Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Question About Santorum's Views on Contraception
02/16/2011 | self

Posted on 02/16/2012 12:28:11 PM PST by joesbucks

In an interview in 2006, Santorum said: "I vote and have supported birth control because it is not the taking of human life."

But Valentines Day in Idaho Santorum said: Rick Santorum told the crowd he'll work to extend the definition of personhood to include unborn fetuses. "I do not believe life begins at conception," he said. "I know life begins at conception.

Since many birth control methods are abortifacients, how does this stack up if Santorum is considered pro life?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: conception; life
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 02/16/2012 12:28:22 PM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

Many contraceptives can also be abortifacients, making it so that the embryo cannot attach to the uterine wall and then the mother will miscarry.


2 posted on 02/16/2012 12:33:13 PM PST by MiddleEarth (With hope or without hope we'll follow the trail of our enemies. Woe to them, if we prove the faster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

I am pro-life, but this parsing of Rick Santorum is silly. At this end of the day, this election is going to be about the economy and our freedoms.


3 posted on 02/16/2012 12:33:22 PM PST by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

You’d have to see the entire interview to understand what he said, and even then you’d have to wonder what they edited out.


4 posted on 02/16/2012 12:37:39 PM PST by donna (I want to live in a Judeo/Christian country where we know that, before God, men & women are equal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

The underlying issue is whether someone trusts the people or thinks that they need a government shepherd. Rick is on the wrong side of that divide.


5 posted on 02/16/2012 12:37:43 PM PST by NoPinkos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

Oops, misread your question. Not every contraceptive is an abortifacient so I imagine he meant those forms. As a Catholic he should believe that contraceptives inhibit God’s involvement but that he cannot regulate those decisions.


6 posted on 02/16/2012 12:39:11 PM PST by MiddleEarth (With hope or without hope we'll follow the trail of our enemies. Woe to them, if we prove the faster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Agreed!


7 posted on 02/16/2012 12:40:11 PM PST by b4its2late (Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

“I am pro-life, but this parsing of Rick Santorum is silly. At this end of the day, this election is going to be about the economy and our freedoms.”

You are right, Perdogg. The MSM is going after the non-question contraceptive question to destroy all pro life candidates, particularly the Catholic ones: Rick and Newt.

Republicans should not be stupid enought to fall into this trap.


8 posted on 02/16/2012 12:40:42 PM PST by AnnGora (I'm suing my tagline for sexual harrassment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

Hey n00b,

If you’re looking for trouble
You came to the right place
If you’re looking for trouble
Just look right in my face
I was born standing up
And talking back
My daddy was a green-eyed mountain jack
Because I’m evil, my middle name is misery
Well I’m evil, so don?t you mess around with me

Oh heck, I don’t know... Newt is my guy, well, so is Elvis. ;>)

GO NEWT GO—it’s about the survival of our country!!


9 posted on 02/16/2012 12:40:42 PM PST by Gator113 (~Just livin' life, my way~..... GO NEWT GO--it’s about the survival of our country!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MiddleEarth

So, he wouldn’t pass laws that curb non-abortifacient contraceptives, I imagine.


10 posted on 02/16/2012 12:41:22 PM PST by MiddleEarth (With hope or without hope we'll follow the trail of our enemies. Woe to them, if we prove the faster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NoPinkos
It was always a state issue until federal judges started creating laws. If we are to survive, it must return to being a state issue.
11 posted on 02/16/2012 12:41:48 PM PST by donna (I want to live in a Judeo/Christian country where we know that, before God, men & women are equal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

When women voters hear that contraception is even an issue for Rick, they will not vote for him. He will be lucky to get 40%. It would be a national blowout.


12 posted on 02/16/2012 12:42:55 PM PST by LowTaxesEqualsProsperity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MiddleEarth

He won’t be passing any laws on contraception since voters won’t give him that opportunity.


13 posted on 02/16/2012 12:44:31 PM PST by LowTaxesEqualsProsperity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LowTaxesEqualsProsperity

I, for one, am very happy Santorum’s actually done the research to find out that some forms of contraceptives could actually kill a newly formed baby. He sticks to his guns no matter how it may go over.


