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

Skip to comments.

Why Women Want Rick (There is more to Rick’s support by Middle American Moms than meets the eye)
Townhall ^ | 03/08/2012 | Gina Loudon

Posted on 03/08/2012 10:20:32 AM PST by SeekAndFind

The Lame Stream Media circle like sharks in a blood pool over Rick Santorum’s Catholicism. Funny, they asked conservatives if they were against Romney because they are “anti-Mormon” but no one is asking those attacking Santorum if they are doing it because they are “anti-Catholic.” Do we want a POTUS candidate who doesn’t believe his own faith? We already have that, don’t we?

Rick Santorum is laughing all the way to the ballot box as women swoon, and it isn’t over his good looks. Women like Rick for a lot of reasons. He is every woman’s husband. He is every girl’s dad, complete with the sweater vest. He is every businesswoman’s handy banker. He is every school girl’s slightly geeky, but deliciously smart favorite math teacher. He is the Sunday School teacher we wish we had—the one who actually fights for his faith rather than cowering for church attendance and tithes. He has courage.

Women feel the financial strain created by this administration’s $1 trillion per year spending habit more than our sexier counterparts. We are the ones who have to abandon our choices and go to work. We have to clip coupons, stretch dollars, walk the tightrope between what our kids want and what our struggling budget allows, and we know we couldn’t do it without our spiritual strength. The press’ contention that the social issues don’t matter smack of government constrained churches to us, and we won’t have it. Women need the freedom to worship where they want, how they want, and they don’t want this government threatening their spiritual freedoms. Women understand what Sarah Palin said when she proclaimed that social issues and economic issues are not mutually exclusive-- They are inextricably linked, and women know that because we use the spiritual strengths guaranteed to us by “social issues” to survive the fiscal stresses every day under this imperial President’s reign.

There is more to Rick’s support by Middle American Moms than meets the eye. In the states where he has campaigned and delivered a message, women are feeling emboldened to support this hubby-daddy-slightly geeky teacher-type; they know things the media and GOP establishment wish they could dust away.

Moms like him. Rick and Karen have 7 living children. Karen is an attorney, nurse, and author. Rick knows firsthand what it means to run the carpool, pick up the kids from soccer, help with homework, and drop them at a friends’ house, all while trying to get to work on time or spiff up the house before dinner with the family.

Businesswomen like him. Santorum sponsored and passed the Women’s Business Centers Sustainability Act that established numerous initiatives to support small businesses owned by women.

Work at home moms like him. He has been outspoken and boldly spoken up for women to have the choices they deserve—to work outside the home, or not. He even placed the blame for taking away these freedoms where real women know it belongs—on the radical feminists.

Poor women like him. When he decided to take on the colossal battle of welfare reform, he invited 8 women on welfare to co-create the legislation with him. Who does that? This shows such cool creativity and cutting edge leadership, it would give a sweater vest some swag!

Pro-life women like him. He is an unquestionable champion of life. This means that unborn women probably like him, too. They just won’t be able to say so until about 2013.

Pro-choice women like him. He is the only candidate who has declared that he would not criminalize birth control, unless killing babies is your “method of choice.”

Libertarian women like him. The Cato Institute had rave reviews for the Senator while he was serving in D.C.

Victimized women like him. Unlike Obama, he doesn’t label them victims (AKA: Useful idiots). He empowers crime victims with his tough law for trafficking victims (Trafficking Victims Protection Conference Report) and Aimee’s Law. He co-sponsored the National AMBER Alert Network Act to strengthen alert capabilities and assist state and local law enforcement in catching those who would kidnap a child.

Academic women like him. His mother was the first woman to graduate from Yale. She was the primary breadwinner for his family growing up. His wife, Karen, is a lawyer, nurse, and author. He understands the importance of education and more importantly, the personal satisfaction that comes from women meeting their full potential. His life is living proof of that.

Moms of special ability children like him. As a mother of a child with a Trisomy 21, I can assure you that this hidden, but adamant voting block will move heaven and earth to get to the polls to support someone who loves and understands all the extra joy and challenge in raising a special child. His love for his baby, Gabriel who died, and later for his precious little Bella with Trisomy 18, is all most moms like me need to know the man has a heart the size of Texas, and he wears it on his sleeve for our special little ones.

Mr. Moms even like him! He championed initiatives to encourage participation of fathers in the lives of their children, and provide families with relief from the marriage penalty tax.

While esoteric, overeducated liberals stand in awe as Senator Santorum survives the ravages of the socialist attacks, we Middle American Women quietly smile to ourselves. We know where our vote will be in 2012.

-- Dr. Gina Loudon is the host of the PM drivetime show The Dr. Gina Show heard in 8 states across the Midwest and the South.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: santorum; women
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-203 next last
To: itsahoot

We have Barry - you think voters are voting from knowledge and truth? LOL!!


101 posted on 03/08/2012 3:06:52 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

In elections Santorum does terribly with women.

In his 2006 reelection effort for his Senate seat, he got 39% of the female vote.


102 posted on 03/08/2012 6:09:59 PM PST by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

RE: In elections Santorum does terribly with women.

WHICH ELECTIONS? He won several and lost one.

You’re only showing the 2006 elections, a terrible year for Republicans where they lost BOTH houses by a huge margin.

What about 1994 and 2000? and his two congressional elections? All of which he won.


103 posted on 03/08/2012 6:41:56 PM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

You tell me how Santorum did in 1994, the year before he started campaigning in support of making the Republican party pro-abortion, 3 years before campaigning for the pro-abortion Whitman, or how he did in 2000, after he and Specter had lost that fight to make Republicans pro-abortion, and 4 years before he was fighting for Specter again.

Santorum was destroyed in 2006, the election after his never ending support for the radical pro-abortion Specter over the pro-life conservative.

No republican lost like Santorum, most of them lost by 1 or 2 points. Santorum broke records with an incredible, massive, 18 point loss.


104 posted on 03/08/2012 6:55:24 PM PST by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Lauren BaRecall

Thanks, Lauren!


