We’ve completely left reality, right? I’m dreaming all this. It’s just a dream. Please tell me it’s just a dream.

Comments Closed


  1. WendyPinNJ says

    Lord, I wish is was just a dream. But I encourage him to keep ramping up the crazy, so everyone is inspired to get out AND VOTE AGAINST HIM!!!!!

  2. says

    El and I keep saying if Santorum wins we are moving to Finland. They have some of the best schools in the world if you can survive months of darkness

    He is a brand of crazy that really makes me very very nervous.

  3. Marie says

    Just google Santorum — Love Dan Savages work to make sure the first result is the best result.

    Which makes his Christian United Moneybomb (CUM) even funnier.

    He’s an asshole. Plain and simple.

  4. Amie says

    O.o Oh my lord Jesus in heaven….there isn’t enough wtf for this video!

    How do people THAT STUPID become elected officials????


  5. says

    He is DISGUSTING! What is going on?! It’s sad that you just have to be an outspoken, well-off white male to be elected to office in this country. Why is he so interested in women’s health? Fucking asshole.

  6. says

    I wish I could. I want to tell you you are dreaming, so very, very badly.

    This guy….oh my word, this batshit crazy gormless sanctimonious goober of a man – how is it possible that he is a serious contender for the GOP nomination??

    His obsession with other people’s uteruses (uterii?) is out of control.

    I have many issues with the Catholic Church. Many, many, many, many, many issues and they are DEEP and DARK and the rage dwells in an angry recess of myself that I don’t even like the acknowledge for fear that the fury will just consume me, so I know I am not speaking from a place of cool-headedness. However, I do NOT understand why he so harps on the issues of contraception, birth and abortion, and holds these aloft as evidence of his piousness when he completely ignores the Catholic church the death penalty, the War in Iraq, and feeding the hungry and clothing the poor????

    I just hate him. I hate him so much. I hate him with all of the simmering rage I have bottled up and I am completely and utterly gobsmacked that anyone thinks he is suitable to run our government.

    Sorry to run on and on and on, I just can’t believe this lunancy.

    • says

      I’ve read all of the comments, but no one has actually taken the comments that he made and countered them in a compelling and persuasive manner. He may indeed be crazy or stupid – that doesn’t make him wrong.

      He was speaking here specifically of amniocentesis and that a high number of Downs and trisomy babies are aborted deliberately because of these tests. Again, how is he wrong on that? and what makes you so sure that it wasn’t the intention of the Obama Administration – which is very very pro-abortion, to raise the abortion rate for abnormal amnio results?

          • Amie says

            Probably the right to make my own decision on the matter?? The right to not have some quack tell me that I’m immoral and/or wrong and/or crazy because I’ve chosen which ever route I choose??

            Pro-Choice. Not pro-abortion. I’m pretty sure people don’t stand up and cheer and have a party when they make the horrible heartbreaking decision to abort in the cases that this crazy MFer is suggesting…

          • says

            I defy you to find a single rational human being who is “pro-abortion”. Nobody thinks abortion is some kind of “happy-happy-joy joy-fine-and-dandy-Pollyanna-whistle-the-day-away” issue. Pro-choice means just that – in favor of women being able to make choices about their own bodies and their own health and the health of the future children. This is not something that should be legislated – it should be a private matter between a woman and a doctor. That is what I am “pro”.

            What I find monstrously frustrating are people who call themselves “pro-life” when they are, in fact, only anti-abortion. Because if a person is pro-death penalty and pro-Bush the 2nd ” preventative” war (i.e the giant blood-and-money sucking mess that was the Iraq War), then they are categorically NOT “pro-life”. They are only anti-abortion.

        • says

          The right to make your own decision about – abortion.

          Look it’s a euphemism. It always has been because people don’t like using the “a” word. But I don’t believe in using it and I simply won’t. That’s my choice.

          • says

            Yes, the right to choose whether to abort or continue the pregnancy.

            Your choice may not be the same as mine, and that’s fine. It’s pro-CHOICE, not pro-abortion, not anti-abortion, not pro-life, not anti-life. And I will defend the right of a woman, or any adult, to do with their body as they see the best for them and their family.

            To put it out there very clearly: “pro-choice” is not “pro-abortion”. Its about defending individual rights.

            To paraphrase Voltaire, “I will defend to the death your right to choose.”

          • says

            @Elena, you have every right to believe you won’t have an abortion or abort via semantics ala Mrs. Santorum (taking antibiotics that she knew would kill their 20 week fetus).

            I don’t believe I will ever have an abortion either.

            I know I will NEVER impose my belief on you or anyone else. I believe you are entitled to chose. I believe that your right is just as valuable as mine, as Cecily’s, as everyone’s.

