These people are sick:
Santorum recalled his prominent role in the 1990s debates over the controversial procedure that critics call partial-birth abortion. He lambasted the president’s health care law requiring insurance policies to include free prenatal testing, “because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society.”
So, to recap, Santorum opposes prenatal screening by prospective parents because they might abort their horribly deformed child who won’t live anyway outside the womb, but wants to enforce state sanctioned invasive procedures for those who choose to have an abortion, because you sluts already stuck some shit up there, so now you need to see pictures. Basically, what Santorum thinks should be the norm is a pregnancy as lottery standard. You miss your period, cross your fingers and hang on for nine months, because
Allah God will mystify you at the end with either a healthy child you didn’t want, or maybe a child you were hoping to have but which had it’s heart on the outside of its body and will die 2 hours after birth.
It’s hard to emphasize how fucked up this guy’s worldview is, and it is not hyperbole to state he wants to take us back to the days of leeches and phlogiston. These are very sick, sick, people, and come from a long tradition of people for whom power and control are more important than logic, reason, individual autonomy, and science. See also, Galileo.
Rick Santorum, quite simply, is a monster in a sweater vest. And where was he when this happened?
Santorum is a distraction that makes Romney look like a moderate when in fact he isn’t.
A+ for the phlogiston joke.
Prenatal care shows where the health of the mother is at risk. So it’s an unspeakable evil.
Oh please, oh please, oh please make Santorum the nominee. Sooo much fun this will be.
I hadn’t really recognized it before reading that GOS post, but essentially the entire Catholic Church hierarchy is full of Cafeteria Catholics. I suppose it’s always been that way, though.
Given that Santorum wrote on his website that he’s going to fight pornography if he’s prez, I’m not surprised by anything these people say. They are truly sick individuals who — and I can’t wrap my head around this — are more troubled by what consenting adults do rather than income inequality or any of the other insane things wrong with our country.
These are dangerous times.
The establishment chamber of commerce type Republicans who thought they’d found in Mitt Romney a pliable, yet far more competent version of George W. Bush to successfully challenge Obama during an economic slump must be shitting bricks in their pants that they might instead be stuck with a candidate like Santorum who might also be pliably willing to serve their interests, but who is likely to alienate too many voters (especially women) with his extreme version of social conservatism to have a viable chance to win in November.
Frankly, knowing what my girlfriend’s step father used to do to her (good Christian man he was) is all I need to know that a loving God doesn’t exist.
Rick Santorum’s God could very well exist by that standard.
Or who might live if it received corrective surgery for a condition that only prenatal screening can detect.
Pretty please let him win the nomination.
With a cherry on top.
I think you bring up a good point that Santorum seems to fall in line behind the bishops unquestionably when it comes to birth control but not so much when it comes to capital punishment.
I wish in one of the debates one of the moderators would call him on it a little bit. Capital Punishment is one of the great cheering issues of the right.
@Sly: It would be interesting to hear Santorum speak out against prenatal surgery that would save a fetus because it was gopod’s will for it to die.
I think he is going to get the nomination. And I hope he does. It is time this country got a good look at the pure grade social conservatism that Santorum offers, without apology or pretense of being compassionate. Rubber meets road with a big fork for which way to go.
And his economic views are just as cold hearted as his ideal of bible based definition of liberty. The state and Jesus owns your body and soul, and Wall Street owns all the rest. Bring it on motherfuckers.
When Santorum’s wife had a problem with the pregnancy she eventually lost, he was ok with helping it along. After all, if both mother and baby would die of sepsis if nothing was done, it’s a “no-brainer” (his words) to save the mother if the child couldn’t be saved, But it’s totally different if it’s somebody else’s wife. She ended up losing the baby naturally, but he would have gone with aborting it if it would have saved her life. I guess other women are less deserving than she is.
Prenatal screening often detects problems which can be fixed. Prenatal surgery is an up-and-coming field, fixing problems which would have been fatal. And even if the problem can’t be fixed, such as Down’s syndrome or spina bifida, knowing that there is a problem can help by having the baby with a specialized pediatric team in a hospital with a level-3 intensive care nursery (like Sarah Palin did – oh, wait….)
Regardless, its reasonable to believe Santorum will win half the states and about 46%-47% of vote. A quarter of the country will vote for him even thought he’s batshit crazy and their not. Why? They hate liberals more.
This shit will only stop when Republicans get a McGovern-esque thumping at the polls. When they can’t win states like Texas, Georgia, and Montana and wonder why, they’ll stop. As it is, they know they’ll keep the election fairly close and make any half sane Democrat sweat.
