Rick Santorum was interviewed Friday morning by CBS’s Charlie Rose on the former Pennsylvania senator’s views on contraception. It’s clear that Senator Santorum is tired of talking about contraception. One can understand why.
Senator Santorum’s core defense is that he’s supported federal funding for contraception in his role as a public official, even though he’s personally opposed (as a faithful Catholic) to it. But in this October 2011 interview Santorum – presumably in an effort to contrast himself with the other GOP candidates — insisted that he would talk about contraception if he were president. He argued that contraception, even within the context of marriage, was damaging to the institution. In talking about contraception, Santorum said this: “Again, I know most presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues. These have profound impact on the health of our society.” [emphasis added]
When asked by Hugh Hewitt earlier last week if he was going to talk a lot about contraception, Senator Santorum changed his stance. He told Hewitt, “Well, obviously not.” He said “this is just the left trying to play their games that they always try to play.”
That’s not quite fair, though. After all, it was Santorum, in an interview with a sympathetic interlocutor, who went out of his way to say that he would talk about contraception. (“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, the whole sexual libertine idea,” Santorum said. “Many in the Christian faith have said, ‘Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.’ It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”) So this is a debate Santorum has invited, not others. And the question for Santorum is why he believes contraception should “continue to be available” and that the “realm of laws” should have nothing to say about contraception. Remember, the argument Santorum made is that contraception is having a profoundly negative impact on the health of society. If so, why wouldn’t he advocate laws to discourage the use of something that he believes is undermining America’s social and moral fabric? At a minimum, why wouldn’t he insist that the state stay neutral on the issue of contraception rather than trumpet the fact that he voted for federal funding of contraception (which he did in his interview with Mr. Rose)?
Now Santorum can argue, as he has, that the liberty interest of individuals supersedes the interest of the state – and that unlike the case of abortion, no other individual is involved in this matter. True enough. But how, then, does Santorum argue against same-sex marriage? You have the liberty interests of the individual pitted against (in Santorum’s view) the interest of the state. So why oppose same-sex marriage while supporting contraception?
This debate touches on fairly fundamental issues of statecraft as soulcraft (to use the title of a 1983 book by George Will). In this case, if contraception is as damaging as Mr. Santorum argues, both outside and within the context of marriage, why does he continue to support federal funding for contraception? Why wouldn’t he feel an obligation to at least talk about something that he thinks is injurious to America?
Rick Santorum is rightly seen by many as a “conviction politician.” He insists, with some justification, that one of the qualities that makes him a leader is his willingness to stick to his deeply held principles even in the face of strong political headwinds. Those headwinds are now gusting on the matter of contraception. The question is whether Senator Santorum, who is now ahead in national and state polls, will back away from an issue he was eager to talk about when he was merely an asterisk in the polls in Iowa.
We're gonna get whipped by Obama and it is our own fault. Everyone has forgotten about ObamaCare, the monstrosity that will finally tip us over the edge to a majority-dependency society, with an accompanying Democrat-Liberal majority. We voted for this man who is desperately trying to subvert the American way of life at home and take us down several notches internationally. And he told us he was going to do this. Our fault. Santorum and Romney are both hopelessly impotent to make the case that really needs to be made, and even the people in the country don't seem to want to make it, being focused on a million other issues. Again, it is our fault, not that of our supposed leaders.
Obama Care is health Insurance by Insurance Companies. What is so monstrous about that? Why is Obama Care monstrous when 50 million people are uninsured? I call that monstrous. And how is Obama subverting the American way of life and taking us down internationally? nI suspect these are Hannity or Limbaugh plattitudes. I agree that Santorum and Romnay are useless individuals but the reason for voting for them is what? Were you happy with George W Bush as President for 8 years? I guess you must have been otherwise you wouldn't be even considering these two clowns. n
"his willingness to stick to his deeply held principles"? Is he so devout that he will "take orders" from the Pope? That has always bothered Americans in the past and, unfortunately, may be pertinent here. But why, oh why, does a political group that so despises government interference in so many things want to get into our sex lives? It's stupid, illogical, embarrassing, and most of all, a most certain loser at the polls. What Santorum and the Church (for only about a 1000 years) can't seem to fathom is that sexual intercourse is desirable and enjoyable and that if it wasn't, the species would vanish in short time. Religious groups, definitely not politicians, can channel this desire in constructive family arrangements. But, I repeat, NOT POLITICIANS.