          • Angela says

            Elena: When pro-choicers start harassing pregnant women about having an abortion, when they start trying to pass legislation that would force women to get an abortion against their will — then you can call us “pro-abortion.” Until then, we are pro the woman having a choice.

            Some women carry their baby to term, some women don’t. We are not “anti” the former and “pro” the latter. Some women never have to face an unwanted pregnancy, some women do. The first scenario gladdens us while the second one does not.

  7. says

    I can’t watch this, but I am going to assume it’s along his normal crazy lines of how males need to make sure us poor females don’t hurt ourselves because you know women get pregnant on their own.

  8. says

    Oh my god. Oh my god. He is so evil and crazy and disgusting. Millions of idiot right wing nuts are eating him up, too. I’m so afraid that people believe these things. It totally scares me.

  9. mar says

    I absolutely agree- this guy is ridiculous. But – my own way of thinking is – this guys is nuts amongst a whole other bunch of nuts right now. Go ahead – let him be the Republican nominee. There is no way this a$$hat wins a general election – NO WAY. There are not enough extreme right wing people in the U.S. to get him elected. So I say, go ahead, make him your candidate, Republicans. It will be a pleasure (and much less work) to beat him in the fall!!

    • says

      Santorum just got 74% of the vote in a straw poll in Akron, OH. Akron – OH, that is 98% democrat and went landslide for Obama in 2008.

      Just sayin.

      • says

        That was 74% of likely voters in the Republican primary. Not 74% of likely Ohio voters in the general election. AND, because there are liberals in Ohio (and every other state that allows you to switch your party affiliation every so many years) who register as Republicans in order to vote in the Republican primary, you can bet that they voted for Santorum – because they know he has less of a chance of winning against Obama.

  10. says

    I had an amniocentesis and (amazingly enough) now have a happy, healthy 9-year old son. It was done to TEST MY SON’S LUNG FUNCTION to see if it was safe to begin an induction to prevent my getting pre-eclampsia since I had pre-existing hypertension and the doctor’s said that’ more bad than good can happen from here on’ since my son’s lungs were fully developed (uh, thanks to the amniocentesis telling them so).

    What a putz.

  11. Candice says

    I feel like running outside and screaming, “WHERE THE F*** HAVE ALL THE SMART PEOPLE GONE???”

    And I’m tempted to follow the “no one will be stupid/crazy enough to elect this guy as President” thinking… but then I remember back to George W. Bush and how the exact same thing was said about him. And then he won twice. (Well, okay, he stole one and won the second.)

    This video makes me sick to my stomach.

  12. Kathleen says

    I usually think he is nuts too but he seems somewhat lucid in this video. My problem is that I think he is probably right to some degree. People have amnios to see if their child is healthy and many people opt not to continue the pregnancy if the child is not normal. This makes sense to me, especially in the case of a defect that would cause a child to live only a very short time or to be in terrible pain. The difference I have with him is that he says that is not okay, and I say it is.

    I would love to see some real statistics on these things, because when someone starts spouting statistics, I have no idea if they are right or wrong. I thought it was weird how he didn’t talk about partial birth abortions in the light of saving the mother’s life. I mean, who does a partial birth abortion for birth control reasons? I highly doubt that happens very often. Isn’t abortion illegal after the first trimester unless the mother’s life is in danger? I don’t remember the exact laws.

    In any case, a woman’s right to choose is paramount and I will vote against him and campaign against him if I can because it is very obvious to me that he wants control of women’s bodies. He wants to be able to tell us when and how to have children. No.

    • says

      @Kathleen, and of course the ultimate irony is the GOP’s stance on social services.

      In the Santorum Scenario, families will be forced to have a child with devastating abnormalities. Oh, your baby with birth defects doesn’t qualify for insurance because of all of his preexisting conditions. You may no longer qualify for maternity coverage either due to the reasons baby was born with birth defects. Oh, you need to specialized childcare so you can work? Too bad. Oh, you lost your job because of the needs of your child with medical needs and you need help? You can apply for food stamps and welfare but those are only safety nets and you are a loser if you use them. There isn’t much available anyway because duh, corporations and the ultra rich NEED tax cuts at the expense of the poor.

      The “sanctity” of life the GOP way.

      • Karinsamira says

        Wow, so scary…glad to live far away in Switzerland, where we have a welfare system that actually WORKS. If I had a sick newborn here, there would be a lot of help, as well as if I had a kid on social welfare. Plus, everyone here has health insurance, since it is obligatory.

  13. says

    It’s all an elaborate practical joke. It must be. They can’t possibly be serious with this guy.