Er, well. Most prenatal diagnoses are for less-grave conditions such as Down Syndrome, and something like 90% of fetuses diagnosed with DS in utero are aborted. The terrible way that prenatal diagnoses are delivered is a contributing factor:
That said, a far better answer would be to provide more information and support for parents of children diagnosed prenatally (as in this bill co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy, who Rick Santorum no doubt considered the devil), not to prohibit parents from knowing about their child’s condition until birth. We chose not to have testing despite my age, because I wasn’t going to have an abortion and my husband (quite sensibly) pointed out that I would use the time between any prenatal diagnosis and birth to fret myself half to death rather than to do any constructive preparation. Still, parents ought to have a right to know and prepare if that’s what works for them.
What is truly weird here is that Santorum’s wife did receive prenatal care, did learn that she had a tragically problematic pregnancy, did engage in medical intervention in that pregnancy AND wrote about it in a book about that pregnancy. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-contributor-eugene-robinson-on-rick-santorums-weird-reaction-to-death-of-newborn/
pseudonymous in nc
OTish: someone put the BBC Panorama documentary on poverty in the US up on YouTube. (It’s region-limited on the BBC site.)
Compare with the child poverty piece on 60 Minutes a month or so ago, which didn’t really ask hard questions of politicians. And ignore the comments, which are… YouTube comments.
” Or who might live if it received corrective surgery for a condition that only prenatal screening can detect. ”
That is a good point.
So far, no one in our worthless corporate media knows enough to check into the numbers. I wonder how many gross exaggerations and maybe lies Rih has told.
I suppose good old Rih will try to cover up his statements for the general, but not sure that is possible if they get enough play now. Some outrages sear themselves into peoples’ memory and cannot be erased.
Thousands of women have their health and lives now because a fatal problem was detected early. Thousands have kids they would not have had otherwise because a problem was found early enough with prenatal care and testing to treat.
Thousands of men can reflect that they would be widowers now, and many more can reflect they would be widowers with the emotionally scarring additional tragedy of a preventable death or disability of a child.
And thousand and thousands more know friends and relatives who went through those situations.
So, go ahead Rih, get up on the roof tops and wpread your poison. Might do you good now with the crazy 27 percenters, but you are digging your political grave should you get to the general election.
What I’d like somebody to ask the pointy hat brigade: you folks who badger and harass gays and women because the first part of your holy book says you shouldn’t make any sexytime that isn’t going to result in a baby, do you ever follow that up by going out for a nice BLT or bacon-cheeseburger? Because I think the first part of your special book also has problems with that, you know? It’s odd how, when we feel like some pulled pork or a nice grilled tenderloin, to say nothing of getting the tips of our penises snipped off, Jeebus cancels out those silly Jewish rules, but when it comes to the flags or the slots, we must obey Moses’ 3000-year-old law to the letter.
I think you’re being overly generous here. What are leeches when you have the power of prayer?
pseudonymous in nc
Yep: he might not be hand-picking his successor, but he’s hand-picking the pickers.
For most American Catholics, there’s been a fifty year detente, in which the congregation ignores the hierarchy’s teachings on sex, and the hierarchy ignores all the sex that the congregation is having. The combined efforts of Icky Rick, the beanie brigade and the “we are all Catholics now” fundie gobshites may empty a lot of pews in Catholic churches.
pseudonymous in nc
Shorter Rih: “Don’t you miss the good old days of high infant mortality and maternal death? People valued life back then.”
It may be true that the abortion rate for fetuses diagnoses with Down’s syndrome is high. But surely that is not the whole picture of prenatal testing and care.
Of course, gracious and courtly and epitome of journalistic quality, hard work and professionalism, Schieffer, did NOT prepare at all, at least that I can see. Didn’t even prepare enough on Santorum’s own personal history to get it right on his show today.
Do you know a good source for statistics on abortion and prenatal care.
Not that in the big picture it makes much difference. Will Rih denounce fertility clinic practices? Or is flash freezing all the extra embryos in the ludicrous hope that they will all become snowflake babies someday in the indefinite future a cynical enough route for Rih to avoid that dilemma?
For Santorum voters, he’s a candidate like them
@efgoldman: Really? Lately, all I have been hearing from liberals is that Romney is a closeted moderate who’s just pandering to the GOP base because after all he has to win the nomination.
Corbin Dallas Multipass
‘”The president has reached a new low in this country’s history of oppressing religious freedom that we have never seen before,” [Santorum] said.’
