting for them again.
February 17, 2012 at 12:09 am
Contrary to the Archbolds, I think Rubin was right to pull Rick's nose on this…. If we really do believe that politicians who are morally opposed to abortion should vote their conscience then why not with contraceptives as well?
Contraceptives also constitute a grave or serious moral issue that often includes the taking of an embryo's (a child's) life…. This coupled with the news finally getting out there about the carcinogenic effects of oral contraceptives and the issue seems even more clear….
I think the Rick would make a great president btw….
Matt
February 17, 2012 at 2:54 pm
I was very upset to hear that Santorum had previously voted several times for federal funding for contraceptives and that he would not strip away that funding if he were elected President. However, he has also said that the morning after pill and other abortifacient drugs should not be funded and, of course, he is dead set against federal funding for abortion. I think it could be a slippery slope but he has made clear distinctions in his reasons for allowing contraception (claiming that they don't threaten a human life) and not allowing the morning after pill (because it has the potential to kill a human life) that don't seem to allow for falling further down the hill. That being said, he should and, I think, will continue to speak out against contraception and its harmful effect on the nation and human sexuality not to mention the health of women across the nation.
February 17, 2012 at 6:17 pm
But Santorum knows that oral contraceptives can and do sometimes work by preventing an embryo from attaching…. That's abortion…. Why fund it at all? Why not vote against it? Plus oral contraceptives can be carcinogenic….
I'm not convinced that he has the right of it…
Pax!
Matt
February 19, 2012 at 1:21 am
I was dismayed by that "Personally opposed but" headline at Drudge this afternoon. Robin E., you've said it well. Nobody can outlaw everything that is wrong. And presidents can't "outlaw" much of anything if they're working according to the Constitution! That's Congress's job! Wouldn't it be refreshing to have a president who really IS "personally opposed"?