14 posted on 02/16/2012 12:45:46 PM PST by MiddleEarth (With hope or without hope we'll follow the trail of our enemies. Woe to them, if we prove the faster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gator113

Geez. wish I were a n00b. Been here since around 96 or 98.


15 posted on 02/16/2012 12:46:34 PM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LowTaxesEqualsProsperity
He won’t be passing any laws on contraception since voters won’t give him that opportunity.

Uh, the President won't be passing any laws unless and until Obama wipes his ass in public with the Constitution.

16 posted on 02/16/2012 12:49:15 PM PST by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

He meant birth control pills, etc., he did not mean the morning after abortion pill.


17 posted on 02/16/2012 12:50:42 PM PST by Williams (Honey Badger Don't Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MiddleEarth; All

If you want to read about some of the contraceptives which can also cause early abortions, you can read about them here:

http://www.all.org/nav/index/heading/OQ/cat/Mzc/


18 posted on 02/16/2012 12:50:57 PM PST by MiddleEarth (With hope or without hope we'll follow the trail of our enemies. Woe to them, if we prove the faster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
Rick said that he personally does not believe in contraceptives nor do he and his wife use them. He said that it goes against his Catholic faith and that his view is a private religious belief and that he thinks that contraceptives should be available for women who want to use them but that it is a personal private decision and that the government does not have the power to force anyone elses religious beliefs on others. I believe that Abortion is murder... I believe that the Constitution gives a fetus certain unalienable rights. I also do not want this fine Republic turned into a theocracy.

LLS

19 posted on 02/16/2012 12:51:29 PM PST by LibLieSlayer (Hey repubic elite scumbags... jam mitt up your collective arses!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

In an interview in 2006, Santorum said: “I vote and have supported birth control because it is not the taking of human life.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Joe, are you shilling for Mitt? Why not print the truth? The entire quote.


20 posted on 02/16/2012 12:51:56 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This mean Liberals and/or Libertarians (Same Thing) NO LIBS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

LOL... I know. Just poking fun at ya.


21 posted on 02/16/2012 12:53:58 PM PST by Gator113 (~Just livin' life, my way~..... GO NEWT GO--it’s about the survival of our country!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: donna

[ It was always a state issue until federal judges started creating laws. If we are to survive, it must return to being a state issue. ]

NAILED IT!


22 posted on 02/16/2012 12:58:07 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Williams

Many birth control pills are abortifacients. Meaning they cause for lack of a better term, a chemical abortion. If the egg is fertilized, it won’t implant because the womb is made hostile to the fertilized egg (life)by taking the pill.

Certain implanted devices, such as an IUD, also act as an abortifacient.


23 posted on 02/16/2012 1:01:56 PM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

24 posted on 02/16/2012 1:02:00 PM PST by Fred (http://whenmittromneycametotown.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

Many birth control pills are abortifacients. Meaning they cause for lack of a better term, a chemical abortion. If the egg is fertilized, it won’t implant because the womb is made hostile to the fertilized egg (life)by taking the pill.

Certain implanted devices, such as an IUD, also act as an abortifacient.

It’s not just the “morning after pill” that causes a hostile to the egg womb.


25 posted on 02/16/2012 1:02:33 PM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GraceG; All

I have been wondering about this topic. Since many say that abortion is a state’s rights issue does that also mean that slavery should be left to the states as well?

Serious question. Obviously slavery is an abomination but I can’t understand how we as a government can’t say, “It’s illegal, period.”


26 posted on 02/16/2012 1:05:17 PM PST by MiddleEarth (With hope or without hope we'll follow the trail of our enemies. Woe to them, if we prove the faster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MiddleEarth

“Not every contraceptive is an abortifacient so I imagine he meant those forms.”

Incorrect. Every birth control pill on the market, chemical implant, and hardware implant, is abortifacient.

They’re intended to prevent conception, but when that mechanism fails and conception occurs, the back-up plan is the prevention of embryo implantation by thinning of the uterine lining. The embryo dies.

That’s an abortion.

I’m not in favor of banning these methods, but let’s not lie to ourselves about how they work.


27 posted on 02/16/2012 1:13:08 PM PST by Blue Ink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

Most BC pills actually prevent ovulation. No ovulation = no egg = nothing to abort. Even the most common IUD’s are generally not regarded as abortifacients by the medical community.