I love these types of hyperbole because they are rife with opportunity to be countered with more egregious examples of government oppressing religion or similar moments of “oppressing religious freedom” that no one was worked up about before.
Anyone with good knowledge of US History and religious freedom care to take a stab?
@efgoldman: True. I was thinking about the entire history of Peter’s church, which, at the higher levels, has been more worldly than holy.
It’s that pesky business about medically necessary abortions to save the life of the mother. A popular argument–used by people who aren’t morally correct, needless to say–so one has to outlaw diagnostic procedures that might show when something’s gone wrong. I’d like to see a few physicians pointing out how ridiculous and dangerous this is, but I suppose they’re not eager to become target practice for fanatics.
@Corbin Dallas Multipass: You don’t need either to rebut that bullshit. All you need is a memory going back about a year, to all the conservative screeching about the “Ground Zero Mosque.”
No, not at all. I just thought I would point out that neither is the “horribly deformed child who won’t survive outside of the womb.” There is a whole range of conditions; some are life-ending, others are entirely compatible with a happy life with proper support (which, sadly, parents often don’t get). As others have pointed out, some conditions are even amenable to prenatal treatment. Demonizing prenatal screening isn’t the answer to any of it, of course.
at least w/ the phlogiston thing, you get the impression that some folks were observing phenomena, trying to understand them, & attempting to theorize about the ‘why’ & ‘how’.
people like this Santorum are entirely satisfied w/ whatever branch of existing dogma they’ve signed up for, & feel that it’s damn well good enough for you, too.
Another Halocene Human
@pseudonymous in nc: You’re ignoring the fact that the child rape scandal already emptied the pews.
I think the drop in weekly attendance this time–while real–will be less significant.
Honestly, they are only positioning themselves to ATTRACT more of the crazies while the ethnic Catholics give the church the shove in large numbers.
(Having a child rape scandal is deadly because ethnic Catholics don’t trust the priests around their children, so the whole “I’m gonna be lapsed but raise the kids Catholic, that’s soooo important” thing that kept families in the church has now been overruled. Oops.)
Arm of the Republican Party. It’s all they are at this point and probably all they will be for a long time to come.
pseudonymous in nc
@Corbin Dallas Multipass:
I’m sure Mitt Romney could take a stab, given the number of states that expelled Mormons in the mid-1800s and killed those who didn’t get out fast enough.
Another Halocene Human
@TooManyJens: It’s all about authoritarian control. Like the rage-face father in “Tommy”.
When I read this earlier today, among all the possible reactions to it, at first all I could think was “Charles Pierce is right – Santorum is a dick“.
Because, seriously. What a dick.
Corbin Dallas Multipass
True, but that’s not the biggest problem: the biggest problem is that the bishops themselves don’t fall in line when it comes to capital punishment. Or universal health care. Or the importance of social justice. Or stopping unjust wars. Or intervening for human rights even when (e.g. Israel/Palestine) it’s not politically convenient.
Most thinking people build their own patchwork moral philosophy. Evangelicals aside, we do no live a coda, religious or otherwise, taken word for word, in every detail as it is presented to us. Santorum is the same as most of us in that sense. He observes some of what the catholic church teaches, mostly about about sex, very stringently while at the same time disagreeing with, and acting by his own judgement about the death penalty, war, social justice and welfare even while in disagreement with the teachings of the church. So in the end Rich practices what is essentially Santorianism, his own personal blend of moral precepts that he has chosen to observe.
And that is fine except for one thing. Rick wants me to practice Santorianism too — by force of law if necessary. And my response to that is fuck him. What kind of stupid, arrogant asshole older than 13 or so thinks that I and everyone else should be forced by law to do what he thinks is right and moral? I practice patrick-II-ism, and while it is flawed and incomplete I don’t really need Rick fucking Santorum to coerce me to live what he seems to think is the perfect morality but I think is something barely past infantilism.
Another Halocene Human
@Corbin Dallas Multipass: As a Catholic he need only go back to 19th century Massachusetts, where not only was it legal to refuse to hire “papists,” but one of the stated goals of the public school curriculum was to turn papist children into Good Protestants. Towards that end, there was a small, mandatory religious curriculum which conformed with mainline Protestant norms.
For this reason, a major project of ethnic Catholic communities was the founding of religious schools to keep their children out of the public schools.
I been looking for some state on teh google and PubMed. But, statistics are hard to come by. But, think about diagnosis of fetal heart defects, which in the past would have been fatal when the problem would emerge unexpectedly in a newborn, but can be diagnosed, treatment plan developed and successful surgery performed today.
