Krugman writes, "Santorum has long opposed the Supreme Court's 1965 ruling 'that invalidated a Connecticut law banning contraception' and has also pledged to completely defund federal funding for contraception if elected president. As he told CaffeinatedThoughts.com editor Shane Vander Hart in October, 'One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,' the former Pennsylvania senator explained. 'It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.'"

Portrait, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, 06/15/09. (photo: Fred R. Conrad/NYT)

Sex and Santorum

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times

04 January 12

he race for the Republican presidential nomination has been an edifying spectacle. No, really: we are learning a lot of things that we might not have if it had been a simple Romney coronation. Until he rose in the polls, Ron Paul was seen by many liberals as an almost cuddly figure, a nice antiwar guy with some quirky ideas about gold; we've learned a bit since.

Now Rick Santorum, whose frankness gives us an education in what "moral values" is really about, at least for a significant number of people:

Santorum has long opposed the Supreme Court's 1965 ruling "that invalidated a Connecticut law banning contraception" and has also pledged to completely defund federal funding for contraception if elected president. As he told CaffeinatedThoughts.com editor Shane Vander Hart in October, "One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country," the former Pennsylvania senator explained. "It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

Beautifying America

ndy Rosenthal, our editorial page editor, notes that Mitt Romney likes to quote from "America the Beautiful", and tells us something I for one didn't know:

The lyrics were written in 1894 by the Massachusetts poet Katharine Lee Bates, an ardent feminist and lesbian who was deeply disillusioned by the greed and excess of the Gilded Age.

Her original third verse was an expression of that anger:

America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till selfish gain no longer stain
The banner of the free!

Comments

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+290 # Barbara K 2012-01-04 14:24

Our bodies belong to us. Not to the government, not to corporations, or anyone else. It should be our choice as to what we do with our own bodies. If women don't want to be constantly pregnant, she shouldn't have to be. People cannot afford lots of kids nor are capable of taking care of 16 or 17 kids. Get the government out of our sex lives, out of our bedrooms, and out of our personal business.

NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN !!

our future is at stake

+65 # Martintfre 2012-01-04 15:06

//Our bodies belong to us. Not to the government, not to corporations, or anyone else. It should be our choice as to what we do with our own bodies.//

I like it, So do I have an inherent right to my body my mind a right strong enough to NOT to be enslaved by others for their benefit?

+67 # X Dane 2012-01-04 20:55

Yes Martinfre and Barbara, Our bodies belong to us.......exept when they don't. The republicans are so full of crap it makes you sick. They forget their mantra about smaller government, when they want to butt into our lives.

Remember Terri Schivo in Florida? (I'm not sure I spelled her name correctly)

The poor woman had been brain dead for years, and her husband wanted to let her "go"
The hue and cry from the right was unbelievable. They never want to help people, who are ill and in need of help.

BUT THEY GOT THE SENATE BACK FROM VACATION AND BUSH TOO, CAME FROM CRAWFORD, TO MAKE A LAW TO KEEP ONE BRAIN-DEAD WOMAN "ALIVE"

So much for small government, and for keeping government out of our business.
I can't swear that Santorum was the one who got them all back to write law, but he was heavily involved.
This should certainly be mentioned

+38 # X Dane 2012-01-05 01:17

Well I just checked Google. Santorum went down to Florida to pray with Terri Schiavo' parents, damned hippocrite.

He was nr 3 in the senate republican leadership, so he WAS part of calling them back from Easter vacation to sign the bill into law, trying to keep Mrs. Schiavo alive. It was of course a purely political move. .......But it back fired. The country was furious, and it cost the republicans dearly. Hallelujah

+15 # maveet 2012-01-05 16:38

Here's more on that story. He was able to combine the visit to Terry Schiavo, via a Walmart jet, with an already-schedul ed $250,000 fund raiser nearby. opportunity knocks, opportunists jump.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/will-bunch/rick-santorum-surge_b_1185833.html

-13 # Martintfre 2012-01-05 07:27

Quoting X Dane:

Yes Martinfre and Barbara, Our bodies belong to us.......exept when they don't. The republicans are so full of crap it makes you sick. They forget their mantra about smaller government, when they want to butt into our lives.

When a gang of people can vote them selves bread and circuses at some one elses expense (lets eat the rich scream the greedy 99%ters) - that too violates ones right not to be enslaved by others for their benefit.

Agreed: Santorum is NOT a small government republican - he is a NeoCON Who want to use big government to micro manage our lives.

The Ron Paul revolution is bucking the party establishment in many ways because we know it is not Federal governments authority or business to decide who you voluntarily marry or how you entertain your self or if you have an abortion (our personal choices very greatly but that is irrelevant) because those issues and many more are state level not federal.

Rights are inherent with individuals: Corporations have no rights, only political privileges - the same goes for Unions, churches, Elks Club, girl scouts, political parties ...

+15 # pgobrien 2012-01-06 05:38

You've drunk the 1%'s Kool Aid and believe they are NOT the "greedy" robber barons who have sucked the productivity of the rest of us into their own bank accounts and let a little dribble down to the rest of us so busy to keep us scrabbling for chump change we don't have the time or energy to challenge the system they've set up that channels nearly all the profits and benefits to a rarified few (1%) while the rest of us struggle. Greedy 99% -- what a laugh!