This notion that something “could” be an abortifacient and therefore, it must be interpereted as such, with no real evidence to that fact, is a dangerous slope that many people, even those who are nominally prolife, don’t want to ski down.


28 posted on 02/16/2012 1:14:05 PM PST by RockinRight (If you're waiting to drink until you find pure water, you're going to die of dehydration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Blue Ink

By your definition then, I AM in favor of banning those methods.


29 posted on 02/16/2012 1:16:41 PM PST by MiddleEarth (With hope or without hope we'll follow the trail of our enemies. Woe to them, if we prove the faster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MiddleEarth

Good luck with that.


30 posted on 02/16/2012 1:18:48 PM PST by RockinRight (If you're waiting to drink until you find pure water, you're going to die of dehydration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Blue Ink

Blue Ink,

I think Middleearth was referring to condoms, which are not abortifacients.


31 posted on 02/16/2012 1:20:28 PM PST by Columbo (Just one more thing....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Parsing? I think it was very clear what he has said for a change and what he says now. Don’t people ever get tired of interpreting what politicians “meant to say?”. If Santorum would stop rambling, overtalking, and stop the excitement, maybe he could make some sense.


32 posted on 02/16/2012 1:20:41 PM PST by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

What do you mean by “no real evidence”?


33 posted on 02/16/2012 1:21:36 PM PST by MiddleEarth (With hope or without hope we'll follow the trail of our enemies. Woe to them, if we prove the faster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: donna

It’s not a proper area for government on any level to interfere with. Ideally, the state and federal level prevent each other from doing so.


34 posted on 02/16/2012 1:22:37 PM PST by NoPinkos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
This notion that something “could” be an abortifacient and therefore, it must be interpereted as such, with no real evidence to that fact, is a dangerous slope that many people, even those who are nominally prolife, don’t want to ski down.

Yep. It's exactly like the loony left view that guns are evil because they are sometimes used to commit crimes.

35 posted on 02/16/2012 1:25:40 PM PST by NoPinkos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
"I am pro-life, but this parsing of Rick Santorum is silly. At this end of the day, this election is going to be about the economy and our freedoms."

If Santorum is the GOP candidate this election will be about Social Issues 24/7...and NOT by his choice. It's the only questions that he will be presented with. The ads that will be run will deliberately distort and misrepresent his positions, forcing him to defend.

24 x 7.

36 posted on 02/16/2012 1:26:25 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

Since Dec 24, 1997 to be exact!


37 posted on 02/16/2012 1:30:25 PM PST by b4its2late (Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NoPinkos; RockinRight

I disagree. Most of those who say these methods probably don’t cause an abortion base their statements on the view that life begins at IMPLANTATION not CONCEPTION. IUD’s etc often cause babies not to be able to implant in the womb...as far as I can see, thereby causing an abortion.


38 posted on 02/16/2012 1:30:59 PM PST by MiddleEarth (With hope or without hope we'll follow the trail of our enemies. Woe to them, if we prove the faster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd; joesbucks
Joe

You'll find a lot of newbies around here now days that will attack you personally if you do not support Santorum. Anything negative about the guy...or his chances of election...and you'll be accused of being a Godless Communist or worse.

The blinded SoCons are absolutely determined to have their guy and they are willing to burn down our tenuous coalition to get him.

39 posted on 02/16/2012 1:33:07 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

RockinRight,

The medical community changed the definition of the beginning of pregnancy to refer to implantation rather than the moment of fertilization.

Chemical contraception works in 3 different ways, most often by disrupting ovulation, but also through making the uterine walls inhospitable for implantation if a conception does occur. This is commonly admitted. For instance:

“Hormonal methods work in one of three ways: 1) preventing a woman’s ovaries from releasing an egg each each month; 2) causing the cervical mucus to thicken making it harder for sperm to reach and penetrate the egg; 3) thinning the lining of the uterus which reduces the likelihood that a fertilized egg will implant in the uterus wall.” http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/overviewtypesbirthcontrol.html


40 posted on 02/16/2012 1:35:35 PM PST by Columbo (Just one more thing....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

Normal birth control agents just stop one from getting pregnant, period. The newest pills, called the morning after pills are recent additions and before now had to be prescribed by a physician. Not only that, but they were expensive. The newer ones, called the morning after pills cause a fetus that is growing to become separated from the uterine wall, causing it to starve to death, then abort prematurely. It is not really a preventative, but an abortion-causing agent. These are dangerous agents, which have caused women, especially younger ones in their teens, to bleed out uncontrollably or go into a toxic shock from the strength of the agent (pill).