    Politicians make HORRIBLE doctors. I wish they’d stop trying to practice medicine. Someone should make a law…

  14. says

    In the words of Nickelback: “That shit drives me batshit crazy”.

    And I still wonder what a partial birth abortion is – I’m pretty sure that’s not an official medical term.

    I’m Canadian and if you want my advice? If you believe in the woman’s right to choose what’s best for herself and her family, don’t vote for Santorum. Ever.

  15. Melissa says

    @Kathleen and @Elena. Yes, it is probably true to some degree (perhaps even quite high) that amnios and other prenatal testing lead to abortion.

    I had prenatal testing and should the test have revealed some genetic abnormalities, I would have elected to abort. I am not ashamed to say so. Nor did I (or do I) expect or want a perfect child. By way of example, my daughter’s asthma cannot now be detected via genetic test but she has a fairly severe case and we live with it.

    Children are not punishment. No one should be punished or made to bear a child — particularly with disabilities. Using physically or mentally challenged children to prove a point is reprehensible. Does Santorum really want women and their partners to raise a child outside their emotional and financial ability to do so? Does he really want people to be forced to taken on that responsibility?

    Yes, women and people adapt to challenges. We adapt to children with chronic health conditions, with infant stroke, with neurodevelopmental delays. And yes, some families would adapt and raise their special needs kid with love and care. Others most certainly would not.

    Should children — particularly special needs kids — be an experiment in having true conservative principles?

    • says

      Thank you Melissa. You’ve basically agreed with exactly what the Senator said – that amnios and prenatal testing to some degree lead to higher abortion rates. He’s not crazy, stupid, or any of the other ad hominems that are flying around in this comment section simply because he is stating a fact.

      Further, he didn’t say that these should not be available, only that no insurance company should be mandated to provide them free of charge or that they should be tax-payer supported.

      • Melissa says

        Oh no, I *do* think he’s crazy. And generally supports a theocratic government, a la Iran.

        The idea that insurance companies shouldn’t have to cover them is INSANE.

        Let’s just take it from a financial angle: If we don’t cover them, women will go through pregnancies and deliver. Let’s assume that some of the children die shortly after birth from irreversible and fatal birth defects like anencephaly. Others will live with severe and persistent disabilities.

        With testing, some of those disabilities could be ameliorated before birth (e.g, some kinds of neural tube defects and some heart issues). If we wait, we cause unnecessary suffering, death, complications and mental health issues related to trauma.

        Elena, where do you think monies for caring for disabled children comes from now? The air? The biggest recipients of Medicaid in this country are the elderly in nursing homes and children — not the stereotypical welfare queen. Medicaid pays the Medicare premiums and cost-sharing for kids on Medicaid who have no more resources. Or we assign them to their own special managed care organization for rare and expensive medical conditions. If you don’t think we should pay for that you are cruel. If you didn’t know your tax dollars support that, you need to pick up an economic textbook or read your state’s budget.

        The idea that we shouldn’t support *anything* with taxpayer funds that might lead to abortion is insane. Women get pregnant so maybe we should stop treating women altogether because someday one of them could grow up and get an abortion. And men! Women can’t get pregnant and have abortions without sperm. Should we get rid of sperm too?

        Federal funds already prohibit the payment of federal funds except in cases of life endangerment, rape, and incest (and South Dakota isn’t in compliance with the last two). It has been prohibited since the 70s, thanks to the Hyde Amendment and a 5-4 SCOTUS decision in 1980.

        Elena, I ask again: Should raising a disabled child — and REQUIRING others to do so — be a litmus test for conservatives? Do they really believe that requiring people to do is a moral choice?

        • says

          Whether he is crazy or not wasn’t the point. He was correct in his statement. You agreed to that and I’m willing to bet most here would probably agree and even go so far as to admit that the reason for amnio is to determine whether or not to abort. So let’s just give him that.

          Not deliberately killing a disabled child should absolutely be a a litmus test for conservatives. I also believe that abortion is immoral.

          • says

            @Elana, Melissa asked you a very direct question that you somehow avoided answering, so I’ll ask you again to answer, “…where do you think monies for caring for disabled children comes from now?”

          • Melissa says

            And you avoided answering my other question too: Should raising a disabled child — and REQUIRING others to do so — be a litmus test for conservatives? You might believe not killing a disabled child is a litmus test (though here I think we can argue over “child” since we’re talking zygotes, embryos, and fetuses) but do you honestly argue in favor of people being required to raise children when they are ill equipped to do so?

            If you do, then you believe we should leave children at imminent risk of harm with abuser parents. After all, those parents should have known that raising a kid is hard, right?

  16. says

    I agree he’s whack and a Santorumorn….but…I have a question. Where is he getting his statistics on amniocentesis leading to abortion? Is it a fact he simply pulled out of the air, or are there statistic to back up his “facts”?

    I’ve known several people who wrestled with the amniocentesis issue, primarily because there is a small chance of miscarriage. One woman went forward, one passed, and both had healthy babies. In the second case, two healthy babies–twins. And my sister.

    And I am pro-choice. I am almost 50 years old. If I were to (miraculously) become pregnant, I would not have an abortion. BUT…I do not feel that I can make that choice for other women. Their choice might be different. So no, Elena, Pro-choice is NOT pro-abortion.

    My body, my choice. Why don’t people get that?

  17. says

    93% of people with Down Syndrome are killed before they are born.

    How do the doctors know they have Down Syndrome? (hint: flipping a coin is not the right answer.)

  18. Phyllis says

    This man is frightening on so many levels. He has a right to his theological views but they have no place in politics. He and his followers are trying to turn back the clock and take away a women’s right to choose what happens to her own body. Most who are pro-choice have never been in a position to consider abortion, but we defend and support the right of the individual to choose. Mr. Santorum and his wife have chosen for themselves, but they have no right to dictate the choices of others. This matter has been settled by the Supreme Court of the United States. Pick another battle sir, perhaps how to care for the many disenfranchised children who are already born.

  19. Mandy says

    I think that this is an “around his ass to get to his elbow” way to argue against requiring insurance companies to pay for something. God forbid they should pay for something that might detect something that could be corrected. It seems to me he is stretching pretty far to find a topic where he can drum up conflict with the current administration. I think there are much more important things to be considering right now.

    SO, Mr. Santorum, while up there on your soapbox, at least say what you really mean. You aren’t protecting unborn anything. You know that there are people who are fired up about abortion and will vote for you because you invoke it, even though what you are really protecting is insurance companies. You lost a child. You more than anyone should know that women don’t choose to loose a child lightly. Not even close. I lost a child to stillbirth. I know a small handful of women who have had abortions, for medical reasons, becuase they were too young and their mothers made them, and yes, even for practical reasons. Not one of them forgets it or thinks about it lightly. It is between that woman, her religion and her conscious. Butt out. Want some smaller government? Start with the OB/GYNs office.

  20. says

    Okay- I did some research and what he said is true. (and please read all before bashing me kthxbai) (MzEllen- your statement is FALSE)
    <a href="http://brianskotko.com/images/stories/Files/adcskotkofinalarticle.pdf"92% of women who receive a trisomy diagnosis, go on to abort the pregnancy. HOWEVER, only 2% of pregnant women undergo amniocesosis. (Reference is here http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v469/n7330/full/469289a.html, but you have to pay to read the article)

    So basically, what Rick “frothy” Santorum is saying is correct: mothers who have a diagnosis of a trisomy are likely to terminate or abort. HOWEVER, most people who decide to do the testing are already of the mindset that they might terminate. In other words, it’s a biased sample.

    The question then becomes “Should the government require all prenatal testing that the doctors suggest be covered by insurance?” Clearly, the answer is YES. It is not Rick Santorum’s place to make those choices for the patient. 98% of pregnant women don’t do this test. Should we put out a menu for which tests we should cover? No! Of course not. This is not about pro-anything versus pro-anything.

    So MzEllen, you are wrong. Many people don’t know about the diagnosis until the child is born. And Elana- Just because he has his facts right doesn’t mean his conclusions aren’t crazy.

    • Shelley says

      “Just because he has his facts right doesn’t mean his conclusions aren’t crazy.”

      That’s it exactly.

    • Christina (in Mo) says

      if the government is going to require insurance companies to cover all the testing.. how about they get to insurance companies to cover BEING PREGNANT!
      I just went through the private insurance ringer.. and none of them will cover pregnancy. No prenatal care, no well baby care. zip zilch nada. I give two large shits about birth control. Go ahead take it eat it insert it suck lick it whatever use all your abilities as a human being to exercise your choices.
      But if I am willing to pay out my ass for insurance so I can receive a little healthcare..I want to be able to be covered for every fucking reason under the sun. Mental health covered. Drug rehab..covered. Fucking Chiropractor is covered. GOD FOR FUCKING BID I WANT TO HAVE A BABY!! NO WAY!! Oh..but if I want hormones to stop me from getting pregnant that may or may not contribute to cancer (the studies still don’t jive for me) I can eat insert suck lick smear all I fucking want. But another person? Someone who might actually be able to make a fucking difference in this polarized fucking universe we live in. Nope.
      Yeah I’m voting this year. No I didn’t last time. It’s THAT fucking important to me.