Another Halocene Human
@Micheline: He was a moderate when it suited him in Mass. but we always felt like he was faking that, too.
Nicely put, and it works in the bigger picture, too. Most everyone is a cafeteria something or other.
pseudonymous in nc
@Another Halocene Human:
I’m taking it into account. There are still churches with reputable priests who see their parochial mission primarily in terms of social justice; having those priests read out missives on birth control from the beanie brigade every other week is going to wear very thin very quickly.
If Papa Ratzi’s revival strategy is based upon absolved horndog converts like Newt and Talibatholics like Rih, then he’s even more delusional than I imagined.
Oh, and oddly, not of child-bearing age.
Another Halocene Human
@Another Halocene Human: I will say he is most likely no abstemious religionist a la Santorum. I had a good laugh when it was reported in Boston papers that Romney was persona non grata in Utah for having, while screaming at staffers behind the scenes during the SLC Olympics, employed “the foulest of the foul words.”*
*not c U n +, iykwim(aityd)
Also too, everyone should read Kay’s very good post on the history of Title X provisions for coverage for prenatal care.
The whole things was perfectly bipartisanly fine for ten years. Until these creeps in the GOP decided that they can make a political wedge issue our of it.
Corbin Dallas Multipass
@pseudonymous in nc: ha ha ha delicious. And it lasted technically for over 150 years…
Bull. Why is it reasonable to believe Santorum would do better than John McCain did?
And according to him in the Netherlands the elderly are afraid to go the hospital because they’re likely to be murdered.
Most the time I’m jaded enough that Republican extremism doesn’t phase me, but this guy is scaring me. He’s making me think maybe Sarah Palin wasn’t so bad in comparison. . .
@jl: Have y’all dug into either the Kaiser Family Foundation or Guttenmacher (sp?) Institute’s websites? They’re usually a good go-to source for stats like that.
@Corbin Dallas Multipass: I dunno, start with the presidents Bush, the major and lesser. I think Kay’s post earlier today shines some useful light on recent history.
Just found the most recent state on abortion in the US. I’ll see if any info on prenatal care and abortion in there.
Abortion surveillance–United States, 2008.
MMWR Surveill Summ. 2011 Nov 25;60(15):1-41.
Pazol K, Zane SB, Parker WY, Hall LR, Berg C, Cook DA; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
@Another Halocene Human: I am agree with you. I am talking about stupid liberals who have this weird notion that Romney is a closeted moderate when the evidence says other wise.
@pseudonymous in nc: Ha ha!
Republicans forged in irony.
Another Halocene Human
@pseudonymous in nc: To be fair, I did hear a number of accounts of women walking out (was it two weeks ago?) and in my experience, when Catholic women walk out, they NEVER come back.
@Corbin Dallas Multipass: Stomping out Mormon polygamy.
Thanks for reminding me about the Guttmacher Institute. Their latest stats are just coverage of the CDC report from Nov last year.
But they have a policy brief on insurance coverage and abortion from last August, which might be useful. I just saw it.
Insurance Coverage and Abortion Incidence: Information and Misinformation
By Rachel Benson Gold
I don’t think so. Talked to my Republican mom this morning and asked her about Santorum. She was pretty evasive, but I finally pinned her down – and said that if Santorum is the nominee she’ll be voting for Obama.
Me: But I thought you hated Obama
Her: I don’t hate him – I just don’t like Obama. But I’m afraid of Santorum – he really believes the stuff he says, and the stuff he says is kinda crazy.
So, count one McCain switcher if Santorum is the nominee. And remember that she was a state delegate for McCain, so she’s not an independent and she’s not generally speaking a low-information voter. I know she’s watched every GOP debate so far – which isn’t helping her stay loyal to the GOP.
Another Halocene Human
@Micheline: The old Northest corridor Rockefeller Republicans think he’s one of them. The thing is, he’s not. (William Weld was, and look what happened to him.) Also, too, I have no doubt that The Usual Gang of Idiots will be installed and entrenched within the White House exactly thirty seconds before Romney is finished swearing in, because Romney does not exactly have a posse. He has backers. Not the same thing.
Another Halocene Human
@pseudonymous in nc: Well, I don’t know if it’s their strategy per se (that worked so well for them in the 19th century *ahem*) but they’ve never stop desiring to bring the Protestants back into the fold… willingly or unwillingly.
Corbin Dallas Multipass
@Another Halocene Human: Which ultimately created these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaine_Amendments which apparently were overturned for voucher programs so the money could go there if the student did.