41 posted on 02/16/2012 1:47:37 PM PST by Shery (in APO Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

And the problem with that is....?

I for one, have no problems with social issues being in the forefront. I trust Rick’s jidgment on these issues, and therefore I trust his econmic ideas also.


42 posted on 02/16/2012 1:48:22 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This mean Liberals and/or Libertarians (Same Thing) NO LIBS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MiddleEarth

[ Serious question. Obviously slavery is an abomination but I can’t understand how we as a government can’t say, “It’s illegal, period.” ]

Involuntary Slavery is illegal and rightly so because you are violating someone’s inalienable god given rights by anducting them against their will and forcing them to work upon penalty of tourture or death.

Indentured Servatude ie. the Slavery where someone signed a contract to work for someone for X number of years and at the end was released from slavery is “technically legal” even under the constitution.

A lot of people don’t realize there were a LOT of indutured servents from Europe who helped found the country in the 1700’s and 1800’s. They signed up for indentured servatude for a trip across the pond and worked for 5-10 years for that trip.


43 posted on 02/16/2012 1:50:06 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
"I for one, have no problems with social issues being in the forefront."

I do not believe that is a majority opinion in the GOP and if it is, there's a significant minority that are not signed up with that approach.

You don't even have unanimity among Freepers, the most hard-core conservative forum in the world.

I believe there is a very good chance that you will get your guy. I also believe Obama will be reelected as a result.

44 posted on 02/16/2012 1:54:59 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

You’re misinformed.

The pill’s primary mechanism fails and conception occurs at least two percent of the time.

When the primary mechanism fails, the secondary mechanism kicks in — the lining is thinned and the embryo dies.

And sometimes both mechanisms fail, because two percent of women taking birth control pills correctly get pregnant.

The science and the statistics don’t say the secondary method “could” be an abortifacient — they say when the primary mechanism fails, it IS an abortifacient. The drug companies print this in the literature that accompanies every bottle. They must disclose the abortifacient “back-up” measure of these pills.

It’s true that most of the time, ovulation is prevented. But you’re being disingenuous not to acknowledge what the manufacturers themselves say about how these pills work: sometimes, ovulation and fertilization occur, and the pregnancy is aborted in the embryonic stage.

“Sometimes,” “Rarely” or “Hardly ever” still means they’re abortifacient.

And there are plenty of doctors, the ones who believe that life begins at conception, not implantation, who share that view.

There are also many second-rate doctors who have no idea the “back-up” mechanism exists.

What’s “dangerous” about pointing out quantifiable scientific evidence?


45 posted on 02/16/2012 1:55:50 PM PST by Blue Ink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

Did Santorum stop beating his wife?


46 posted on 02/16/2012 1:58:16 PM PST by Mike Darancette (Romney just makes me tired all over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight; Teófilo; Cronos; wagglebee; dsc; Deo volente; MarkBsnr; Mad Dawg; ArrogantBustard; ...
Even the most common IUD’s are generally not regarded as abortifacients by the medical community.

IUDs are purely abortifacient.

The medical community has conveniently re-defined conception from the traditional "fertilization of an egg by a sperm" to "implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall."

Therefore, they (think they can) say with a straight face that the Pill and the IUD and morning after pills are not "abortifacient" because by their definition "conception" has not yet occurred.

Medical dictionaries redefine "CONCEPTION" to obscure the TRUTH regarding contraceptive technologies
by Brian J. Kopp, DPM

The redifining of "conception" by medicine in new medical dictionaries: Verbal engineering always preceeds social (and medical)engineering

There are several major print medical dictionaries, and several online versions. Apparently, under pressure from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), many of them have changed the defintion of "conception" in the last few years, proving once again that verbal engineering always preceeds social (and medical) engineering.