    • says

      I never opined one way or the other about his mental health. I was merely pointing out to the ladies that are commenting that just because you disagree with someone, doesn’t make them crazy or stupid.

      For your other point – no I do not believe that it is clear that the government require the insurnace industry to do anything. In fact, I think the government needs to get out of the health care industry, let market forces dictate the costs and let the prices come down to what people can really afford. I think they should do the same thing for education too.

      You probably disagree with that, but that doesn’t make either of us crazy – just a different world view and paradigm.

      • says


        The thing is, when a person uses his religion to decide that I am only a carrier for a baby and my decisions and human experience is trumped by the potential life I am carrying, then we enter the realm of conflicting rights. Santorum wants to put fetal rights above the human being who happens to be carrying that fetus.

        As for the government being out of heath care? BTDT! It failed! It continues to fail as people can’t afford basic health care. We have health care tied to jobs. That’s wrong right there!

        As for education, I fear the world you wish for where only the rich can educate their children.

        • says

          Where are you getting your information about Santorum? As a Catholic, his religious beliefs do not make the mother only a carrier nor do they put the baby’s life over the life of the mother. You really need to start reading and listening to the candidates from their own in for or at least not from sources that are biased against them.

          When government was out of health care it didn’t fail! It was affordable. It was even payable over time or with bartering. My poor, farmer, great-grandparents paid for medical care over and over again with farm goods money, or exchange of services. People can’t afford health care today because the prices are too high – and they’re too high because of government intervention starting back with Medicare and Medicaid.

          I do agree with you that health care tied with jobs is wrong. Do you know the history of that? I do. and it started with government intervention into the private sector.

          As for education, again – government intervention artificially inflated the prices. Get them out of the education business and the costs will come down to what the actual market can handle.

          • says


            Thank you for completely assuming I am an idiot who doesn’t go and find the original clips and listen to the words coming out of Santorum’s mouth. Thanks! Glad to know that you think I can’t think for myself.

            The whole abortion debate places the woman as a carrier for a baby. Let’s be honest here and say what pro-lifers really mean. An unborn baby’s life is worth more than the physical and mental health of the mother. I have known a few people who have had “late-term” abortions. Do you really think these people woke up one day and said “Hey! Today’s a great day to kill my baby?” NO! It was a deeply difficult decision between the health of the woman and the life of the baby. Once pro-lifers start saying that “no exceptions” (and yes, Santorum has said this), the woman’s health is subjugated to the life of the fetus. Period. END OF SENTENCE. It make the woman a carrier and the baby’s life MORE VALUABLE THAN HER OWN. Stop and think about it and when you can find a late term abortion that you would support, then come back here and tell me how the mother’s life isn’t secondary to the baby’s.

            You seriously count the time back when great-grandparents had to scrape up any money they had for medical care as affordable? Really? Ask the doctors from that period. They were going broke because as humans, they didn’t stop helping others. They took bartering, not because it helped them, but because it helped the people.

            Education, I assumed you meant public schools. College is a whole other argument where we can get into the money going into the BOD pockets and that has very little to do with the gov’t and a lot to do with greed and power.

            But yeah, go back, tell me a case of late-term abortion you would support. Then we can talk about women and how Santorum is putting us back in the kitchen.

        • says

          You know, I didn’t think, nor did I say or insinuate that you were not intelligent. I suggested that perhaps you should check out some sources that were not completely from the left of moderate. And perhaps you should listen to more than “clips” that are often times distorted and taken out of context. I was also very courteous to you and I would appreciate the same kind of treatment.

          Your second paragraph is a re-hash from your first comment. Other than tell you that the whole thing is wrong, that conservatives and pro-lifers don’t hold that view, I guess there’s nothing more I can say. You believe, what you want to believe – facts be damned. I can also tell you that Catholicism (and Santorum is a Catholic) does not hold that one life is paramount over another. So again you might want to check your facts on that.

          As I am in my early 50s and Medicare started about in the late 1950s I had to go back that far. Grandparents and parents HAD to deal with Medicare. I’ m pretty sure that most of the doctors from that time period are deceased. Nonetheless, in the little town my great-grandparents lived in he was a well respected part of the community and did quite well. As did the midwife that delivered my grandfather and 9 of his siblings. My ggrands didn’t go broke either.

          I was speaking of college but if you want to do public schools I think the Feds need to keep out of that and let the communities run the schools the way they want to. We have too many government mandates. On the college level, when you have government guaranteeing student loans, you have the recipe for run-away costs. That’s what we’ve seen over the past 20 years.