+55 # giraffee2012 2012-01-04 21:53

Barbara K - You reminded me of a 70s (I think) bumper sticker: "Keep the government out of my uterus"

These same people who want to tell us what to do with our bodies - also want to withhold giving food stamps and free food to children who are starving (in USA) and they claim they want "smaller government" (selectively - that is)

+48 # CL38 2012-01-04 22:32

They want smaller government - government that serves only the rich and corporations!

They won't help middle class and poor Americans -calling it 'welfare', but have absolutely no problem with 'welfare' for the rich (low tax rates and cuts) and corporations (many of whom now pay NO taxes or very low taxes) and subsidies for the oil and gas industries that are making record profits.

+140 # fredboy 2012-01-04 14:35

Amazing. Yes, let's flood the land with multiple, multiple births. Imagine this guy approaching the Earth overcrowding issue?

+108 # bugbuster 2012-01-04 15:18

His reply would be that people shouldn't do sex outside of marriage, and that's that--in other words, a coercive, bullying model of patriarchy widely practiced by some religious cults.

+41 # BradFromSalem 2012-01-04 15:29

There is actually a Catholic sect that practices the Biblical commandment to its ultimate conclusion. Thus they have multiple children at about 10 months apart in age. A neighbor's son belongs to this ultra conservative fundamentalist cult.
We know they are in for a visit when we see the family transportation (a double length van) in their driveway.

+68 # jon 2012-01-04 15:50

There are already WAY TOO MANY humanoids on this poor beleaguered planet !!

+163 # pappajohn 2012-01-04 14:42

I knew it! I KNEW it!!

They're not against abortion, they're against SEX!!!

+58 # Glen 2012-01-04 16:26

Yes, and they don't like dancing because it leads to sex. Another old joke - they don't like sex because it looks like dancing.

+46 # margpark 2012-01-04 21:09

Basicaly they are anti-woman. Women should not enjoy sex without babies coming. I have felt that for years. At 74 I could enjoy sex without babies theoretically. But that is probably why the idea of old people having sex is not a warm fuzzy feeling. Puritanical rules our minds. Margaret Park

+26 # RMDC 2012-01-05 08:25

margpark -- yes, I think you are right. The vision of women that conservatives and esp. Roman Catholic conservatives have is the old one of servants of men. They do not believe in equality between the sexes.

The US is being driven back to the middle ages. Corporatism is really looking more like Feudalism. Women are seen as the source of evil and must be controlled.

At least this is one area where Obama is good and modern. All the republicans are medieval anti-feminists.

+2 # Kolea 2012-01-08 01:16

Yes, they are anti-woman. But they are, more broadly, ALSO anti-sex. We have had another Catholic priest sex scandal in our town. One of the highest ranking priests has been exposed for having had sex with a number of women. One was a church employee, another a teenaged girl. Both of them he had authority over.

I have little doubt he only allowed his sexual "urges" to emerge with people who were powerless to go public about his "dirty urges." I have heard rumors, as well, of his involvement with young boys as well, but those rumors have not yet been publicly validated.

My point is that I think it only catches part of the problem to label these folks as "anti-woman." The result of their phobia expresses itself most harshly against women, but I think that is often an over-reaction to the shame these "harlots" arouse in them. Easier to blame the woman than to come to terms with their own lustful nature.

Well, not for me. I have no problem recognizing my lust. But I am neither a priest nor a Protestant preacher man.

+139 # Pickwicky 2012-01-04 14:46

Abortion to some people carries a moral weight; however, contraceptives do not fall into the same category--excep t where the Catholic Church is concerned. Yet the full heft of the Vatican has not persuaded the world to eschew contraceptives, so how does Santorum presume to succeed. This reeks of out-of-this-wor ld arrogance and ignorance. Not the sort of man who can climb into the Oval Office.

+2 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-04 19:21

Not so true anymore. I find it amazing to read so many people who are not Catholics who know so much about us.
It is our choice, we do not have to tell anyone that we committed any venial sins.

I see the Western States Evans, Baptists and other Faiths afraid esp whites...I see many people toting along more than 6 kids, and none of them are Catholics.

At one time this was a truism for faiths to get more parishners which meant more money in those collection boxes. However, we didnot kill anyone for not having children nor did we put into law that you had to have them, nor did we disgrace people who didnot have children.
We also never made anyone have just one or two children.
It was a function at one time to have children how do you think farmers survived? Look at Amish, Mennonites. They are still having children.
Stupid referral to one faith.

+31 # Texas Aggie 2012-01-04 22:26

Bud, the catholic church still considers the use of contraception to be a sin, and whether you have to confess to it is beside the point. And to know what the catholic church preaches, you don't need to be a catholic, just married to one. Why do you think that the pope had a fit when a bishop in South Africa suggested the use of condoms to halt the spread of AIDS?

+5 # Pickwicky 2012-01-06 14:39

You're right, Texas Aggie. Those so-called Catholics--most ly Americans--who claim the Church has changed its laws on contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion, have just found a priest who will tell them it's okay to do what they want to do. The new catch phrase is: " The individual's conscience rules." Yeah, tell that to Rome. And do say it with a straight face!