Here is Tabor's Medical Dictionary's entry:

conception (kSn-s&p´shTn)
1. The mental process of forming an idea. 2. The onset of pregnancy marked by implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterine wall. SEE: contraception; fertilization; implantation.
Copyright 2001 by F. A. Davis Company

Here is the entry from "On-line Medical Dictionary":

conception
The onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation of the blastocyst, the formation of a viable zygote. Origin: L. Conceptio

However, Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary sits on the fence:

Main Entry: con·cep·tion
Pronunciation: k&n-'sep-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both b : EMBRYO, : FETUS 2 a : the capacity, function, or process of forming or understanding ideas or abstractions or their symbols b : a general idea

Yet the good old "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition," Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company, is much more straightforward:

con·cep·tion (kn-spshn)
n.
Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization. The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote. The ability to form or understand mental concepts and abstractions. Something conceived in the mind; a concept, plan, design, idea, or thought. See Synonyms at idea. Archaic. A beginning; a start. [Middle English concepcioun, from Old French conception, from Latin concepti, conceptin-, from conceptus. See concept.]

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc., does not mince words either:

conception \Con*cep"tion\, n. [F. conception, L. conceptio, fr. concipere to conceive. See Conceive.] 1. The act of conceiving in the womb; the initiation of an embryonic animal life.[remaider of definitions deleted]

WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University puts it succinctly:

conception n 1: an abstract or general idea inferred or derived from specific instances [syn: concept, construct] [ant: misconception] 2: the act of becoming pregnant; fertilization of an ovum by a spermatozoon 3: the event that occured at the beginning of something; "from its creation the plan was doomed to failure" [syn: creation] 4: the creation of something in the mind [syn: invention, innovation, excogitation, design]

I wonder how these medical dictionaries define a tubal pregnancy, if "conception" does not occur till after implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterine wall?

I wonder why the "medical" definition of "conception" has been quietly changed?

No need to wonder, really. All the latest contraceptive technologies target the baby at its most vulnerable point, i.e., before implantation but after conception (as traditionally defined.)

If "conception" is not redefined, medicine must admit that these new technologies are indeed abortifacient. Then comes the whole problem of informed consent, conscience clauses, and a refocus of pro-life activity exactly where medicine does NOT want it: At that distinct line between conception and implantation, a line already crossed by hormonal contraception, the morning after pill, Norplant, Depo-Provera, IUD's, cloning, stem cell research, and many other emerging technologies.

Here lies the future of the pro-life battle, or its failure, if none show up to do battle.

47 posted on 02/16/2012 1:59:24 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

“Involuntary Slavery is illegal and rightly so because you are violating someone’s inalienable god given rights by anducting them against their will and forcing them to work upon penalty of tourture or death.”

So are you saying involuntary slavery should be illegal across the board because it deals with someone’s inalienable right? If so, that’s what I say about abortion as well and even more so because that always tortures babies to death! I am not convinced it should merely be left up to the states to decide.


48 posted on 02/16/2012 2:07:06 PM PST by MiddleEarth (With hope or without hope we'll follow the trail of our enemies. Woe to them, if we prove the faster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
I do not believe that is a majority opinion in the GOP and if it is, there's a significant minority that are not signed up with that approach.
 
Yeah. Romneybots and Paulistas.
 
You don't even have unanimity among Freepers, the most hard-core conservative forum in the world.
 
You obviously haven't been following FR's reaction to Obammie's contraception debacle. Guess what?  We don't like Obama's social policy. We do like Santorum's views.
 

I believe there is a very good chance that you will get your guy. I also believe Obama will be reelected as a result.

My guy? Are you a mind reader? Or do you have a good memory? My guy dropped out. But you knew that, right? Tell us, please? Who was my guy?

49 posted on 02/16/2012 2:13:59 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This mean Liberals and/or Libertarians (Same Thing) NO LIBS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

This is just mainstream propaganda nonsense. Rick Santorum is the most pro-life candidate of the bunch. And he puts his words into action with his own family—just like Sarah Palin.


50 posted on 02/16/2012 2:26:17 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson