Santorum is not without power to save society

February 27, 2006

This video was making the rounds a bit late last week, but if you haven’t seen Sen. Rick Santorum’s (R-Pa.) thoughts on birth control, you may want to take a look.

On Thursday, Santorum did an interview with a regional cable-news program in which he talked about his concers about “freedom without responsibility,” as described in his book. The interviewer asked how birth control might fit into Santorum’s worldview. Santorum offered a rather convoluted explanation whereby he opposes contraceptives morally, but tolerates contraceptives politically.

“It goes down the line of being able to do whatever you want to do without having the responsibility that comes with that. […]

“It breaks what I think — and this is from a personal point of view. From a governmental point of view, I support, you know Title X, I guess it is and have voted for contraception, though I don’t think it works. I think it’s harmful to women. I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young and I think it has, we’ve seen, very, very harmful, long-term consequences to a society. So, birth control, to me, enables that and I don’t think it’s a healthy thing for our country.”

Now there are a couple of ways of looking at this meandering explanation, but I think Santorum is trying to draw a line he believes will be considered reasonable. He’s against birth control, but believes government shouldn’t interfere with its access.

I’ve seen some observers mock Santorum for his opposition to contraceptives, but that’s not exactly how I see it. If Santorum thinks the pill is morally wrong, I disagree, but that’s his business.

But what I don’t quite understand is how Santorum reconciles these positions intellectually. According to his comments, Santorum believes birth control is ineffective, dangerous to women, and “very, very harmful” to society. In the same breath, Santorum notes his position in favor of public support for birth control, including his own votes in the Senate.

Whether Santorum’s worldview is bizarre or not may be open to some debate, but if he sincerely believes birth control is a scourge on society, why does he keep voting for it? The problem is one of consistency. If Santorum sees birth control as an unproductive and harmful threat that undermines society, shouldn’t he propose legislation to curb its access?

If Santorum sees birth control as an unproductive and harmful threat that undermines society, shouldn’t he propose legislation to curb its access?

No, not if he feels that liberty is worth the price. There is a consistent position to be held here.

(Of course, he doesn’t hold that position, as to be found on his votes restricting abortion, and presumably drugs and assisted suicide. I just wanted to say that if one didn’t know who Santorum was, and read only what you wrote above, then one could posit consistency.)

  • I think you’re completely right here. At first blush, I thought this was a difficult line to take, since it seemed like the same line so many Democrats take on abortion, just a bit further along the scale. But it’s not, and it’s a very important distinction.

    Santorum’s position isn’t, “It’s morally wrong, but it should be legal because it’s important for women to make their own birth control decisions,” or something like that. That would be analagous to the abortion-is-wrong-but-should-be-legal line, just a little further up the scale.

    No, his line is, “It’s morally wrong, as well as ineffective and harmful to women and society in general, but it should be legal.” Nobody says this about abortion, and it really is absurd.

    Thanks for calling out Not-So-Slick Rick once again.

  • The “F” word is not what you think. It’s FAMINE. By 2020 there will be 1.6 billion Chinese alone. Will the planet earth feed all those mouthes?

    Global famine hasn’t happened in the last 5,000 years. Famine is always about some where just about all the time. Today it is found in the “third” world. What will happen when global famine hits?

    Birth control will not be an issue, it will be a necessity in the face of less food than mouthes to feed. Artificial morality as preached by the evangelicals has a way of disappearing in the face of famine.

    5,000 years ago the problem was solved by cannibalism. The “Scorpion” king was a cannibal. His successors adopted the asp for their symbol. Both the scorpion and the asp were seen by the ancient Egyptians as cannibals. Both eat their own kind. This is an overlooked part of ancient history that will repeat itself. It’s not a matter of if but when.

    Cannibalism has a certain ring to it that is a complete turn off. Scollars rejected the notion that cannibalism was a part of southwestern US culture within the last thousand years. That was emotional and shown to be in error by testing the feces of the cannibals proving they had consumed human brains.

    Birth control is only a delaying action. Famine is built into the overall scheme of life on earth. Stick around and it will show up. In the face of starvation people will dine on their fellow man’s carcas. History repeats itself, over and over and …

    One suggestion is the altering of DNA to “down size” people, a Gulliver’s little people scenario. Messing with the fundamentals of human life is immoral of course. The Chinese don’t seem to have “that” problem. Will they be the ones who subdue and conquor the earth as God commanded?

    Time to rethink a lot of things including where the senator get’s his morality. http://www.hoax-buster.org will give you a head start.

  • Sounds to me like when Dems say they personally have negative feelings about abortion, but feel that the decision should be a personal one and not made by the state. One of their answers is based on political expediency….but which one?

  • “Be fruitful and multiply” thinking belongs on the same dusty shelf of outdated concepts as “unlimited worldwide economic expansion ” , “global warming is a myth”, and “intelligent design “.. Disaster occurs when such blind and outdated thinking creates faith based policies which defiantly ignore scientific fact . Fundamentalists unknowingly create conditions for a self induced planetary catastrophy and then will rejoice in the apocolypse.
    When you connect the dots, opposing birth control is basically just another way to drink that Jonestown koolaide.

  • Santorum is concerned with sex outside of marriage, but what about married couples who use birth control? Are they immoral because they are having sex without the intent of becoming pregnant?

    This guy is just nuts.

  • I agree with Catherine about the similarity to abortion issues. However, some people honestly believe that since morality is subjective and legality is not, the sphere of legal rights should be larger than the sphere of moral rights. Just because you find something wrong doesn’t mean you should write a law aganist it. That’s not necessarily pandering to anyone (or even representing constituents) so much as recognizing free will.

    When even Santorum grasps this, I would expect most people here could.

    • Comments are closed.