+10 # Pickwicky 2012-01-06 14:31

Kittatiny--The Catholic Church mandates that the use of contraceptives is a mortal sin. If your statement "It's our choice . . ." refers to Catholics using contraceptives, then you should get your facts from Rome. The Catholic Church is the only church with a doctrinal law against contraception, and maintains that those who die with this sin on their soul will go to Hell. Again, get your facts from Rome.

+87 # Martintfre 2012-01-04 14:47

Economically and socially There is too much government meddling in the personal affairs of people.

We need Nunya laws.

What is a Nunya law? Nunya damned business!

+61 # Erdajean 2012-01-04 15:39

Right on, Martin! Yet here again, how can such a total FREAK get as far as this one has, in a run for the presidency? And who on God's green earth VOTED for him in Iowa?
So, while Ron Paul declares he'd get rid of five federal departments first thing, and Rick Perry vowed something of the same, except he couldn't quite remember which ones he'd marked for the ax, it looks like Mr. Santorum would have to ADD one -- as in the Federal Bureau of In-Bed Surveillance.
Now, THAT would create a bunch of new jobs! Just think about it. (No, I really can't....)

+51 # Barbara K 2012-01-04 16:46

Amen to you! I have watched the Senate for several years now and I can tell you that when Santorum was a Senator, he was one of the worst ones there, if not the absolute worst one.

+22 # pernsey 2012-01-04 21:55

Quoting Barbara K:

Amen to you! I have watched the Senate for several years now and I can tell you that when Santorum was a Senator, he was one of the worst ones there, if not the absolute worst one.

I agree Barbara, Santorum is the pits!!!

+17 # X Dane 2012-01-05 00:11

Hi pernsey, I have not seen any comments from you since before Christmas, I wondered if you were ill, or under the weather . I just want to thank, you and tell you, that the prickly pear juice is great, and it has helped me a lot. This is the new juice, and it is good.

You are right, Santorum will soon be revealed, for what he is, a religious fanatic. I danced with joy when he was booted out of the senate. I am sure we will soon see the last of him.

Romney will no doubt turn the big guns at him now, when it looks like he can get the reliious votes

+12 # pernsey 2012-01-05 01:56

Quoting X Dane:

Hi pernsey, I have not seen any comments from you since before Christmas, I wondered if you were ill, or under the weather . I just want to thank, you and tell you, that the prickly pear juice is great, and it has helped me a lot. This is the new juice, and it is good.

You are right, Santorum will soon be revealed, for what he is, a religious fanatic. I danced with joy when he was booted out of the senate. I am sure we will soon see the last of him.

Romney will no doubt turn the big guns at him now, when it looks like he can get the reliious votes

Hi X Dane, Im doing fantastic, thank you for asking. I havent been at the computer as much so not posting as much LOL!! Good to hear the nopal cactus juice is working for you too.

Yeah I dont think Santorum even believes his own bull. When he was booted out of the senate I was happy to see him go, hes another one of those guys I really cant stand to listen to.

+2 # Regina 2012-01-09 01:07

Next thing we'll find is that the definition of when life begins will be moved to the instant a couple heads for the bedroom. That will end all the ruckus over biology, such as fertilization vs. implantation. We won't need science when we agree on "faith."

+77 # shjlaw 2012-01-04 15:42

Quoting Martintfre:

Economically and socially There is too much government meddling in the personal affairs of people.

We need Nunya laws.

What is a Nunya law? Nunya damned business!

How is it that so many of you so often turn stories like this into evidence of "too much government"? This isn't about too much government. It's about an ideological extremist wanting to impose his wacky values on all of us. Santorum is not the government. He isn't even a small part of the government. In fact, he is but one of the lying, hypocritical scum bags that preach against governmental regulations that actually serve us well while harboring fantasies (nightmares for many of us)of imposing his own brand of idiotic thinking and regulation on all of us. A small amount of reason and discrimination in your thinking would serve us all well.

+8 # Martintfre 2012-01-04 16:44

Quoting shjlaw:

Quoting Martintfre:
Economically and socially There is too much government meddling in the personal affairs of people.

We need Nunya laws.

What is a Nunya law? Nunya damned business!

How is it that so many of you so often turn stories like this into evidence of "too much government"? This isn't about too much government.

Of course it is exactly about too much government.
If the government is powerful enough to implement some loony bed patrol -- it is too damned big.

If people think that government should be used to implement a bed patrol They want bigger government to force their will upon you.

Then again - I think that the testicle handling patrol at the air-ports is too damned big, and I do not feel an iota safer either.

+27 # Barbara K 2012-01-04 16:47

Exactly! Let him keep his faked "values" to himself. Mine are better than his any day. And I'll bet yours are too.

+80 # allie 2012-01-04 15:07

Rick is pandering to those of the Catholic faith and the evangenlicals. No abortion, down with female rights - keep those women barefoot and pregnant and go forth and populate the earth.

+27 # jerryball 2012-01-04 16:40

... and keep those Gays from proliferating ... oops, Rick, that's a barren mating. What is your problem with wanting to overpopulating the world through your Religilous Taliban Extremism?

+33 # Pickwicky 2012-01-04 16:57

Santorum is not merely 'pandering.' Santorum means what he says about contraceptives( and abortion). --And apparently applies it to his own life. He'll force it on everyone if he has his way. It's god's work, you know. You know?

+30 # CL38 2012-01-04 20:36

And that's ultimately the problem with most on the religious right. They impose their bias on everyone else. When the minority imposes their beliefs on the majority -- as though they know what's best for everyone -- that's tyranny.

The right wants to tell us what to think, what to feel and how to behave... and if you disagree? You'll go to hell. You're a traitor and a socialist...and on and on and on.

+19 # ktlives 2012-01-05 04:26

"Santorum is not merely 'pandering.' Santorum means what he says about contraceptives( and abortion). --And apparently applies it to his own life...."

Actually, Santorum only applies it to his own life when convenient. His wife had a 2nd trimester abortion in 1996, which saved her life. It was the right decision to make, but a choice HE would deny to all other women in the same situation, which makes him a complete hypocrite!

+4 # Pickwicky 2012-01-06 14:49

ktlives--Thanks for correcting me. I've just heard about this abortion, and would like more information about it. Do you know if Santorum spoke of it in public? After his wife's abortion, did Santorum state he would deny such abortions to other women? Great fodder for the election.

0 # X Dane 2012-01-08 01:18

OK ktlives, From my remarks here, you can see that I dislike Santorum intencely, but I have to be, if not fair, certainly accurate, so I hasten to tell you about an article I just read by Joe Klein.

He mentioned that 15 years ago he had several "intense conversations" with Santorum and his wife Karen about the death, in childbirth, of their son Gabriel.
Karen nearly died from septic shock, but she REFUSED to have an induced birth, an abortion, in effect.

She later admitted to Klein, that she hadn't been thinking clearly, since she had 3 children at home. Santorum did abide by her wish to have a regular delivery.

So as you can see. she did NOT have an abortion

+49 # Spleedeladee 2012-01-04 15:16

How hypocrtical: Santorum and rich Rep's have will the right and access to contraception and abortion, whereas they would deny the rest of us that same right, the human right, of self determination, and what can be done with our own bodies. Somebody tell me what is "smaller, better government", assumably, a Santorum government, have to do with such dictatorial, fascist behavior as he would do the American people?!

+56 # bugbuster 2012-01-04 15:16

What seems like perversity on the part of Santorum and his ilk, to be charitable, must be simple ignorance. They often come across appearing to think that the time and place we live in defines all times and places.

In the big picture, considering all of history except the brief few moments that have passed since, say, the 17th century, humans reproduce as soon as they are physically able to. That's because the drive for sex is overpowering from the time our age is in double digits. There was a exceptional, brief, and painful period when we had to endure a decade or so of our lives in abstinence in order to avoid unwanted births. Abstinence is an unnatural and unhealthy state for homo sapiens, responsible for all kinds of perversions and pathologies. Since contraception, abstinence has been optional--a good idea but nothing more.

Contraception is the cure for a self-inflicted social illness. There is, never was, and never will be any cosmic reason not to use it.

+106 # Todd Williams 2012-01-04 15:27

I wish the media would question Santorum as to why his wife chose to have a late term abortion. She said it was because she had healthy children and didn't want to risk dying because of them. Yet her husband is against all abortions for any reason. Rotten hypocrites!

+52 # LML 2012-01-04 15:49

Is this documented?
If so, this should be widely disseminated!!!

+15 # Lolanne 2012-01-04 17:31

Quoting LML:

Is this documented?
If so, this should be widely disseminated!!!

See Daily Kos: Santorum's Horrifying Vision for Women
www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/04/1051452/-Santorums..

+19 # Hopeful2012 2012-01-04 15:34

What do you mean it was the "original" third verse?? Why is it not THE third verse?! Does Mitt Romney quote THESE words when he refers to the anthem?? Katharine Lee Bates huh? I'll have to look her up.

+31 # pamelarich 2012-01-04 15:46

But the hypocracy is his wife supposedly had a terminated pregnancy, so I fail to understand why his opinions are not contested by his own supporters, let alone those in this forum.

-114 # Robt Eagle 2012-01-04 15:53

Krugman, you are an economist...wha t the hell are you commenting on this for? Krugman, you have no current economic info otherwise you would be warning the folks on this web site about the pending rampant inflation caused by the Obama administrations wanton spending and other horrible fiscal policies.

+26 # AndreM5 2012-01-04 16:41

You are obviously an economic critic so what are you doing criticizing this blog post?

+24 # jerryball 2012-01-04 16:43

Eagle: Man cannot live by dollars alone, they are not edible nor edifying. One note pony you.

+29 # shjlaw 2012-01-04 16:50

And, who are you and "what the hell are you commenting on this for?" You have NO info of any kind, certainly nothing of relevance...not hing but hot air and wild prophecies of doom you heard where? Let me take a wild guess. No need to guess. It's that place where the 1% are god-like "job creators" and Obama is the cause of all evil even as he struggles to undo the hell created by small-minded people like you and Rick Santorum.

+20 # bugbuster 2012-01-04 17:12

The rampant inflation you and others speak of has been "pending" for a number of years now. During this time, US Treasury bonds have remained a favorite parking place for the world's money. The recession "officially ended" a couple of years ago (though we all know this means nothing to an unemployed person). What it does mean is that the US is producing enough wealth to keep investors convinced that US Treasury bonds are secure. If there is to be inflation, it will happen *only after* something slows down the economy again. A sudden drop in government spending could cause that and result in the inflation you seem to wish for, Robt. Only then will investors get jittery about US bonds, and the Fed will have to print inflated dollars to service the debt.

+24 # reiverpacific 2012-01-04 18:37

Quoting Robt Eagle:

Krugman, you are an economist...what the hell are you commenting on this for? Krugman, you have no current economic info otherwise you would be warning the folks on this web site about the pending rampant inflation caused by the Obama administrations wanton spending and other horrible fiscal policies.

My Gawd, the old LP is stuck in it's groove again. Krugman is JOURNALIST and has a right to state even the obvious.
What's YOUR opinion on this oh motor-mouth of the mind-numbing "free-speech if you agree with me -ot leave the country attitude? C'mon, give us a wee sermon you ol' Newt-lover you!
Can't wait for some kind of lucid reply for a change.
"Dead for a ducat" sir behind-the-curt ain-of-reaction !

+63 # Janice 2012-01-04 16:00

How could anyone male or female even think about voting for this idiot. God help us all.

+15 # soularddave 2012-01-04 20:27

Iowa is rather a conservative place; just the place for Santorum to make a bit of a showing. That's all that it was, and he'll be swept aside by History in a few weeks.

Think of the Rethuglican primaries as a sound check; Testing 1, testing 2, testing 3. And down they go; 1, 2, 3. They're testing their sound bites and providing the quotes with which they'll be challenged next Summer. Millions of dollars are simply being wasted on their delusions of electability, and THEY complain about government waste because THEY want to be in charge of government waste.

+65 # Mbatt 2012-01-04 16:14

Santorum is quite scary, as are most of the Congressional Republicans who have been waging a war on women since the Reagan administration. Anybody who opposes reproductive health services--which include contraception and abortion--is unfit for public office. Women make up more than half the electorate, and there are lots of liberated men out there, too. We have the voting power to keep any of these medieval relics out of office. This is the 21st century, yet these fanatics want to take women back to the prescientific age when there was no birth control. Republicans' hypocrisy is stunning: they oppose government intrusion anywhere except a woman's uterus!

+18 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-04 19:26

Way before Reagun, men have been telling women what we can and cannot do for centuries, ones who want to make a point are worse than Santorum.
Men believe they should have control, us pregnant and washing the clothes in the stream are those who should be neutered.

I believe in spay and neutering...it is not just for animals anymore!

+36 # CherP. 2012-01-04 16:18

santorum is such a "good little Catholic boy" that he approved an abortion that saved his wife's life! Now, he says women cannot have an abortion under ANY circumstances; even to save the mother's LIFE! I am sure that if his wife's life were on the line again, he would approve of an abortion again! (unless she had gooten fat, or ugly, or if he needed a new trophy wife then....BYE!)

+21 # grouchy 2012-01-04 16:19

This is what so much of it has been about all these years; trying to control peoples' sexual lives. Make them scared as hell of things sexual so they simply are afraid to do the deed! Contraception removes the fear which makes the situation evolve into a fearful thing itself!

+13 # soularddave 2012-01-04 20:31

Quoting grouchy:

Contraception removes the fear which makes the situation evolve into a fearful thing itself!

Oh, they always have the STD angle to fall back on. But they fear that so much that they don't want free condoms available in schools.

+19 # BBFmail 2012-01-04 16:23

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Santorum Stump Speech: "I don't want to make black people's lives better..." - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRDea8PNjro

+15 # BradFromSalem 2012-01-04 19:22

Lets not play the same game that Fox News and the Righties play. The words that followed that were to the effect of "... by giving them money"
While the statement in its entirety, the piece that is quoted is not. Please people, just because the Righties use misquoted material does not make it correct.

Before you hit that red button. I agree that the statement in its entirety was Rascist.

+23 # Regina 2012-01-04 16:35

Great prospect for a Republican administration -- no regulation of banking shenanigans, or mine safety, or oil rigs, but a government agent in every drug store and every connubial bedroom to make sure that there is no contraception going on. It would be hilarious if it weren't so imminent.

+17 # Midwestgeezer 2012-01-04 16:49

Rick Santorum is of the "small government" strain of his party? He opposes contraception AND abortion? Really?

+27 # head out the window 2012-01-04 17:19

How long can it be before he gets caught in an airport bathroom stall with michele bachmans husband?

+14 # shjlaw 2012-01-04 19:07

Quoting head out the window:

How long can it be before he gets caught in an airport bathroom stall with michele bachmans husband?

Hilarious!!!

+22 # hd70642 2012-01-04 17:23

It amazes me how they demand you have children but will not do anything to assist once they are here .I do not think much about Ayn Rand at all but at least she would not insist somebody bring an unwanted child into this world

+32 # colmo04 2012-01-04 18:08

"...to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." Dictators, inquisitors and other monsters have always justified their tyrannies on their idea of "what's supposed to be". (One man, one woman, forever, sex only missionary position and only to conceive, otherwise it's a sin; other side of the world, women must drape all parts of their bodies in black, avoid eye contact with men, always be chaperoned, or they invite rape and deserve it.) Both insane and extremely destructive ideas of "what's supposed to be". Please let's keep people who have these deeply held "moral" beliefs out of public administration. I can't believe it's 2012 and we are even still talking about this crap in a presidential election.

+15 # shjlaw 2012-01-04 19:11

Hear, hear!!! Well said.