          I don’t support abortion period. That said it is official Catholic teaching that if the mother has a condition that threatens her life, her condition can be treated even if that treatment could kill the baby she carries. The intent is to cure the mother, not harm the baby. Some how that never seems to translate to the general mainstream media.

          • says


            Forgive me for reading you as being upset that I don’t research for myself. Because that is how you came across.

            “The intent is to cure the mother, not harm the baby. Some how that never seems to translate to the general mainstream media.”
            Really? Then why are late-term abortions even an issue in general? because they are ONLY in the case of harm to the mother!

            If you support a mother being treated for a condition that threatens her life, and the only treatment is to abort the pregnancy, then you support abortion. It is plain and simple.

            In the last paragraph, you say both. You support abortion if that is the treatment that can save the mother, but you don’t support abortion period. That is hypocritical.

            How about this? If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. I don’t want wars, but I can’t get my tax money set aside to prevent drones from killing civilians, so I don’t see why you should not put your tax money for the health of women.

            How about you go pay for all of the poor people in your town to get health care and I’ll use my tax dollars to support universal health care because I believe it is a fair way to treat our fellow human beings.

            Let’s try the basic idea that your religion does not trump my beliefs and no-one decides what procedures women can and can’t undergo.

            I can’t argue with you anymore. You are clearly failing to understand how you are being used by the Christian Right as abortion wasn’t really an issue years ago. This was a hot button topic used to start emotions flowing and to bring the Bible Belt into the Republican party. I am going to follow the advice of a friend: “Listen, those who wish to set women back to the age of being obedient are not going to give up while we have Rick Santorum around. You’re going to vote for Obama. Take a break, chillax and get away from toxic people who disagree.”

        • says

          I handled partial birth abortion a few years back –





          “In the last paragraph, you say both. You support abortion if that is the treatment that can save the mother, but you don’t support abortion period. That is hypocritical.”

          I wrote no such thing – I said a mother could receive treatment, (chemotherapy, radiation, any procedure that is used for treatment but not direct killing of the infant) even if that treatment should cause the baby to die. This is an entirely different thing.

          “I can’t argue with you anymore.”

          An area of agreement.

          • says

            @Elena, that is EXACTLY what you wrote, “I don’t support abortion period.”

            In case you are having trouble finding it, scroll up to your comment from 02/22/12 @ 2:49pm. It’s the first sentence of the last paragraph.

            Your debate style is reminiscent of that of a self-absorbed, unable to focus, teen! You want what you want but you refuse to answer direct and simple questions. Just keep flitting around behaving as if spouting your beliefs is enough – no need to engage, because, duh, it’s what you believe so of course it’s right.

          • says

            EXACTLY what you wrote, “I don’t support abortion period.”
            “In case you are having trouble finding it, scroll up to your comment from 02/22/12 @ 2:49pm. It’s the first sentence of the last paragraph.”

            We’re getting into what is know as “double effect” and I’ll post it here because this is probably important in understanding Santorum’s view point:

            The principle of the double effect is at work in each of these two directives. Actions that might result in the death of a child are morally permitted only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) treatment is directly therapeutic in response to a serious pathology of the mother or child; (2) the good effect of curing the disease is intended and the bad effect foreseen but unintended; (3) the death of the child is not the means by which the good effect is achieved; and (4) the good of curing the disease is proportionate to the risk of the bad effect. Fulfillment of all four conditions precludes any act that directly hastens the death of a child.

            You can read more about that at:

            “Your debate style is reminiscent of that of a self-absorbed, unable to focus, teen! ”

            An ad hominem! – always the cue to leave the discussion because the discussion is starting to degrade and go off topic.

      • says

        @Elena, your reply makes no sense. Again, you said “I don’t support abortion period.” Then you denied saying it.

        Thank you for sharing the Catholic belief.

        And again, you still fail to answer very direct questions. In your comment to me on my blog, you defend your actions by stating that this blog loses the ability to post direct responses.” That is simply not true.

        An ad homenim attack is one in which one person attacks a personal characteristic as a means of negating the truth of what another says. My comment about your debating style has NOTHING to do with the “truth” of what you are saying, it was about your debating style! I’ll say it again – you spout what you believe and then refuse to stay on topic and answer questions. That is not a useful way of coming to understand another’s point of view or to persuade others to ponder ideas that they would otherwise dismiss. It’s a shame.

        • says

          1. Didn’t deny anything and you would be hard pressed to cut and paste a denial from me because none exists.

          2. You’re welcome.

          3. In Google Chrome at least, the REPLY does not appear with every comment. Which means a direct response won’t get directly e-mailed to the commenter if they signed up for e-mail comments. It also makes it more difficult to follow the thread when you have to rely on a reply button from an earlier comment instead of directly below. I guess I could illustrate that with a screen shot and a tutorial if you really can’t see that for yourself.