105 posted on 03/08/2012 11:14:55 PM PST by Yaelle (Santorum 2012 - we need a STEADY conservative President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: ansel12; SeekAndFind

Nobody WON, like Santorum:

“Two years later, he (Santorum) won 61 percent of the vote even as President George H.W. Bush lost his district by 22 points — an astounding result, really.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-case-for-rick-santorum/2011/04/14/AFhEhpdD_blog.html

And Rick Santorum won 4 out of 5 races.

btw, Reagan won in a landslide AFTER losing a race.


106 posted on 03/09/2012 12:39:08 AM PST by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Sun

A lot changed from winning a good election in a Congressional district in 1992, and breaking records in a landslide loss as he was run out of his Senate seat in 2006.

Maybe it was his never ending support for liberal, pro-abortion candidates.

Three years after that 1992 election that you are so proud of, Rick Santorum was endorsing a campaign to force the Republican party to stop being pro-life.

Santorum was campaigning for a Presidential candidate running on this plank. “”“In 1996, I intend to win the other house — the White House — with ten commitments to America… including a woman’s right to choose…”” I pledge to lead the fight to strip the strident anti-choice language from the Republican National platform…””

Santorum admits that he had been pro-abortion all of his life, until he switched in preparation to launch his political career.


107 posted on 03/09/2012 12:56:57 AM PST by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Sun
btw, Reagan won in a landslide AFTER losing a race.

Reagan was never kicked out of an office, or lost a general election, or failed to be reelected, you are talking about Presidential primaries which nobody refers to as losing "elections".

108 posted on 03/09/2012 1:52:18 AM PST by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

RE: Whitman

Who was the alternative to Whitman in NJ? ANS: Jim Florio ( an even more pro-choice candidate). As I said, you are not always given the choice between two palatable candidates. You have to choose the lesser of the two evils. That does not make Santorum ( who was and still is a stalwart in defending the unborn) pro-choice ( as you would want to imply ).

And look what Whitman did in NJ, SHE REVERSED MANY OF FLORIO’s devastating tax policies.

______________________

RE: Arlen Specter (again)

1) Specter SUPPORTED Santorum in ALL his candidacy, from Congress to Senate ( all 16 years ). You expect Santorum to turn traitor on someone who stalwartly supported him for 16 years? Hey, why did Sarah Palin, Tea Party darling, support John “Amnesty” McCain in Arizona over his tea party supported opponent? Same answer — LOYALTY.

That doesn’t imply that Santorum is pro-choice.

2) And let’s talk about Arlen Specter ( the pro-choice senator ).

Well, how do we like Justice Clarence Thomas? He’s about my favorite member of the Supreme Court. But it was Sen. Specter who cut Anita Hill’s testimony to pieces in the Judiciary Committee hearings in 1991. Without Specter’s evisceration of Miss Hill’s inconsistencies, it is highly doubtful that Thomas would have survived.

SO, Pro-life, originalist, Catholic, conservative CLARENCE THOMAS became Supreme Court justice partly BECAUSE Arlen Specter FOUGHT for him. And guess what? SANTORUM CITED THIS IN HIS CAMPAIGN FOR SPECTER.

I’ll never forget watching the confirmation vote on Justice Thomasthat night. Hollywood’s Ted Danson was sitting right in front of me, gripping the brass rail. His knuckles went white, and the large bald spot on the back of his head went red, as Thomas’s nomination was approved by the thin margin of 52-48. And yes, Arlen Specter VOTED and FOUGHT FOR HIM.

Later that night, Sen. Specter strode over to the den of that lion of the right, Paul Weyrich, to receive the plaudits of grateful conservatives.

So, what did Specter do after Rick Santorum endorsed him in 2004? Do we remember the 2005 hearings for John Roberts and Sam Alito? Chairman Specter skillfully guided both of those worthy gentlemen to seats on the Supreme Court.

I knew that it was by no means assured that they would get though the Kennedy-Biden-Leahy-Schumer gauntlet of the Judiciary Committee.

But they did. And we can thank Arlen Specter for that. He ruled the narrowly divided Judiciary Committee with a firm hand. He put Ted Kennedy down, sharply. That was a joy to see. And all the while, Specter was undergoing chemo and radiation for a brain tumor!

I agree with all my conservative friends. I don’t like Arlen Specter. I wish we had not had to support him ever. But Ronald Reagan backed the infinitely worse Lowell Weicker of Connecticut (who gave the state its INCOME TAX when it formerly had none ) and got nothing from Weicker in return ( and where are the condemnation of Ronald Reagan for this? NOTHING BUT SILENCE ).

So nope, ONE SUPPORT OF ARLEN SPECTER WHO DID MANY GOOD THINGS FOR THE CONSERVATIVE CAUSE ( 3 Justices of the SCOTUS owe their confirmation to his fighting for them and many other judges in the lower courts ), does not support your notion that Santorum is a fake conservative.

Sometimes, looking at things in perspective goes a long way.


109 posted on 03/09/2012 5:51:53 AM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

RE: Reagan was never kicked out of an office, or lost a general election, or failed to be reelected, you are talking about Presidential primaries which nobody refers to as losing “elections”.

________________

Your argument looks like this — If a Politician loses a race either the presidential race or the race in his state, his career is at an end and he is thus, un-electable.

For a refutation of that see — Nixon, Richard.

The man lost in 1960 vs Kennedy and then went on to LOSE the governor election in California in 1962. You know the rest of the story.


110 posted on 03/09/2012 5:55:49 AM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If he wants to help Mitt, he would have gotten out of the way now and made it easier for Mitt to cruise instead of losing so many states.

Wrong. Santorum has to wait until Newt is out of the water with very little chance of winning - that's their plan all along. If Santorum dropped out now, Newt would over take Mitt in a NY minute. Mitt isn't cruising anywhere as long as Newt is in it.

111 posted on 03/09/2012 7:22:52 AM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Sun

You can’t legislate people’s behavior. Their hearts have to be changed. The church does that, not the BIG gov’t candidate.

It’s the economy, stupid. Newt already balanced the federal budge 4 times with the democratic president.

I’ll take the PROVEN DOER not a BIG gov’t talker. THE GOP E will never get my vote and Santorum is/has always backed the GOP E.


112 posted on 03/09/2012 7:30:03 AM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Lauren BaRecall
I directly addressed your question, and then you threw out any old thing back at me.

You got the truth back to your 'follow the leader' approach - if some paid entertainer like Levin supported him it must be right.

So much for having a discussion.