-40 # jilloutofthebox 2012-01-04 18:12

mr. santorum didn't say he would outlaw contraception. he said the government (which you all seem to want OUT of your business) shouldn't pay for it. a large proportion of common contraceptives are actually abortifacients. as a pro-life person, i have a right not to participate in it. the fact that everyone is ignoring, is that a woman who knows her body and has the ability to say yes or no when the time is right, is very powerful and can limit her family size just fine. why are we afraid to give women this power? is it because a million dollar industry, and 2 generations of men who are used to sex on demand are resisting it?

+29 # kbarrand 2012-01-04 20:30

Supposing I was against my tax dollars being used for wars. Would I be able to petition the government to not use tax dollars for that purpose?

+20 # Interested Observer 2012-01-04 23:29

You did not read the article very well. It states that he wants to overturn Griswold V. Connecticut a case where a state prevented a married woman from obtaining contraceptives (it was not about abortion). It is the foundation of the constitutional right to privacy and of Roe v. Wade, with much wider impact than Row v Wade if overturned. It would in effect return this capability to the states, the first phase of the usual divide and conquer strategy of these ideologues. He would thus hope to outlaw contraceptives whenever a state legislature is susceptible to religious right pressure. It would also open the door to the return of a variety of other bedroom policing laws that were overturned on the basis of privacy. The funding bit is just what he promises he will do immediately until the larger objective can be achieved. As clear an example of the hypocritical selective libertarianism of this ilk. Out of the board rooms, but back into the bedrooms.

+14 # CL38 2012-01-05 08:04

Great observation and an accurate assessment of what he -- and the right -- are ultimately working toward regarding abortion and contraception.

I've raised funds for Democratic organizations and know that the right has been working for decades to do away not just with abortion, but also with contraception.

"Out of the boardrooms, but back into the bedrooms" is exactly where they intend to go.

+38 # Raging Granny 2012-01-04 18:31

As a progressive Catholic, for ages I have been saying there is nothing more dangerous than a fundamentalist Catholic. Rick Santorum has proven me correct.

+35 # myungbluth 2012-01-04 18:53

This is EXACTLY why there NEEDS to be separation between church and state!

Agreed: NEVER vote Republican - they are NOT on your side!

-36 # Robt Eagle 2012-01-04 18:55

Bugbuster, are you absolutely sure you can bet your future on Obama? In your own household what would happen if you maxed out every credit card and kept spending on things that produced nothing of current or future value? That is Obama's policies and we need to be prepared for the result...or you should bury your head and not worry about what is coming. My questioning of Krugman is that on this site he rarely makes any economic comments, just wants more for everyone who is in need at others expense. Why is it that no one takes responsibility for their actions or inaction on this site? If you want gov't to bail you out of every situation, there will be no innovation and progress, just welfare with everyone moving their money offshore who could create jobs here. Less gov't is the answer, not the solutions. Wake up and smell the coffee, oh no...green tea maybe?

+32 # shjlaw 2012-01-04 22:25

Mr. Eagle: you are completely delusional. With every additional word you publish you demonstrate just how out of touch you are, which, as I think about it, is poetically consistent with the reactionary crowd of clown candidates you favor. So, dear man, keep talking. Like Newt, Michele, Rick, Mitt and the rest, the more you say, the clearer it becomes that you don't have a single, coherent, original thought, much less a coherent plan. Less government isn't a logical or viable plan; it's an idiot's programmed campaign slogan.

+26 # jooberdoober 2012-01-04 18:55

For a party that wants smaller government, they sure do want to pry in to your bedroom allot! I guess the smaller government part only pertains to corporate interests.

-43 # Robt Eagle 2012-01-04 18:58

jilloutofthebox : excellent!!! Responsibility for one's actions. That is what should be professed on this site for everything. Take responsibility and fix your own problems, and if you are able to donate to the charty(ies) of your choice...BUT DON'T TAX US TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE WHO MADE BAD CHOICES!

+21 # Billy Bob 2012-01-04 23:27

Wanting to starve people is a bad decision.

+10 # Jim Rocket 2012-01-04 19:18

How much do his politics have to do with his reluctance to accept the fact that he is gay? It's hard enough being gay but being raised in a serious anti-gay environment must be horrible. Talk about an overcompensator !

+11 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-04 19:45

Santorum is a Moron, that has nothing to do with Faith. Santorum is GOP again that has nothing to do with Faith.
Judging people by their Faith makes no one any better than the Slugs out there running your lives.
Those of you who know nothing about Catholics, should perhaps learn. Jesus never told us to go out, over populate the Earth. They did intend Marriage to help with sharing, learning, teaching. Jesus, thru his own life, saw many never had children. Never did He say they were condemned. Man had children for the reason of passing on their Trade, Wealth, Land.still do.
I do not remember Catholics being the Religion to start all Countries, in fact, we were killed due to stupid/fearful ones who came after, refused to accept Catholicism, help change it. Instead, today like then, we still have Morons telling lies about us.
Man needed people to work for them, review Farms. Child Labor started at home.
Santorum was a horrendous leader in Penna, as most GOP are in this State. Rick Santorum cannot be trusted because he is not Trustworthy as a Human Being. Not because he is Catholic.
Santorum, others may think they can tell us what to do but they better realize that OWS is mild compared to messing with women. Men have beaten, abused, cheated, used us for guinea pigs for meds. Its Over.we have come long way!
We also have Morons organized that spread lies that Priests are Rapists..Rape is not one Faith Crime.