John McCain is the low point for Republican presidential candidates. I don’t think Republicans can do worse than him right now, especially with Obama as the Democratic nominee. Maybe a white dude can do better as a Democrat, I don’t know. I do know that a significant number of people will either vote for Santorum despite disagreeing with him and or won’t vote at all.
Well, hoop de doo! Progress. Thanks to commenter ‘protected static’ for reminding me about Guttmacher.
Relevant text below, but summary for those falling asleep or short of time.
1) BS detector alert: do not believe any reactionaries citing Guttmacher numbers, the report says that they have not collected data needed to determine effect of prenatal insurance coverage on rate of abortion.
2) NEJM article on health care reform in MA found that after it was implemented, overall abortion rates dropped.
Test excerpts below:
Claims by antiabortion leaders about the impact of
Medicaid coverage on the nationwide abortion
incidence constitute a serious misuse of
Guttmacher data, but any use of those data to
make allegations about the impact of coverage in
the private market is completely unfounded.The
Guttmacher Institute has not studied the impact of
private insurance coverage of abortion. In fact, any
discussion of the impact of the federal health care
reform law on levels of abortion among those with
private coverage is speculative at this point.
Meanwhile, a study published in the March 2010
issue of the New England Journal of Medicine
did look at changes in the incidence of abortion
in a state that adopted a universal insurance
coverage policy but without any of the kinds of
abortion coverage restrictions included in the
federal legislation.This analysis, by Patrick
Whelan of Harvard Medical School and
Massachusetts General Hospital, examined the
impact of insurance coverage in Massachusetts,
a state whose experiment in health care reform
is often cited as the model for the federal legislation.
Massachusetts enacted its own universal
health care plan in 2006. Since the beginning of
2007, the state has provided subsidized coverage
to individuals with an income up to 300% of the
federal poverty line who are either self-employed
or unemployed, as well as to small businesses.
In stark contrast to the federal law, abortion is
covered for individuals with subsidized coverage,
known as Commonwealth Care, as well as for
Yet, since the enactment of health care reform,
the number of abortions in the state fell from
24,245 in 2006 to 23,883 in 2008, a decline of
1.5%, even as the insured population grew by
5.9% over the same period. (The number of abortions
to teens fell by 7.4% over the same time
period.) According to Whelan, these decreases
came during a period of rising birthrates and
population growth, which meant that the abortion
rate in the state declined from 3.8 per 1,000
Massachusetts residents in 2006 to 3.6 per
1,000 in 2008
From pages 5 and 6 of
Insurance Coverage and Abortion Incidence:
Information and Misinformation
By Rachel Benson Gold
(link in my comment above)
Another Halocene Human
@Corbin Dallas Multipass: Ironically, in DC, exactly to Catholic schools.
And this is what I think of it: SHIT FUCK COCK MOTHERFUCKER SCHOOL VOUCHERS!!!!
Karen Santorum gave birth to her eighth child, who suffers from the commonly fatal genetic condition of trisomy 18 (Edwards syndrome), at the age of 48. At that age, a mother has a one in five chance of her child having a chromosomal disorder (commonly either Down syndrome or Edwards syndrome).
Rick Santorum thinks that all women (including those who are married) should not be allowed to use contraception or have access to abortion. In other words, he is fine with forcing a woman to get pregnant and give birth even when this is not only against the woman’s wishes but dangerous to the health of both the woman and the fetus.
Yet Rick Santorum also opposes prenatal testing, even, as in his wife’s experience, when it might be necessary for the health of both the woman and the fetus.
He wants to force people to suffer, all for the greater glory of his god. He wants to force women to conceive and bear more disabled children, because this makes him feel more pious. It’s one thing to choose to continue a pregnancy that will result in a disabled child, which is something that a woman should have every right to do; it’s quite another to use the law to force a couple to conceive a child with a very high chance of being disabled.
If America is willing to vote someone into office who believes that this is acceptable, the country doesn’t deserve to survive.
@ABL: You realize that the phrase “Spelunking the lady cave” has now entered into my lexicon, yes?
I am all about Santorum winning the Nom. Your fellow monarchs and nations of the earth need the USA to look clearly into the Republican abyss, and then to reject it once and for all. That or step into it bravely. This shilly-shallying for decades on end is embarassing to all concerned.
Guttmacher page on abortion in US shows rate of induced abortions per 1000 women age 15 to 44 (conventional definition of child bearing age) was approximately constant, my eyeball reading from graph.
Not comparable numbers, but could be that increase in coverage in MA (which we can thank to one MITT ROMNEY) reduced the overall rate of abortions. Doesn’t look like it increased it.