So much for thinking for yourself. You are the media's and the advertisers who support them - dream. They do it because it works every time. The clueless masses go willingly off a cliff with their propaganda - just give them a talking head that they believe in and we got them.

And the GOP E takes care of trashing who they will (any proven conservative, Newt and Sarah) and they get what they want - NO ONE ROCKS THEIR BOAT!

And WeThePeople are defeated once again by those who 'follow the leader' instead of thinking for themselves.

113 posted on 03/09/2012 7:54:08 AM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

You asked the question “Who would...?”

And I answered your question “Mark Levin.”


114 posted on 03/09/2012 9:02:47 AM PST by Lauren BaRecall (I declare for Santorum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Lauren BaRecall

And I answered BIG DEAL - a sponsor paid talking head with restrictions for paycheck.


115 posted on 03/09/2012 11:20:26 AM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
you think voters are voting from knowledge and truth?

Not Hardly!


116 posted on 03/09/2012 12:15:47 PM PST by itsahoot (Stolen Elections, Not Just For Democrats Anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
"Newt, however, one could sit and chat with about anything."

Ain't that the truth...

See Newt sit...

See Newt chat...


117 posted on 03/09/2012 12:26:33 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Even Nixon was never defeated in a history making landslide as an incumbent, so I don't know what your point was.

Santorum was a sitting Senator running for reelection, and he was dumped in a history making 18 point rejection.

Santorum is the guy who endorsed this party platform in 1996.

"In 1996, I intend to win the other house — the White House — with ten commitments to America… including a woman’s right to choose.” "I pledge to lead the fight to strip the strident anti-choice language from the Republican National platform"

118 posted on 03/09/2012 12:34:07 PM PST by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

RE: Even Nixon was never defeated in a history making landslide as an incumbent, so I don’t know what your point was

_________________________

My Point was 2006 was an ABERRATION.

I’m not at all confident that Pat Toomey could have carried Pennsylvania that year, as President Bush was losing the state to John Kerry.

When we ask what Reagan would do, it might be helpful to
recall what Reagan actually did. So now, if we get Rick Santorum in the White House, Pat Toomey in the Senate, and Arlen Specter in retirement, why can’t we conservatives be happy?


119 posted on 03/09/2012 12:38:39 PM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Who was the alternative to the rabidly pro-abortion Specter in 1996, and 2004?

Would you support this agenda? Watch the video.

This is the video of Specter’s announcement and platform, Santorum is there on stage endorsing it.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/64281-1

Santorum is seen nodding and applauding at Specter’s side:

3:46 mark: “In 1996, I intend to win the other house — the White House — with ten commitments to America… including a woman’s right to choose…

13:22 mark: “Even though we have this historic opportunity for these achievements, there are those in our party who would lead us down a different path — and squander this unique moment in our nation’s history — by using our political capital — to pursue a radical social agenda — that would end a woman’s right to choose…

13:48 mark: “When Pat Robertson says there is no constitutional doctrine of separation between Church and State, I say he is wrong…

14:31 mark: “When Ralph Reed says a pro-choice Republican isn’t qualified to be our President, I say the Republican Party will not be intimidated or blackmailed by those kinds of threats.I, and millions of other pro-choice Republicans, will not be disenfranchised and made second class citizens.

15:33 mark: “… it is not Christian, or religious, or Judeo-Christian to bring God into politics; or to advocate intolerance and promote exclusion.

15:54 mark: “I want to take abortion out of politics. I want to keep the Republican Party focused on the vital economic and foreign policy issues — and leave moral issues such as abortion to the conscience of the individual. I believe abortion is an issue to be decided by women…

16:40 mark: “I pledge to lead the fight to strip the strident anti-choice language from the Republican National platform…”


120 posted on 03/09/2012 12:39:07 PM PST by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

RE: If Santorum dropped out now, Newt would over take Mitt in a NY minute. Mitt isn’t cruising anywhere as long as Newt is in it.

And what makes you so sure of that, seeing Newt has only won 2 states to Santorum’s 7 ?

Santorum has 181 delegates to Newt’s 107.

People could also say, if Newt dropped out now, Santorum would over take Mitt in a NY minute.


121 posted on 03/09/2012 12:41:43 PM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Between polite claps and ACTUAL LEGISLATIVE BATTLES, I take the latter as indicating what someone will do thank you.

REALITY:

Santorum FOUGHT Clinton over partial birth abortion all the way.

He went toe to toe with Barbara Boxer in the Senate floor in 1999.

See here and watch his passionate defense of babies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeUPq6md2jg

THAT CANNOT BE FAKED.


122 posted on 03/09/2012 12:46:56 PM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Rick Santorum's debate with Barbara Boxer on ABORTION :

See THIS LINK

Mr. SANTORUM. So I look forward to this debate over the next couple of days. I know the Senator from California feels very passionately about this, but I think the issue of where we draw the line constitutionally is very important. I am sure the Senator from California agrees with me. I think the Senator from California would say that she and I, the Senator from Illinois, the Senators from Arkansas and Kansas, we are all protected by the Constitution with the right to life. Would you agree with that, Senator from California? Do you answer that question?
Mrs. BOXER. I support the Roe v. Wade decision.
Mr. SANTORUM. Do you agree any child who is born has the right to life, is protected by the Constitution once that child is born?
Mrs. BOXER. I agree with the Roe v. Wade decision, and what you are doing goes against it and will harm the women of this country. And I will address that when I get the floor.
Mr. SANTORUM. But I would like to ask you this question. You agree, once the child is born, separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?
Mrs. BOXER. I would make this statement. That this Constitution as it currently is -- some want to amend it to say life begins at conception. I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born -- and there is no such thing as partial-birth -- the baby belongs to your family and has the rights. But I am not willing to amend the Constitution to say that a fetus is a person, which I know you would. But we will get to that later. I know my colleague is engaging me in a colloquy on his time. I appreciate it. I will answer these questions.


I think what my friend is doing, by asking me these questions, is off point. My friend wants to tell the doctors in this country what to do. My friend from Pennsylvania says they are rogue doctors. The AMA will tell you they no longer support the bill. The American Nurses don't support the bill. The obstetricians and gynecologists don't support the bill. So my friend can ask me my philosophy all day; on my own time I will talk about it.

Mr. SANTORUM. If I may reclaim my time, first of all, the AMA still believes this is bad medicine. They do not support the criminal penalties provisions in this bill, but they still believe -- I think you know that to be the case -- this procedure is not medically necessary, and they stand by that statement.


I ask the Senator from California, again, you believe -- you said "once the baby comes home." Obviously, you don't mean they have to take the baby out of the hospital for it to be protected by the Constitution. Once the baby is separated from the mother, you would agree -- completely separated from the mother -- you would agree that baby is entitled to constitutional protection?

Mrs. BOXER. I will tell you why I don't want to engage in this. You had the same conversation with a colleague of mine, and I never saw such a twisting of his remarks.
Mr. SANTORUM. Let me be clear, then. Let's try to be clear.
Mrs. BOXER. I am going to be clear when I get the floor. What you are trying to do is take away the rights of women and their families and their doctors to have a procedure. And now you are trying to turn the question into, When does life begin? I will talk about that on my own time.
Mr. SANTORUM. If I may reclaim the time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BUNNING). The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor.
Mr. SANTORUM. What I am trying to do is get an answer from the Senator from California as to where you would draw the line because that really is the important part of this debate.
Mrs. BOXER. I will repeat. I will repeat, the Senator has asked me a question ...
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor.
Mrs. BOXER. I am answering the question I have been posed by the Senator, and the answer to the question is, I stand by Roe v. Wade. I stand by it. I hope we have a chance to vote on it. It is very clear, Roe v. Wade. That is what I stand by; my friend doesn't.
Mr. SANTORUM. Are you suggesting Roe v. Wade covered the issue of a baby in the process of being born?
Mrs. BOXER. I am saying what Roe v. Wade says is, in the early stages of a pregnancy, a woman has the right to choose; in the later stages, the States have the right -- yes -- to come in and restrict. I support those restrictions, as long as two things happen: They respect the life of the mother and the health of the mother.
Mr. SANTORUM. I understand that.
Mrs. BOXER. That is where I stand. No matter how you try to twist it, that is where I stand.
Mr. SANTORUM. I say to the Senator from California, I am not twisting anything. I am simply asking a very straightforward question. There is no hidden question here. The question is ...
Mrs. BOXER. I will answer it again.
Mr. SANTORUM. Once the baby is born, is completely separated from the mother, you will support that that baby has, in fact, the right to life and cannot be killed? You accept that; right?
Mrs. BOXER. I don't believe in killing any human being. That is absolutely correct. Nor do you, I am sure.
Mr. SANTORUM. So you would accept the fact that once the baby is separated from the mother, that baby cannot be killed?
Mrs. BOXER. I support the right -- and I will repeat this, again, because I saw you ask the same question to another Senator.
Mr. SANTORUM. All the Senator has to do is give me a straight answer.
Mrs. BOXER. Define "separation." You answer that question.
Mr. SANTORUM. Let's define that. Let's say the baby is completely separated; in other words, no part of the baby is inside the mother.
Mrs. BOXER. You mean the baby has been birthed and is now in the mother's arms? It is a human being? It takes a second, it takes a minute ...
Mr. SANTORUM. Say it is in the obstetrician's hands.
Mrs. BOXER. I had two babies, and within seconds of them being born ...
Mr. SANTORUM. We had six.
Mrs. BOXER. You didn't have any.
Mr. SANTORUM. My wife and I did. We do things together in my family.
Mrs. BOXER. Your wife gave birth. I gave birth. I can tell you, I know when the baby was born.
Mr. SANTORUM. Good. All I am asking you is, once the baby leaves the mother's birth canal and is through the vaginal orifice and is in the hands of the obstetrician, you would agree you cannot then abort the baby?
Mrs. BOXER. I would say when the baby is born, the baby is born and would then have every right of every other human being living in this country, and I don't know why this would even be a question.
Mr. SANTORUM. Because we are talking about a situation here where the baby is almost born. So I ask the question of the Senator from California, if the baby was born except for the baby's foot, if the baby's foot was inside the mother but the rest of the baby was outside, could that baby be killed?
Mrs. BOXER. The baby is born when the baby is born.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. BOXER. That is the answer to the question.
Mr. SANTORUM. I am asking for you to define for me what that is.
Mrs. BOXER. I can't believe the Senator from Pennsylvania has a question with it. I have never been troubled by this question. You give birth to a baby. The baby is there, and it is born, and that is my answer to the question.
Mr. SANTORUM. What we are talking about here with partial birth, as the Senator from California knows, is the baby is in the process of being born ...
Mrs. BOXER. In the process of being born. This is why this conversation makes no sense, because to me it is obvious when a baby is born; to you it isn't obvious.
Mr. SANTORUM. Maybe you can make it obvious to me. What you are suggesting is if the baby's foot is still inside of the mother, that baby can then still be killed.
Mrs. BOXER. I am not suggesting that.
Mr. SANTORUM. I am asking.
Mrs. BOXER. I am absolutely not suggesting that. You asked me a question, in essence, when the baby is born.
Mr. SANTORUM. I am asking you again. Can you answer that?
Mrs. BOXER. I will answer the question when the baby is born. The baby is born when the baby is outside the mother's body. The baby is born.
Mr. SANTORUM. I am not going to put words in your mouth ...
Mrs. BOXER. I hope not.
Mr. SANTORUM. But, again, what you are suggesting is if the baby's toe is inside the mother, you can, in fact, kill that baby.
Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely not.
Mr. SANTORUM. OK. So if the baby's toe is in, you can't kill the baby. How about if the baby's foot is in?
Mrs. BOXER. You are the one who is making these statements.
Mr. SANTORUM. We are trying to draw a line here.
Mrs. BOXER. I am not answering these questions.
Mr. SANTORUM. If the head is inside the mother, you can kill the baby.
Mrs. BOXER. My friend is losing his temper. Let me say to my friend once again -- and he is laughing ...
Mr. SANTORUM. I am not laughing.
Mrs. BOXER. Let me say, this woman is not laughing right now because if this bill was the law of the land, she might either be dead or infertile. So if the Senator wants to laugh about this, he can laugh all he wants.
Mr. SANTORUM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. President. All I suggest is I was not laughing about the discussions. It is a very serious discussion.
Mrs. BOXER. Well, you were.
Mr. SANTORUM. I was smiling at your characterization of my demeanor. I have not lost my temper. I think I am, frankly, very composed at this point. What I will say -- and the Senator is walking away -- is the Senator said, again, the baby is born when the baby is born. I said: If the foot is still inside the mother? She said: Well, no, you can't kill the baby. If the foot is inside, you can't, but if the head is the only thing inside, you can. Here is the line. See this is where it gets a little funny.
Mrs. BOXER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Let the record show that I did not say what the Senator from Pennsylvania said that I did. Thank you.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I hate to do this, but could we have the clerk read back what the Senator from California said with respect to that question? I understand it will take some time for us to do that. I will be happy --
Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, I know what I said. I am saying your characterization of what I said is incorrect. I didn't talk about the head or the foot. That was what my colleague talked about. And I don't appreciate it being misquoted on the floor over a subject that involves the health and life of the women of this country and the children of this country and the families of this country.
Mr. SANTORUM. It also involves -- and that is the point I think the Senator from California is missing -- it also involves when in the process -- that is why people on both sides of the abortion issue support this bill, because it also involves what is infanticide and what is not. A lot of people who agree with you on the issue of abortion say this is too close to infanticide. This is a baby who is outside the mother.