+6 # RCW 2012-01-04 19:48

Mr. Krugman, Thank you for including the verse from "America the Beautiful," which should be restored to its rightful place. However, is mentioning that she is a lesbian in any way enhance or devalue what she wrote.
Time to let art speak for itself and leave out the propaganda.

+14 # Texas Aggie 2012-01-04 22:39

You missed the point. It was that a person who represents everything that the right wing finds evil wrote something that they are touting as being sacred.

+14 # kbarrand 2012-01-04 20:27

He's in the wrong race. He should run for Pope.

+10 # giraffee2012 2012-01-04 22:01

While the "RIGHT" (Evangelicals or whatever) want these laws about abortion, no gay rights, etc., I think we should add to these "new laws" this one: No one in the pulpit can preach "politics" - (And I think there was - or was going to be - a law to this effect about 10 years ago!

The rest of this is "tongue in cheek" although not a proficient humorist:

Some people "believe" all they learn in church in the same way a child "believes" a parent (until the child grows up and runs like the wind from that parent)

While we're at making these "insane" laws - how about making a drunk parent "pay huge fines" if found parenting while using!

I've thought of many of these same laws that should NEVER be legislated by government.

+20 # Texas Aggie 2012-01-04 22:37

His daughter made the comment once that he was opposed to gays because they were trying to impose their agenda on the American public. I doubt very much if either she or her father recognize the irony here. Authoritarian types are generally blind to their own faults (The Authoritarian Specter, Robert Altemeyer, chap 5)

+8 # Texas Aggie 2012-01-04 22:47

How can you mention sex and Santorum without commenting on froth? Jon Stewart's comparison of the republican party to a box of chocolates is well worth watching.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-3-2012/indecision-2012---romspringa---rick-santorum-s-surge

-41 # Celtic1967 2012-01-04 22:48

I thought people on this web-site would be
somewhat reasonable and thoughtful and not
given to screeds. However, that seems to not be the case.

In your own situation - do you or do you not have a choice over whether you wish to engage in procreative activities.
If you do but do not want to have child then it is up to you to use self control.
Take every means to ensure that you do not become pregnant.
However, if you do become pregnant then
it is your responsibility to bear the child. If you do not want to raise the child then give it up for adoption.

Santorum may be on to a simple truth -
abhorrent as it may be to self proclaimed Progressives - using contraceptives can lead to misusing your
body.

The government has no right to use anyone's tax dollars to pay for contraceptives or abortions.

Your choice to have procreative activity
your choice to accept the consequences.

What is so difficult to understand about
accepting responsibility ?

+18 # CL38 2012-01-05 07:56

Who the hell are you to dictate to others what their responsibilitie s are or how to handle and make decisions about children, sex and procreation???

BTW, it isn't contraception that leads to "misusing your body", whatever you mean by that. It's the person's self-destructiv e decision-making .

The NRA is fond of saying it isn't the gun that kills, it's the person.

The right is much too fond of trying to have it all ways, all the time.

Make your life choices and decisions. Others have the right to make their own. Back off.

+4 # dkonstruction 2012-01-06 09:01

why is my only option to use "self-control". ...can't i just spill the seed of my fruit on the kitchen table or microwave since the good book only prohibits me from spilling it on the ground? and, what about anal sex? don't remember seeing anything about though shalt not...can't you folks be a little more creative...i mean you may only want to have sex once a year but what about the rest of us?

+4 # Pickwicky 2012-01-06 15:03

Well, Celtic, there's certainly nothing difficult in understanding someone who persists in using the phrase "procreative activity" for SEX.

Also, what if bearing the child--the result of that dreary process of 'procreative activity'--will cause the mother's death? Some pregnancies result in the death of the mother--you are aware of this.

One last thought: try 'misusing your body' just a bit now and then.

+17 # Interested Observer 2012-01-04 23:40

Quoting Robt Eagle:

Krugman, you are an economist...what the hell are you commenting on this for?

Using that logic, Robt Eagle should probably refrain from commenting about anything, ever.

+6 # Pickwicky 2012-01-06 15:05

Interested Observer---BRAV O.

+16 # angelfish 2012-01-05 01:57

Ever notice how the ReTHUGs are EVER so intrusive into other peoples bedroom activities and want to monitor and regulate as much of it as they can? What's up with that, do you think? They abhor and condemn any and all forms of family planning efforts by the populace, yet they don't want to take care of the poor, sick or homeless, (the MAJORITY of whom are infants and minor children) after they're here. Hmmmmm? They are of the "Are there no Prisons, are there no Workhouses?" school of of Social Engineering, in other words, NONE! Root hog, or DIE! Survival of the fittest and whoever dies with the most toys WINS in their World! Sad Souls, really. This is the depths to which the former Party of Lincoln has sunk. Remember and vote Democratic on Election Day! The People, UNITED will NEVER be defeated!

+17 # Barbara N Shabo RN 2012-01-05 03:58

Santorum's views reflect the American version of the Taliban. Scary!

+15 # Barbara N Shabo RN 2012-01-05 03:59

This is our American Taliban.