Sarah agrees with you — and hopes enough delegates will also at a brokered convention where she can be the “compromise moderate” between Santorum and Romney.
Wouldn’t that be sweet?
OK you darn kids, here we have some numbers, comparing change in abortion rates in US vs. MA duing implementation of more generous prenatal care coverage in MA under RomneyCare.
So, in the US, in 2006 and 2008 rate of induced abortion per 1000 women of child bearing age in US is 16.2 and 16, respectively (from CDC report, above).
Proportion of women of child bearing age in resident US population in 2006 and 2008 is 0.2084 and 0.2051, respectively.
Giving a rate of induced abortion in US 2006 and 2008 of 3.376 and 3.281 per 1000 resident population, respectively, for a drop in rate of 2.8%.
In MA from Guttmacher report above, drop in rate per 1000 residents was a whopping 5.3%.
Obviously cannot infer RomneyCare was responsible for all of difference, but surely nothing suggests any abortion spree caused by expanded access to prenatal care and testing.
Edit: Mitt Romney should be proud of his Romney Care. He is welcome to use my numbers to hit back at Rih’s vicious nonsense. Will he? I will hold my breath in anticipation.
@pseudonymous in nc: His revival strategy is aping (and preempting) evangelical fundamentalism in Africa and Latin America. He’s already given up on “first world” democracies. The meek shall inherit the earth, via the belief that birth control and small families are mortal sins. (Even NFP is only allowed for spacing births, not for limiting them.) If couples choose to limit family size, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that it “is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood.”
Even if Santorum can’t win the nom, let him hang in there long enough to foul the Republican nest. Stink up the rest of the candidates so bad that no one in their right mind will want anything to do with them.
Sort of a Sammy Hagar effect.
I think the best tactic with that sort of people is rather than talking about what Romney would do, talk about what he would stop.
If Romney were actually elected president, Republicans would almost certainly control both houses of Congress. Even if you think he’s a closet moderate, how much of the congressional Republican agenda that has so far been stopped by Senate and White House maneuvering do they think he would veto or convince the Republican Congress not to bring up again? Especially considering that he has explicitly campaigned in support of much of it — do you really think he’s enough of a closet moderate and has strong enough principles to be willing to piss off his entire party repeatedly?
There’s Title X cuts, massive government spending cuts overall (while increasing military spending and claiming he’s going to balance the budget), and attacks on Planned Parenthood, labor law, environmental regulations, financial regulation, just to name a few.
Presidential leadership isn’t all about making things happen. Sometimes it’s about preventing things from happening. Try to get them to think about that, and then as whether it matters if Romney is a closet moderate.
The problem with Santorum winning the nomination is that it’s too easy for the GOP to write off his loss in the general election as a consequence of his being a big-government conservative and not fiscally tight enough. With Romney, it’s a matter of his not being socially conservative enough. Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.
Thanks for that info on the official Roman Catholic doctrine.
I eagerly await the bishops denunciation of Boehner p ! 1L zzzzzzzzzzzz for old codgers to commit sin with their elderly wives.
@Pseudonym: The crazy 27 percent will be crazy, no matter what happens. The more their defeat becomes inevitable, the more desperately they will fantasize that it was within their grasp, but for betrayal, or cruel fate, or liberal cooties from Satan, or whatever.
Cabernet really burns when you blow it out your nose, you know?
NYT (which I barely read anymore)
Sometimes seeming? followed by a seems? That is some gutless writing there, Michael D Shear.
Back to the Guardian for me.
@Brain Hertz: My apologies. I’ll spot you a glass.
pseudonymous in nc
Yeah, I was just glancing at Rocco Palmo’s blog, which is basically a combo of Page Six and The Page for the beanie brigade, and his writeup on what he called “Scarlet Bowl IV” gives a sense of the Vatican’s strategy for the US as American Catholicism becomes majority-Hispanic.
(Since they stopped beating the old version into kids sixty years ago, aren’t converts the only people who read the catechism?)
@Jewish Steel: No, you are right. Hagar slacks suck. Wear those stupid things and everyone remember you are a dweeb forever.
Santorum will be the Sammy Hagar slacks of the GOP!
@pseudonymous in nc: RE: catechism: Probably. I certainly never read it either in Catholic school or in CCD, but that was only a decade or two ago. I suppose I was fortunate, though, in that my bishop’s worst sins only involved embezzlements and buggering priests, not molesting children.
The prophet Nostradumbass
@pseudonymous in nc: That blog is very strange. It’s almost like reading despatches from another planet.