Again, I will not put words in the Senator's mouth, but what I heard -- and again I am willing to have that corrected by the record and the Senator can correct me right now -- what I heard her say is if the foot is inside the mother, no, you cannot kill the baby, but when the head is, you can. That is a pretty slippery slope.

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, what I said was I wasn't answering those questions. What the Senator was trying to do was to bait me on his terms of how he sees this issue.


We have a situation where this procedure is outlawed. It will hurt the women and the families of this country. My friend can disagree with that, but I never got into the issue of when is someone born. I said to you I am very clear on that, and I understand that completely, but it was my friend who kept on asking these questions, which to me do not make any sense because the issue here is an emergency procedure that my friend from Pennsylvania wants to make illegal, and it will hurt the women and it will hurt the families of this country.

Mr. SANTORUM. If I can reclaim my time, first off, the Senator from California said this was an emergency procedure. Name me an emergency procedure that takes 3 days. That is what the procedure takes. That is one of the things that was put forward early in the debate, now risen again, that this is somehow an emergency procedure. It is not an emergency procedure. It is a 3-day procedure.


No emergency do you present yourself in an emergency condition and get sent home with pills for 3 days to present yourself back.

Again, I want to finalize, and then the Senator from Arkansas has been waiting for quite sometime, and I want to allow him to speak. This is not a clean issue. This is not a removal of a tumor. We are talking about drawing the line between what is infanticide and what is abortion, and that is why many of us are disturbed about this. No one is trying to reach in and outlaw abortions.

The Senator from Illinois and I were very clear about the limited scope of this bill. What we are saying is, this is too close to infanticide. This is barbaric. This fuzzies the line that is dangerous for the future of this country. And what you saw, as the Senator from California was hesitant to get involved in that because she realizes how slippery this slope is, that you can say the foot does, the head doesn't, maybe the ankle -- folks, we don't want to go there. It is not necessary for the health of the mother, it is not necessary for the life of the mother, and if you don't believe me, believe the person who developed it because they said so.

I think we need to have a full debate, not just on narrow issues, but on the broader issue of what this means to the rights of every one of us born and unborn, sick and well, wanted and unwanted. I think the line needs to be a bright one. I yield the floor.


123 posted on 03/09/2012 12:49:51 PM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
As post 120 shows, something is very wrong, radically, deeply wrong with Santorum.

Romney/Spector for President supporter, Rick Santorum. "I was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress"

124 posted on 03/09/2012 12:54:00 PM PST by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

SOURCE:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/presidential-hopefuls-rick-santorum/

____________________________________________

As a member of the U.S. Senate from 1995 until 2007, Santorum was the prime author and champion of key pro-life bills, including the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, a ban on partial-birth abortion, and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it a separate crime if an unborn child is harmed or killed during the commission of a stipulated list of federal crimes.

Santorum not only has signed the Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life Presidential Pledge, but he has helped raise money for that organization, too.

Santorum believes that abortion is never justified, including in cases of rape or incest. During a Republican presidential debate last summer in Ames, Iowa, when panelist Byron York noted that many Americans favor abortion under certain circumstances, Santorum didn’t flinch or back off from his uncompromising position.

“You know, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a recent case, said that a man who committed rape could not be killed, would not be subjected to the death penalty; yet the child conceived as a result of that rape could be,” he said. “That sounds to me like a country that doesn’t have its morals correct. That child did nothing wrong. That child is an innocent victim.”


125 posted on 03/09/2012 12:55:38 PM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The radical agenda to drive the pro-life movement out of the GOP that Santorum was promoting in 1996. Before supporting the pro-abortion Romney in 2008.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/64281-1

Santorum is seen nodding and applauding at Specter’s side:

3:46 mark: “In 1996, I intend to win the other house — the White House — with ten commitments to America… including a woman’s right to choose…

13:22 mark: “Even though we have this historic opportunity for these achievements, there are those in our party who would lead us down a different path — and squander this unique moment in our nation’s history — by using our political capital — to pursue a radical social agenda — that would end a woman’s right to choose…

13:48 mark: “When Pat Robertson says there is no constitutional doctrine of separation between Church and State, I say he is wrong…

14:31 mark: “When Ralph Reed says a pro-choice Republican isn’t qualified to be our President, I say the Republican Party will not be intimidated or blackmailed by those kinds of threats.I, and millions of other pro-choice Republicans, will not be disenfranchised and made second class citizens.

15:33 mark: “… it is not Christian, or religious, or Judeo-Christian to bring God into politics; or to advocate intolerance and promote exclusion.

15:54 mark: “I want to take abortion out of politics. I want to keep the Republican Party focused on the vital economic and foreign policy issues — and leave moral issues such as abortion to the conscience of the individual. I believe abortion is an issue to be decided by women…

16:40 mark: “I pledge to lead the fight to strip the strident anti-choice language from the Republican National platform…”


126 posted on 03/09/2012 12:56:37 PM PST by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

BETWEEN WHAT A PERSON HAS DONE AND WHAT YOU SAID HE SAID, I’LL TAKE HIS RECORD IN CONGRESS THANK YOU. AND HIS RECORD IS PRO-LIFE, DEFENDER OF THE UNBORN. THAT IS SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR.