          4. ad hominem: 1.(of an argument or reaction) Arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
          2.Attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.

          The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

          So I’m hard pressed to understand how ““Your debate style is reminiscent of that of a self-absorbed, unable to focus, teen! ” wasn’t an ad hominem fallacy.
          and to bring it back full circle to Santorum: character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. You may not like what the man has to say, but he wasn’t incorrect about amnios and the likely result of increased abortions for whatever reason.

          • says

            @Elena, so funny how comments can’t be followed after 2-3 replies while here in this conversation this is the 12th reply!

            You sure are spending a lot of time and effort doing anything but answering the direct questions asked of you. Why is that?

            One last thing, your denial – cut and paste for your viewing pleasure, “I wrote no such thing – I said a mother could receive treatment,…”

            Scroll up (in this thread) to your comment on 02/22/12 @ 5:49pm

            As a reminder, you wrote originally that “I don’t support abortion period.”

            Scroll up (in this thread) to your comment on 02/22/12 @ 2:49pm

            If you need a tutorial on “scrolling up”, let me know.

            Seriously, answer the questions asked of you – quit dancing around and just engage in a real dialogue.

          • says

            As there was no Reply button on your last comment, I’m replying to my own. – not sure why this is such a difficult concept for you but I guess it is what it is.

            “You sure are spending a lot of time and effort doing anything but answering the direct questions asked of you. Why is that?”

            How about because I’m not on trial here and this thread was about Senator Santorum’s remarks about amniocentesis and abortion and whether or not being right or wrong on an issue went hand and hand with being crazy or stupid.

            One last thing, your denial – cut and paste for your viewing pleasure, “I wrote no such thing – I said a mother could receive treatment,…”

            Scroll up (in this thread) to your comment on 02/22/12 @ 5:49pm

            As a reminder, you wrote originally that “I don’t support abortion period.”

            OK _ here is the thing you do not understand apparently – abortion is the direct and intentional killing of the infant in the mother’s womb. The action is done with the intent that when that child leaves the mother’s body – it is dead. I’m going to assume you get that part.

            Double effect says for example, say a woman finds out she has cancer and has to have chemotherapy. She can opt to have the chemotherapy because the intent is to save her life. The infant may survive, or it may not survive but the intent is not to deliberately kill the infant but rather to save the mother. Likewise a baby could be delivered early and given palliative treatment if the reason for the early delivery is to save the life of the mother. I hope that clarifies the difference which you seemed to have some trouble with.

            “If you need a tutorial on “scrolling up”, let me know.”

            Unnecessary, uncalled for and leads me to believe that you don’t really wish to discuss this at all.

            I’m also guessing that there might not be a reply button to this after I post it – which will be just as well. I’ll probably put something on my own blog about this later – feel free to opine there.

          • says

            @Elena, so is that what you meant (that you didn’t want to discuss this at all), when you offered me a tutorial on commenting?

            One more time, the questions put to you that you still refuse to answer:

            “Elena, where do you think monies for caring for disabled children comes from now?”

            “Should raising a disabled child — and REQUIRING others to do so — be a litmus test for conservatives?”

  21. says

    I’m going to be a complete a-hole and say I really do not give a shit what Santorum has to say. If I want to abort a fetus, then so be it. It’s my legal right to do so with or without amnio. That. is. all. And, quite frankly, I could care less about his family’s choices. If only he could return the favor.

    • says

      True story, Liz. Because there are nutty people spouting crazy all over the place – but very few have a shot to call the shots for this country. That’s my only concern for his ramblings…

  22. Kara says

    Oh my. Methinks Santorum has assumed his own experience with prenatal testing and physicians is consistent with everyone else’s experience. It’s a common a error in logic that many people make, but I think our next president should be better than that.

  23. says

    I really really REALLY want to believe that there is no way this guy could ever be elected president. I have to believe it or I would have to start making plans to become an expat in barbados and I just can’t afford that right now.