@jl: “Look like a dork, look like your dad. Hagar slacks.” -George Carlin? I think.
@Jewish Steel: Actually, its Haggar slacks I think. And Sammy should be Haggar not Hagar, since he sports that beefy haggard look of a epicurean luxuriant rocker gone to seed.
pseudonymous in nc
@The prophet Nostradumbass: Yes. I discovered it a while back when it covered a (non-abuse-related) scandal in the diocese where I grew up.
I’m as (col)lapsed a Catholic as can be, but I still think I have a decent take on the prevailing culture on the pews, and I find it hard to integrate that with the shite that Santorum spews — I think Patrick II hints at it upthread, but Rih sounds to me like a frothy syncretic mix of Humanae Vitae and a Chick Tract.
I think now that Ricky has pulled the curtain back on the full extent of his horror-show religious zealotry, he’s going to test the idea that one can be too religious for the Republican primary electorate. While the idea seems absurd, recall that Rick Perry not too long ago proved that you can be too stupid for the Republican primary electorate, which before he did it I would have said was equally as absurd an idea.
Marcellus Shale, Public Dick
The worst part of Santormentum, these are the designed sets, the stuff he has been working on since 2006. wait until he is called upon by the game to work outsight his well crafted(repulsive, but well chosen) appeal to the old-timey church people.
when he has to draw in the rest of the coalition, and really when he has to covet the practically non-existent swing voters, is when the transparent, revulsion of santormentum really hits you like a whiff of body cavity incubated santorum.
In which case you must be evil and deserved it under Rick-with-the-silent-P’s frothy mindset. And don’t forget to bring the corpse home to show your kids, to ensure that they live in a sick state of fear to stay receptive to your diseased ideology.
‘Beware of all those in whom the urge to punish is strong.’ — Nietzsche
Here’s some catholic trivia:
Why is that? Because nobody wants to be a priest.
You can’t sustain a church that way.
Santorum makes an interesting point.
There is no point in getting pre-natal testing done unless you consider abortion an option. There is a risk that you might harm a healthy fetus, and if you aren’t going to act on the information, the risk isn’t worth taking.
I think this is an interesting point because Sarah Palin boasts that she knew Trig had Down Syndrome before he was born. She knew this because of pre-natal testing and she wouldn’t have done those tests if abortion was off the table.
My cousin became a priest 3 years ago. He’s getting married in 3 months.
He wanted to be a priest, but he says it’s not easy to be a priest now. There’s too much distance between the congregation and what the leadership wants, and the church is in such need of money and new members that the priests are more fundraisers and recruiters than spiritual guides. Maybe it was always that way, but it wound up not being what he wanted.
It depends on what you mean by “testing.” Amniocentesis does carry a small risk of miscarriage, which is why it’s not recommended as a routine test until a woman is over 35, which is when the risk of a trisomy disorder is greater than the risk of miscarriage.
Ultrasounds carry a much smaller risk and can detect physical abnormalities quite well, but Santorum is proposing that we cut those out, too, since it would be cost prohibitive for most women to pay for them out of pocket. Ultrasounds were how the doctors knew ahead of time that my niece and nephew had fairly severe clubfeet and advised my SiL to have a caesarian to avoid delivery complications.
@Winston Smith: Even if abortion were off the table there are any number of conditions that call for prenatal treatment to maximize survival of the fetus and the woman.
Bullshit. Prenatal tests can detect lots of conditions that are better rectified early. Prenatal surgeries can fix or improve the prognosis for a number of birth defects, from spina bifida to cleft palate. Why do you want newborn babies to suffer needlessly?
Sarah Palin lies so regularly and so easily that I have absolutely no confidence in the accuracy of her stories about Trig. Amniocentesis does carry some degree of risk. I’d bet that it’s less than the risk endured by getting pregnant at that age in the first place though. Not that women shouldn’t be allowed that choice; women just shouldn’t be denied the ability to choose in that circumstance.
I am sad that Santorum has revealed his ugly true colors so soon; it’s just good news for R Money, as the polls in Michigan already show. I hate the thought of eight months of trillions of dollars of Republican/Koch money being spent on throwing mud and lies at the president.
Mullah Santorum ’12: A chicken in every pot and a burka on every woman.
Referring to “the days of leeches and phlogiston” suggests an emphasis on (poor) medical practice.
But that, per se, is not the issue.
Santorum would bring (or, more correctly, would expand) an era of reproductive Inquisition.