127 posted on 03/09/2012 12:57:20 PM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Gary Bauer was President of the stridently pro-family and pro-life FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL.

He RAN for President in 2004 under a pro-life banner. He also has a newsletter observing the record of members of Congress regarding family issues ( abortion included ).

HE IS NO IGNORAMUS. He KNOWS what a person does in Congress and their records.

Gary Bauer has already endorsed Santorum.


128 posted on 03/09/2012 1:01:49 PM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

So, according to that chart, men in non-milquetoast states don’t like Rick...maybe because he’s a wuss?


129 posted on 03/09/2012 1:09:25 PM PST by JediJones (The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

That’s what’s amazing about Newt. He ran the House under a Democrat president and still managed to have a more conservative domestic agenda than Reagan. He’s the only one that can go toe-to-toe with the libs in divided government and score an amazing number of points.


130 posted on 03/09/2012 1:11:34 PM PST by JediJones (The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

What he has done is tried to destroy the pro-life movement with Specter’s Presidential run in 1996.

In 2008 he tried to get the next most anti-prolife candidate that the GOP has ever produced for a Presidential run.

Just like Romney Santorum abandoned being pro-abortion so that he could run in Republican politics.

Santorum originally ran as a self labeled “Progressive Conservative” and his dislike for Reagan was revealed in his labeling pro-Reagan conservatives as a “right-wing fringe”.


131 posted on 03/09/2012 1:12:51 PM PST by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

RE: What he has done is tried to destroy the pro-life movement with Specter’s Presidential run in 1996.

He has done NO SUCH THING. Specter HELPED to install PRO-LIFE and CONSTITUTIONAL JUDGES and JUSTICES in the courts of America.

Thomas, Alito, Roberts, all were confirmed because of Specter’s guidance in the Justice Committee. Specter FOUGHT against Kennedy, Schumer and the rest who would derail their appointments.

It is this willingness to FIGHT for Republican appointments that Santorum found impressive.

And again, the fact that Specter is a liberal and a turncoat does not support your contention that Santorum is no conservative. If so, that would make Reagan a fake conservative too as he supported the RINO, Lowell Weicker ( the man later left the GOP as well ).


132 posted on 03/09/2012 1:17:26 PM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

I’m for EITHER Santorum or Newt who ever wins.

I am however, NOT IN FAVOR of the supporter one attacking the other. That is political suicide.


133 posted on 03/09/2012 1:18:47 PM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

RE: So, according to that chart, men in non-milquetoast states don’t like Rick...maybe because he’s a wuss?

Are you implying that men who live in Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee are more milquetoast than the men in Massachusetts and Vermont?

Where’s the evidence of that?


134 posted on 03/09/2012 1:21:52 PM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

Who is the one that KNOWS and studied AMERICA and knows how it SHOULD WORK and HOW TO undo the wrongs done? Who is the brains here? To say anyone but NEWT is being dishonest.


135 posted on 03/09/2012 1:25:09 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

In 1995 and 1996, Santorum was endorsing and supporting an attempt to make the Republican party pro-abortion.

Santorum admits that he was a pro-abortion Catholic until 1990, and changed his position in preparation to run for office.

When did Santorum become pro-life?


136 posted on 03/09/2012 1:25:48 PM PST by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

RE: Santorum originally ran as a self labeled “Progressive Conservative” and his dislike for Reagan was revealed in his labeling pro-Reagan conservatives as a “right-wing fringe”.

_______________

I don’t care what he was originally. Ronald Reagan ORIGINALLY signed one of the most liberal pro-abortion bills in California. What does that make him?

I am more concerned with what SANTORUM DID in Washington.

If he were not pro-life, why would this strong pro-life Catholic group:

CatholicVote.org, a leading national grassroots Catholic advocacy organization. ENDORSE SANTORUM?

See here:

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/05/santorum-captures-endorsement-from-catholic-pro-life-group/

Simple, they looked at his record, and liked what they saw.

EXCERPT:

“Pennsylvania Rick Santorum represents our best hope to rally the nation behind a unified moral and economic vision that Americans are clamoring for in a President,’ said Brian Burch, the president of CatholicVote. “CatholicVote.org is proud to stand with Rick Santorum, and is prepared to mobilize our rapidly-growing grassroots network to help secure him the GOP nomination, and ultimately win the White House.”

“Catholic voters are looking for a candidate who can successfully combine the principles of the dignity of life and the dignity of work,” Burch said. “Senator Santorum understands better than any other candidate the profound link between the moral, cultural and economic principles foundational to the success of America. We are convinced that Rick Santorum is the candidate best equipped to win not only the political arguments, but also the hearts of American voters as he did in Iowa on Tuesday.”

“Rick Santorum is a workingman’s Republican with a record and a plan which are especially appealing to Catholic voters. His record in Pennsylvania, and his record as a presidential candidate confirms that Senator Santorum understands why four more years of President Obama would be devastating for America, but also why a GOP message focused too heavily on taxes, spending, and debt is simply not enough,” Burch continued.

Between this group and what you say, I’ll take what this group believes, thank you.


137 posted on 03/09/2012 1:26:07 PM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

RE: Santorum admits that he was a pro-abortion Catholic until 1990, and changed his position in preparation to run for office.

When did Santorum become pro-life?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Again, who cares what he was before?

The important thing is WHAT HE DID IN WASHINGTON and WHAT HE IS NOW.

Who cares what Reagan did as governor of California? ( He signed a bill to legalize abortion ), the important thing is HE SAW THE LIGHT and CHANGED HIS MIND.

Who cares that St. Paul aided and abetted the murder of Stephen before he was converted on the road to Damascus?

I hope you get the point.


138 posted on 03/09/2012 1:28:52 PM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I already voted for Santorum February 28 in Michigan. If things have to be reassessed after the convention I will do so.


139 posted on 03/09/2012 1:32:38 PM PST by Elvina (BHO is doubleplus ungood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Elvina

RE: . If things have to be reassessed after the convention I will do so.

I believe you voted because you studied his record and studied his present policy proposals.

What kind of possible reassessment would concern you most?


140 posted on 03/09/2012 1:36:20 PM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

What I meant was, if Santorum is nominated I will vote for him in Nov. If Gingrich is nominated, I will vote for him in Nov (though I prefer Santorum). If Romney is nominated, that is when I would have to reassess. At first I thought I would vote for Romney if necessary to get rid of BHO, but I just don’t even want to acknowledge the possibility that Romney could be nominated at this time. There’s hardly a point in having an election if Romney is our nominee. He would go down worse than McCain.


141 posted on 03/09/2012 1:41:13 PM PST by Elvina (BHO is doubleplus ungood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack; SeekAndFind
You actually think they would have a lightweight like Santorum in those pictures? They ALREADY know he's one of their lackey's who will take one for team when asked for his political future. THAT'S Santorum's MO.

You got you pictures handy where Santorum is campaigning for MITT - THE WORST OF THE WORST he was trying to shove down voters throats??

Now this year, his approach is different for the GOP E and their man Mitt - anyone but NEWT/WeThePeople.

This is about WeThePeople and America - you guys are making it about personalities. You are falling for the trap they set and they have been working on for 3 years. And when it's over don't blame the media or the GOP E - blame yourself for falling for their bait.

142 posted on 03/09/2012 1:42:17 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

People are entitled to make MISTAKES in their lives.

Reagan made huge mistakes, so did Newt ( remember sitting down Pelosi on cap and trade? Remember the support for Ethanol? Remember his calling Paul Ryan’s medicare reform proposal “right wing social engineering”?).

Remember Newt’s support of the RINO and Traitor Dede Scozzafava in NY Congressional elections (this woman actually received an award from a Planned Parenthood affiliate in 2008) over the Tea Party candidate, Doug Hoffmann?

Now, if you are willing to overlook that, how come Santorum is suddenly not excused from any mistakes he made in the past?


143 posted on 03/09/2012 1:55:01 PM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Seriously, when did Santorum quit supporting abortion?

He claims 1990, but in 1996 he was supporting making the Republican party pro-abortion, in 2004 he was still supporting the man with that agenda, in 2008 he was supporting the second most radical pro-abortion candidate that the GOP has ever produced and offered up for a serious Presidential run.

When did Santorum quit being pro-abortion?


144 posted on 03/09/2012 2:54:27 PM PST by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

RE: Seriously, when did Santorum quit supporting abortion?

_________________

The question is WHEN DID HE NOT FIGHT ABORTION WHILE HE WAS IN WASHINGTON.

Here is a list of the laws he sponsored to protect life for your edification.

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (Sponsor – signed into law in 2003) – Over several Congresses, he was the Senate author and champion of this bill to ban partial birth abortions.

Born Alive Infants Protection Act (Sponsor – signed into law in 2002) – This bill ensured appropriate care is provided for those infants who survive an abortion.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act (Co-sponsor - DeWine) – This bill, signed into law in 2004, made it a federal offense to injure or kill a fetus while committing a federal crime.

Informed Choices Act (Co-sponsor – Bunning) – This bill would have provided grants to non-profit organizations to purchase ultrasound equipment and provide free examinations to pregnant women.

Child Custody Protection Act (Longtime cosponsor and supporter of this Ensign bill and similar efforts) – This bill would prohibit individuals from taking minors across state lines for abortions in order to avoid state parental consent laws.

Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (Co-sponsor) – This bill required abortionists to inform women having an abortion that studies show that the unborn child feels pain during an abortion performed after 20 weeks of pregnancy and give her the opportunity, should she choose to continue the procedure, to allow the child to be treated for that pain.

Workplace Religious Freedom Act, Abortion Non-Discrimination Act, and Health Care Entity Protection Act (Sponsor and Co-sponsor) – These bills, respectively, would protect the individual conscious rights of individuals to not participate in procedures they believe to be morally wrong and prevent health care entities from being discriminated against in receiving Federal or State funding because the entity refuses to provide coverage of, or pay for, induced abortions.

RU-486 Suspension and Review Act and RU-486 Patient Health and Safety Protection Act (Co-sponsor) – These bills, respectively, would have withdrawn the approved application of the drug RU- 486 and allow for a review of the process by which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the drug and would require the FDA to establish restrictions regarding the qualifications of physicians to prescribe the abortion drug commonly known as RU-486.

Voiced concerns to the Bush Administration about the impact of making the Morning After Pill available without a prescription to youth and asked for the Administration to research the potential harmful effects of abortion on the women who have them.

Alternatives to Abortion

Women and Children’s Resources Act (sponsor - 1999) – This bill was intended to link women to a network of supportive organizations who are ready and willing to offer assistance in the form of pregnancy testing, adoption information, prenatal and postpartum health care, maternity and baby clothing, food, diapers, and information on childbirth and parenting. Women could also have received referrals for housing, education, and vocational training. Low-income women would have been given priority for these services. He also sought to work with the Executive Branch to support of these important efforts through established programs.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act (cosponsor) – This bill would have provided grants to institutions of higher education to establish student services offices for pregnant students, parenting students, prospective parenting students anticipating a birth or adoption, and students who are placing or have placed a child for adoption.

Informed Choices Act (co-sponsor) – This bill would have provided grants to non-profit organizations to purchase ultrasound equipment and provide free examinations to pregnant women.

Strongly supported funding of abstinence education programs that informed and helped teens make the best choices for a fulfilling and productive life.

Adoption and Foster Care

Supported legislation to extend and expand the Adoption Tax Credit, making adoption more affordable to thousands of families.

Supported Promoting Safe and Stable Families Initiatives programs. These programs are designed to help the most vulnerable children be safe, healthy, and find a permanent home, including supporting families who adopt children from foster care. They also help teens aging out of the foster care system without having been adopted to make a successful transition to productive, independent living by providing services such as education, job training, life skills training, and housing help.

As a member of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, he supported numerous international adoption efforts and recognized families across the Commonwealth as “Angels in Adoption” for the steps they had taken to personally care for vulnerable children.

________________

I challenge you to find another Senator with such an ACTIVELY pro-life record as this one.


145 posted on 03/09/2012 3:00:16 PM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Seriously, we need an explanation for why Santorum has been playing a life long, two layered abortion game.

Attorney Santorum admits this, “I was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress”.

