Replies

For someone with ‘no convictions’ he sure has walked the walk abortion wise. He and his wife have had TWO brushes with children that many with fewer ‘convictions’ would have found it more convenient to eliminate.

Please, this is Bullshit! Rick Santorum is Pro life. He walks the walk and talks the talk. HE has a 100% prolife voting record over two decades in the house and senate.

Allot of things could be said about Santorum, being Pro Abortion is NOT one of them!

I didn’t say a word about his position on abortion....however it’s from his own mouth, and other than this article, that he was not always against abortion.

Remember that he said the ONLY thing he didn’t have in common ‘with moderates’ was his opposing abortion...and that was later on when he ran for congrees he took that stand. He admitted this on a video.

-> Please, this is Bullshit! Rick Santorum is Pro life. He walks the walk and talks the talk.

Why don't you back it up to the story-saying that he was pro choice until he entered politics. The concern to some of us is that he has portrayed himself as Always being pro life. So, no, it's not bull for us to have a concern..he's made this to seem he has always been pro life..

The point in the article was that before it was an issue for him, he hadn’t really thought about it and was “pro-choice”. Some of the strongest people I know in the pro-life movement were the same way. They opposed abortion, knew it was “wrong”, but weren’t involved in the movement, and considered themselves “pro-choice”, in not wanting to impose their views on others.

But when they were confronted with the issue, and had to think about it, they realized that this was not a tenable position, and became outspokenly pro-life.

What I DID like about the article is how even when trying to smear Rick, they had to admit that Rick came out as pro-life even though he was running in a district that was pro-abortion, where there was only a minority of republicans who were pro-life. The article even derides him for being too conservative for his district, and for not “representing” his constituents well enough.

Mostly, the article simply asserts things, or quotes 3rd-hand sources (like they provide a “quote” from his wife, but it turns out the “quote” was given to them by the abortion-doctor who had once delivered her and then shacked up with her when she was barely old enough to do so.

It’s sad to see so many supposed “Gingrich supporters” so happy about this article, and so willing to say they agree with the liberals who are quoted. It certainly is against the supposed “Gingrich strategy” of pairing up to beat ROmney, but the Missouri caucus may show that wasn’t much of a strategy anyway.