He's also said he believes states have the right to BAN contraception. He claims this is a "states rights" position and he would disagree with them doing so - but it's their right. Then on the other hand he says states do NOT have the right to fashion their own gay marriage laws. That's awfully handy. Sounds like more social engineering only from a different perspective, to me. But wait - there's more...
He wants a Constitutional Amendment that REDEFINES Marriage. Because that's not an overreach of federal power or social engineering at all. lol
Oh - but we're not done! He says life is precious - it is. But he supports the drug war even in lieu of the fact that as of 2007 a study found 300% MORE Americans die from PRESCRIPTION drug related reasons than from ALL OTHER illegal narcotics COMBINED - not ONE of which was pot related. So it's ok for Big Pharma to sell death - not ok to grow plants. And that's increasing by double digits each year.
The guy is a walking talking contradiction. And all that before even mentioning his foreign policy. You want to talk candidates with DANGEROUS foreign policy - this is the guy right here.
Santorum: I Would Advocate That Any Doctor That Performs an Abortion be Criminally Charged.
Tony ☮ R P ☮ 2012 ☮
2012/01/05 04:29:42
I think it goes without saying that life for women in a Santorum
presidency would be horrible. Talk about taking civilization back to
the Middle Ages.
Santorum's inflexibility on abortion is well-known. When you believe
that a multi-cell zygote should be a Constitutionally-protected person,
then there is no circumstance--not rape, not incest, not the life of
the mother--that would prohibit that little future person from being
born.
However, Santorum's own personal circumstances show that life doesn't work in nice, neat little ways and that sometimes, tough choices have to be made.
After examining Karen [Santorum, in her 19th week of
pregnancy], who was nearly incoherent with a 105-degree fever, a doctor
at Magee led Santorum into the hallway outside her room and said that
she had an intrauterine infection and some type of medical intervention
was necessary. Unless the source of the infection, the fetus, was
removed from Karen’s body, she would likely die.At minimum, the doctor said, Karen had to be given antibiotics intravenously or she might go into septic shock and die.
The Santorums were at a crossroads.
Once they agreed to use antibiotics, they believed they were
committing to delivery of the fetus, which they knew would most likely
not survive outside the womb.“The doctors said they were talking about a matter of hours or a day
or two before risking sepsis and both of them might die,” Santorum
said. “Obviously, if it was a choice of whether both Karen and the
child are going to die or just the child is going to die, I mean it’s a
pretty easy call.”
Now there's nothing at all pleasant about having to make that painful
choice, nor do I want to sound like I'm gloating over the hypocrisy. I
had an ectopic pregnancy and had to make the same choice: either both
of us would die or I would have to terminate the pregnancy.
But the important point here is that the Santorums had that choice,
and made the one that made sense to them, just as I had. Their doctors
treated the actual viable human being in the equation without concern
of being prosecuted for doing their job.
I look at my children now and I recognize that life is precious and
each child is a little miracle unto themselves. Thankfully, my children
were born into circumstances where they were not only wanted, but were
given great advantages of being the children of educated, committed
parents with sufficient income and facilities to care for them. And
even with those advantages, even being born without disabilities or
developmental delays, into a loving partnership, raising a child is
exhausting, nerve-wracking and difficult work. How dare Rick Santorum
tell someone who does not feel that they can handle that kind of
lifelong commitment that they have no choice? How dare he say that
doctors cannot operate in the best interest of their actual flesh and
blood patient?
Yes, to Santorum, life is precious and sacrosanct. That is, until you get out of the womb. Then you're on your own.
Transcripts below the fold
MR. GREGORY: One more question on abortion, an issue you care deeply
about. I, I want to be clear on this. Do you believe that there should
be any legal exceptions for rape or incest when it comes to abortion?
SEN. SANTORUM: I believe that life begins at conception, and that
that life should be cut--should be guaranteed under the Constitution.
That is a person, in my opinion.
MR. GREGORY: So even in a case of rape or incest, that would be taking a life?
SEN. SANTORUM: That would be taking a life, and, and I believe that,
that any doctor who performs an abortion--that--I would advocate that
any doctor that performs an abortion should be criminally charged for
doing so. I don't--I've never supported criminalization of abortion for
mothers, but I do for people who perform them. I believe that life is
sacred. It's one of those things in the Declaration of Independence.
We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, and the
first is life. And I believe that that life should be protected at the
moment it is a human life. And at conception it is biologically human,
and it's alive. It's a human life, it should be a person under the
Constitution.
voting for a Santorum would swing politics hard to the right. especially, seeing that we are currently living under this hard swing to the left, why would we do that?
http://articles.chicagotribun...
In 1969[2], Judge Gerhard A. Gesell ruled that District of Columbia law was unconstitutionally vague because it permitted abortions only to preserve a mother's "life or health," without clearly defining those terms. Gesell wrote that the word "health" provided "no clear standard to guide either the doctor, the jury or the court."