When combined with his quiet history of trying to make the Republican party pro-abortion in Presidential elections, then we have to worry about why his goal is suddenly different this time, now that he wants to be President.

None of this effort to turn the Republicans pro-abortion has ever reached the general public, we need some discussion on this.


146 posted on 03/09/2012 3:25:42 PM PST by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

RE: Seriously, we need an explanation for why Santorum has been playing a life long, two layered abortion game.

You want to focus on the past. I want to focus on what he has done as Senator. That’s the difference between you and me.

NOTHING he has done as Senator has ever made me doubt that he is pro-life.

1) His record ( if you want to ignore the list I gave, it’s your problem, not mine ).

2) The scrutiny given to him by PRO-LIFE groups — Catholics, Evangelicals and others.

3) His present statements and policy proposals.

In other words, he did not become pro-life out of convenience. ACTIONS Speaks louder than words, and his ACTIONS are what I base my impressions on, not what he said in the distant past or what other people ( like you say about him ).


147 posted on 03/09/2012 3:31:07 PM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
His "past" means 2008, 2004, 1997, 1996, it is not the "past" at all, and it is only now surfacing, we need to bring this out.

NOTHING he has done as Senator has ever made me doubt that he is pro-life.

Really? Senator Santorum trying to turn the Republican party into a pro-abortion party and remove the pro-life plank, doesn't cause just a little doubt?

148 posted on 03/09/2012 3:39:33 PM PST by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

RE: Really? Senator Santorum trying to turn the Republican party into a pro-abortion party and remove the pro-life plank, doesn’t cause just a little doubt?

______________________

Yes really.

I gave you a list of the laws he sponsored. I gave you videos of his fighting Barbara Boxer against abortion. I gave you a list of pro-life people from Catholic and evangelical groups who scrutinized his record back and forth and endorsed him.

What have you given me? YOUR OPINION.

Here’s more of his work for your edification :

Euthanasia

Assisted Suicide Prevention Act (co-sponsor) - This bill would have amended the Controlled Substances Act to prohibit medical practitioners from using a controlled substance for the purpose of assisting suicide or causing the death of any person. It provides that dispensing, distributing, or administering a controlled substance to alleviate pain or discomfort in the usual course of professional practice consistent with public health and safety is a legitimate medical purpose, even if the use of such substance may increase the risk of death.

Pain Relief Promotion Act (co-sponsor in 105th Congress) - This bill sought to promote pain management and palliative care without permitting assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act (cosponsor) – This bill would have granted habeas corpus rights to persons who have a court ordered removal of life-sustaining food, fluid, or medical treatment.

Lethal Drug Abuse Prevention Act (cosponsor in 105th Congress) – This bill would have clarified Federal law to prohibit the dispensing or distribution of a controlled substance for the purpose of causing, or assisting in causing, the suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of any individual.

Bioethics

The Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act. (Sponsor - It passed the Senate by a vote of 100-0 in 2006 before being killed in the House by members who opposed support for these alternative methods that do not involve the destruction of human embryos.) This legislation would have further intensified research into non-controversial methods of deriving pluripotent stem cell lines to result in improved understanding of treatments for diseases and other adverse health conditions.

Fetus Farming Prohibition Act (sponsored this important legislation that was signed into law by President Bush in 2006) – This bill prohibited researchers from acquiring tissue from fetuses gestated in a human or animal womb for research purposes.

Chimera Prohibition Act (Co-sponsor) - This bill would have prevented chimeras (human-animal genetic hybrids) created with uniquely human genetic characteristics. Animal could not be fused with human brain or reproductive tissue. This ban would also ban human embryos from being implanted in animals.

The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act (Co-sponsor of this bill signed into law in 2005 by President Bush) – This bill requires the Secretary of HHS to contract with qualified cord blood stem cell banks to assist in the collection and maintenance of 150,000 new units of high-quality cord blood to be made available for transplantation through the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program.
Human Cloning Prohibition Act (Co-sponsor) – This bill would outlaw all cloning of the human embryo for any purpose.

Conscience Clause/Religious Freedom

Workplace Religious Freedom Act (sponsor) – This bill would restore a balanced approach to religious freedom in the workplace. This measure would restore provisions in the Civil Rights Act, undermined by the courts, which required employers to accommodate the religious beliefs of their employees, unless doing so would cause significant difficulty or financial hardship for the employer.

Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (sponsor and cosponsor) – This bill would have prohibited the federal government, and any state or local government that receives federal funding, from discriminating against any health care entity because the entity refuses to provide coverage of, or pay for, induced abortions. This legislation clarifies existing law that states that health care entities should not be coerced into providing abortion services that they believe to be morally wrong.

Health Care Entity Protection Act (sponsor in 105th Congress) – This bill would have prohibited discrimination against health care entities that refuse to provide, provide coverage for, pay for, or provide referrals for abortions.

_________________________

OK, now who is your candidate?

Show me the laws he sponsored that matches this record....

And give me a list of laws Santorum voted FOR DIRECTLY that shows he is pro-abortion.

And don’t give me the crap about some pro-abortion item inserted in a law that had hundreds of earmarks in it.

That only proves that he was negligent in not scrutinizing a lengthy legislation ( and yes, I will reprimand him for that ), but that IN NO WAY proves that he favors abortion.

You have to show me that ALL OF THE ABOVE LEGISLATIONS I enumerated are fake ( they are not ) to convince me otherwise.


149 posted on 03/09/2012 3:48:58 PM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Remember his calling Paul Ryan’s medicare reform proposal “right wing social engineering

Remember what he said about it and why? If you can't post THE WHOLE THING - it's just another way of being not honest.

Remember Newt’s support of the RINO and Traitor Dede Scozzafava in NY

And what did he say about that along with he got the wrong info and I can imagine from who. And what are you doing? Not giving the WHOLE story along with comparing someone in upstate NY to the presidents seat in the WH leading our country. It shows how DESPERATE you are.

Santorum is NO match for NEWT - you are as clueless as they get if you believe he is. Santorum's a toy being used by the GOP E and he wants to remain relevant so he wants to be used. You'll learn the hard way.

But the lying deceiving Santorum will never get my vote. You ain't taking down America on my vote.

150 posted on 03/09/2012 3:50:29 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-203 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