" But why . . . does a political group that so despises government interference in so many things want to get into our sex lives?" n nIf someone advises you not to spend more than you earn, is he "getting into" your bank account? Or if you're advised to maintain a sensible weight, is that advice meddling with your dinner? It is Rick Santorum's personal opinion and belief, as he has taken pains to point out, that a CONTRACEPTIVE MENTALITY is a grave danger to society, a danger that has little to do with an inability to "fathom [that] sexual intercourse is desirable and enjoyable," which, by the way, is a ridiculous aspersion. It is precisely because sex is so desirable and so enjoyable that great caution is warranted in indulging its urges. n nI recently retired from teaching in a public high school that was 99% minority students. At present, the single greatest threat, not only to a stable and prosperous society, but to the well-being of each and every child, isn't hunger or abuse or lack of health insurance, but children having children. At present, no other vice is even close to delivering catastrophe to the nation as that is. n nCounterintuitive as it may seem, the ready availability of contraception/abortion, in other words, the contraceptive mentality that Santorum wants you to be concerned about, does not mitigate the problem, it exacerbates it. The amount of information regarding contraception and the prevention of pregnancy and disease lavished on children starting in elementary school and continuing unabated into high school is enormous and has increased steadily decade in and out for going on half a century, without having had any discernible effect on the rate of increase in teenage pregnancy. n nI repeat: WITHOUT DISCERNIBLE EFFECT! n nIt is the contraceptive mentality itself that is defeating its own ostensible intentions, for insofar as it prevents a pregnancy here and there, it simultaneously instigates a dozen other pregnancies by insinuating that the only necessary consequence of sex is pleasure, which is arguably true in as much as we are animals; but, as Aquinas pointed out, we are additionally "rational" animals, for whom such a message is both inadequate and ultimately degrading. 40,000,000 abortions in this country alone is a powerful statement about the fruits of a contraceptive mentality. n nWhy can't a politician point this out from time to time without borderline hysteria erupting? it's certainly not the explicit center of Santorum's candidacy, although I would submit that it is at the center implicitly. What attracted me to Rick Santorum initially was his insistence that the problems in this country are not primarily economic. That does not mean that a bald-faced religious solution is required. What IS urgently required, as the Senator has attempted to point out again and again, is to pay more than lip service to bedrock social institutions such as marriage and the family, to heed what tradition has bequeathed us as the best means of preserving the foundations of a healthy society. We do not need, nor should we risk, reinventing the wheel or waiting 40 years – - as was done with the bitter misnomer of "no-fault divorce" – - to learn what further disasters innovations such as homosexual marriage or abortifacients dispensed from vending machines or contraceptives broadcast like seed during the Spring sowing have in store for us.
Santorum could run for Pope. Not president. He might make a very good priest. Not president. It is the Priest's job, the Rabbi's job, the Pastor's job to adjust our moral values. Adjust or change these values, NOT BY LAW, which most clearly implies at the point of a gun where needed, but by intellectual and moral persuasion.
Santorum may not want to talk about it now (so much for convictions!), but unfortunately he's given Obama and the Obama media all the ammo they need to keep him on the defensive all campaign season. n
Same-sex marriage is not a simple "liberty interest" objection to state regulation of conduct; rather, it is a demand for a benefit from the state based on an allegation that there is no rational basis for an ancient and universal public institution in its present and historical form.
"Remember, the argument Santorum made is that lying to members of one's family is having a profoundly negative impact on the health of society. If so, why wouldn’t he advocate laws to discourage behavior that he believes is undermining America’s social and moral fabric? " n n"Remember, the argument Santorum made is that saying things that make ugly people feel bad is having a profoundly negative impact on the health of society. If so, why wouldn’t he advocate laws to discourage behavior that he believes is undermining America’s social and moral fabric? " n n"Remember, the argument Santorum made is that eating too much of the wrong foods is having a profoundly negative impact on the health of society. If so, why wouldn’t he advocate laws to discourage behavior that he believes is undermining America’s social and moral fabric? " n n"Remember, the argument Santorum made is that saying things that make ugly people feel bad is having a profoundly negative impact on the health of society. If so, why wouldn’t he advocate laws to discourage behavior that he believes is undermining America’s social and moral fabric? " n n"Remember, the argument Santorum made is that lying to members of one's family is having a profoundly negative impact on the health of society. If so, why wouldn’t he advocate laws to discourage behavior that he believes is undermining America’s social and moral fabric? " n nEtc. n nIt's an unsound argument. n nMany rules of morality are not rules of law enforced by state violence. Many laws enforced by state violence are not rules of morality. n nAnd for good reasons, well known to conservatives, among them the Founding Fathers.
…Many rules of morality are not rules of law enforced by state violence. Many laws enforced by state violence are not rules of morality. n nAnd for good reasons, well known to conservatives, among them the Founding Fathers…. n nCorrect. n nWehner's is a rather muddled piece of reasoning and you pithily explain why. n nOn a other point, all the Rs need to do to lose is nominate a candidate who said he'll use the bully pulpit — he said it and he can't take it back–to scold American adults including, incredibly, those who are married about the immorality of sex that is harnesses to procreation. n nThis man will never, and you heard it here first, and I mean never, be president of the United States of America.
That is "sex that is NOT harnessed to procreation."
Why is contraception treated as the greatest thing since sliced bread? Since when does sexual freedom trump all other freedoms? Maybe Jews need to rethink their support for it since it seems to me they are contracepting themselves out of existence.