  24. says

    I have something called “Little c” antibody. It works somewhat like the Rh factor, but is a different type of antibody, for which there is not Rh shot. The antibodies attack the red blood cells in the fetus, causing fetal hemolysis disease. When the red blood cells break down, the baby excretes bilirubin into the amniotic fluid. Beginning in my 20th week, I underwent am amnio every 2 weeks to monitor the amount of bilirubin levels. If the levels got too high, endangering the fetus, they would have been able to perform a blood transfusion of the baby through the umbilical cord, again by way of amnio (can’t for the life of me spell amnioscentesis!!) Luckily for me, it wasn’t until I was 38 weeks that the levels got too high, and they induced labor. My son was born very sick, but after a week in the NICU, he came home and is now almost 15. If I had not had access to amnios, he wouldn’t be here today, most likely. And I realize that Santorum is not saying “no amnios” he’s merely saying the government shouldn’t be required to pay for them. I was one of the lucky ones who had private insurance. What if I had been poor, (in a Santorum world) with Medicare, or gone to planned parenthood for my prenatal care? Sorry, no amnio, sorry no baby. These people never pause for a second to think about the other viewpoint, the other possibilities, the other scenarios. It’s just a giant, sweeping black or white area. This man scares me more than I can say.

  25. Caz says

    He’s also saying that older people in the Netherlands have to wear “please don’t kill me” arm bands to avoid being involuntarily euthanised as they go about their business. He is entirely bonkers.

  26. Judy says

    I am absolutely dumbfounded; I don’t even know how to address these comments. Is he totally insane?

  27. says

    Oh girl – you are NOT crazy. I read this blog post from blogs.phillymag.com (NOT an article – people get very up in arms at the thought that a blog post could be NEWS).


    The president, in my opinion, should have every American’s best interest at the heart of every decision made for this country. So I struggle with the idea of electing this person into office who has such a blatant disregard for ALL PEOPLE.

    Again, friend. YOU. Are not crazy…..

    • Christina (in Mo) says

      “The president, in my opinion, should have every American’s best interest at the heart of every decision made for this country. So I struggle with the idea of electing this person into office who has such a blatant disregard for ALL PEOPLE.”


  28. Elise says

    My husband and I had the conversation recently that no one likes abortion. Hell, I’ve had one, have no regrets, and yet I don’t like abortion.

    But isn’t there a tiny kernel of truth to what he says? What is the point of prenatally diagnosing a genetic condition for which there is no treatment if you aren’t planning to make a decision to terminate if you get an unexpected result? As a mom of advanced maternal age, carrying triplets, I wanted testing for the specific purpose of being able to terminate a fetus with a genetic disorder. Isn’t that the point? And, my friends over the age of 40 are practically forced to get testing by their doctors because of their higher risk factors.

    Now, I don’t think there is a goverment conspiracy at hand, far from it, but the occurence of genetic abnormalities is treated as illness, is it not? Something we try to prevent when possible, something for which we can take action to prevent from occuring in the population. Why else would we screen for Trisomy 21 if we didn’t think it was a bad thing to have Down Syndrome in our society?

  29. Laurie says

    Elise, how about being mentally and emotionally prepared to have a baby with special needs? How about being able to have specialists in the delivery room, able to address health problems immediately, rather than being surprised with a sick baby and having to scramble?

    My former sister in law has a daughter with a serious heart condition. She found out through a diagnostic test- not an amnio, but early enough in the pregnancy that she could have aborted. She CHOSE (hey look, there’s that word!) to continue the pregnancy, and her doctors had months to prepare for the delivery of a sick baby. My niece had a cardiologist before she was born.

  30. Tine says

    “What is the point of prenatally diagnosing a genetic condition for which there is no treatment if you aren’t planning to make a decision to terminate if you get an unexpected result?”

    A number of prenatally diagnosed conditions can be treated prenatally. And many families just want to know…to be prepared. I know that’s why I had certain screening tests. My hubby and I are “elderly,” parentally speaking, and we knew our risks of certain problems were higher. We also knew that we would accept whatever child we were given. We just wanted to be mentally ready for whatever we might be facing.

  31. Elise says

    I agree that being prepared is a good thing, but the harsh reality is that *most* prenatally diagnosed conditions can’t be treated. When we had our genetic counselling for our triplets, I was surprised to find out that the counsellor was most focussed on the genetic conditions associated with significant and irreversible developmental delay; the Trisomies etc. Heart conditions didn’t even come up in the discussion, quite honestly.

    I can’t imagine aborting a baby with any treatable condition, though I respect that others might choose differently. But, as 40-something parents with little family around, we were not prepared to bring a child in the world who would not have the mentail capacity to advocate for themselves when we were no longer around. Again, others would choose differently.

    Fortunately, our screening was supportive of having healthy babies, and we did indeed have a happy outcome.

  32. Jen says

    Looks like women’s rights are NOT cemented. I am now absolutely livid about Rush Limbaugh’s birth control comments. What do men get from paying for women’s birth control? SEX!! HELLOOO?!? Last time I checked, lesbians weren’t too worried about birth control. I was thankful for the women who protested before me for women’s rights. I just never thought I’d still need to do it 40-50 years later too.