Santorum is an open theocrat. Among other things, he is in the business of excommunicating people from “the world of Christianity.” If he were some huckster running a mega-church targeting folks with self-esteem issues, his ranting would be perfectly appropriate and, no doubt, profitable. In the context of aspiring to the Presidency and leading the nation, he’s disqualified himself on this issue alone. This isn’t fucking Iran…
Pat In Massachusetts
I guess Rick Santorum has never considered the possibility that some tiny mistake could befallen one of his own daughters. Of course if that happened I’m sure good dad Rick would send her and wife-y off on a nice Swiss holiday. I hear the snow is perfect this time of year. No probes will be stuck up his daughter, nor waiting periods to endure. No, siree, Bob, it would be the strictest privacy for Ms. Santorum.
I wonder how many Ohio and Michigan voters have that option if they discovered their daughters had also made that same tiny mistake.
“Look, people have the right to do it,” Santorum admitted. “But to have the government force people to provide it free just has to me — is a bit loaded. … I think the president has a very bad record on the issue of abortion and children who are disabled, who are in the womb, and I think this is simply a continuation of that idea.”
I simply don’t know how Santorum is not blown out of the water for this. He is suggesting that Obama wants to kill disabled children. Look for this to be the new “death panels”.
Since “Rih” is a significant part of my nom de guerre, I am very upset that this has apparently become a common descriptor of Santorum. Dammit, when did this happen and what is it’s etymology?…
Nope. They are good. If they fall away, and become bad; whatever happens to them is their fault. Maybe Dad will pull strings for them… maaaaaaaaaaybe he won’t. Either way, for a psychopathic powerhog who loves having such control over dependents, it’s a win.
It was caused by his claiming he didn’t say “black people” when he was talking about welfare but instead had said “Blah people”
Of course the media was polite enough not to ask him if he thought anyone would buy that bullshit.
Monsters, John! Monsters from the id!
No. She had an induced childbirth. It was a chemically induced abortion, with zero chance of the fetus/baby living.
I’ve heard a similar statement many times from uninformed relatives. The claim is that the only reason to do any pre-natal screening, from ultrasounds to amniocentesis, is to pave the way for an abortion. One of my aunts told me this while we were waiting to see if my niece would be born with spinal bifida (she wasn’t). My reply was that they could have done surgery to correct the defect in the womb, given time and screening. The response was “Oh, I didn’t know that was possible”.
Republican colleague of mine just told me there is NOBODY in the clown car she would vote for over O.
@Sly:dang! somebody always makes my point for me. remember those AMAZING photos of a baby’s hand in the womb grasping the finger of a doctor who was operating to save its life? rick santorum JUST HATES THAT.
@efgoldman: Oh, so sadly true! The new guys coming out of the seminary and the Vatican are scary…the pendulum has swung and we have a l-o–n-g ride back to what being a follower of the Christ who started all of this! I miss John XXIII and the documents of Vatican II…they are being ignored and forgotten!
@efgoldman: Apparently he never got the idea that one actually should have moral/political/social convictions. To him one just says things to get what one wants.
What Progressives should stay up nights thinking about is once they make the test for certain medical procedures and drugs up to the federal government, all it will take is an anti-abortion President to shut it all down. Roe v Wade will mean nothing once the government is already involved in the choice abrogating any claim of privacy.
Late to the game, but if I hadn’t had prenatal testing than I would’ve never known that I had a high risk pregnancy with momo twins and get the appropriate care. I also had extra prenatal testing with the second pregnancy since the doctor found an irregular heartbeat and needed to find out what was going on and take appropriate actions. I would say something extremely rude, but would have to spell it out since I’m surrounded by young kids. Plus, it would probably be a wasted effort since I don’t think Santorum much less Republicans know how to spell.
Since when do I need a reason for THAT?
@Neo: Congratulations. You’re at least one of the idiots who can spell. Keep up the good fight. Non sequiturs don’t grow on lollipops. And VA is the one shoving unnecessary medical procedures up peoples privates.
@Schlemizel: Thank you for the info.
Out of respect for those who wish to mock Santorum, I will attempt to modify my pseudonym to minimize the notion that I some how support Santorum’s “philosophy” (those the last time I tried to change my name I was sent to moderation)….
@efgoldman: Actually, it was the “saintly” John Paul II who, living under Communism in Poland became virulently anti-social justice with the exception of opposition to the death penalty a long time Catholic doctrine. He also was aware of and ignored the pedophilia scandal. This is the man they want to declare a saint. “Ratzi” has just continued JP II’s policies. The only saintly Pope in recent times was the Italian peasant John XXIII.