+18 # RMDC 2012-01-05 08:42

Almost all conservatives oppose the Griswald v. Connecticut decision that made laws against contraceptive devices unconstitutioni al. Their reason is both what Sanitorum said about licensing unnatural sex acts but also because the basis for the supreme court decision was that the constitution guarantees a right to privacy. Conservatives can't come out and say they are against privacy so they conceal in under an opposition to Griswald. They would like to have Griswald overturned and the landmark case establishing privacy abolished.

Privacy is the enemy of the totalitarian impulse behind conservatives. That is why they have been so energetic in setting up surveillance programs for all electronic communications. This is a new area and they can get away with it. Conservatives hate individuals because they do random and unpredictable things. They prefer the uniformity of the military -- people who have been scrupulously brainwashed to be as close to replicants and they can be. When vets dissent, it drives them crazy.

Santorum is only the most outspoken of the totalitarians.

+15 # ABen 2012-01-05 08:49

I am continually struck at how much the Rethugs are interested in what goes on in private bedrooms. It would seem there is rather nasty pathology at work here. NEVER follow anyone who claims to speak for the Divine.

+5 # wwway 2012-01-05 16:08

ABen,
I agree with the observation that all those religious nuts are absolutely obsessed with sex. I've also observed that those who preach the hardest are the biggest hypocrits. Next we'll find out that Santorum's been entering the secret door of his favorite brothel.

+6 # RICHARDKANEpa 2012-01-05 16:36

Abortion troubles me, but I can't bring myself to see a morning after pill as murder. However some people who call themselves pro-life are just mean. Santorum wants to help poor people fight obesity by cutting food-stamps, teach self-reliance by ending welfare, and renounces “hardhearted” Ron Paul foreign policies because the people of the world especially in the middle east and Israel need our help.

I want Pope and the Catholic Church to excommunicate Rick Santorum, I want the Mormon Church to order Romney to stop going against the church leadership on immigration and stop insulting Hispanic Mormons.

+12 # JohnnyK 2012-01-05 18:12

This just proves that Santorum is more Bat shit crazy than Bachman.

Keep the politisions out of our bed rooms.

-14 # Celtic1967 2012-01-05 20:12

Dear CL38 and all the others who gave me a
"Thumbs Down".

Do you really think that using contraceptives like the Pill or the
"Morning After Pill" are healthy for your
body ?

Using contraceptives is not unlike being
a Sexual Anorexic.

Why should a baby in your womb have to suffer a cruel death because you want
pleasures without bearing responsibility.

As for "Who the Hell" am I to hold anyone
responsible, I don't - you do - inside your own heart - that is why your comment was so bitter and slashing.

No one has the right to kill anyone,
especially the most innocent among us.
But if we, you, I will kill a baby in the
womb what is there that we will not do ?

What is so wrong with Adoption over Abortion ?

+8 # X Dane 2012-01-05 23:10

Celtic1967, What century are you in????
It is 2012!.....if you want to "engage in procreative activities" Wow how convoluted can you be.

In this century we simply say if you want to make love.
Like many very religious people, you sound as if it is dirty? It is perfectly normal, healthy and wonderful when you love someone.

If you are under a doctor's care "the pill" is certainly safe. I was on it for many years because my husband and I wanted to be in control of how many children we had, so we could give them a good life and an education.

I am certainly not a Sexual anorexic. You are indeed in the wrong century.
You sound terribly repressed, I am sorry for you.

+8 # dkonstruction 2012-01-06 09:06

Do sexual anorexic's shove their fingers down their throat to make them vomit before or after climax?

+8 # Pickwicky 2012-01-06 15:22

Celtic--please research your subject. Most abortions are done in the first or second month before the fetus has developed the nerve connections or conscious ability to feel. Further, A fetus is not a baby. Most importantly, if you're really worried about the health of women--and I seriously doubt it--then you must believe that pregnancy is healthy for a woman. Look up the many and sometimes mortal risks. For crissakes, inform yourself.

+10 # RICHARDKANEpa 2012-01-05 22:37

Almost everyone here is arguing choice, but there is also desperation. One more mouth to feed could mean the entire family more malnourished. If a baby is locked in a car near work because a working poor mother must go to work unexpectedly or risk losing her job then end up in jail for it with her other kids in foster care, those in Pennsylvania who just made abortions more expensive shouldn't be proud of themselves for saving a life for a few months. Anyway to stop being theoretical, I hope celtic1967 you can realize there are more abortions in this world because Santorum is active politically than if he wasn't. To say nothing about all the wars he wants where people one way or another will die from,

http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/28-28/9125-house-of-horrors-is-the-solution-punishment-or-better-service

+10 # carolk 2012-01-06 00:47

Not to worry. Santorum's anti-contracept ion notion is political suicide. Hardly any woman would vote for him. We care about the health of the earth, as well as the health of the children we are able to care for.

+6 # mwd870 2012-01-06 09:38

Exactly. Santorum could never win the general election spewing this religious and moral pablum.

Santorum's or anyone else's religious convictions or personal views on sexual morality are irrelevant in the context of a political election. Santorum may be pandering to certain constituents, but they should be able to understand that interfering in people's private lives has nothing to do with effectively governing the nation. Sad for them if they don't.

+7 # the walrus 2012-01-06 19:22

Barbara K and all you other women commenting on the notion that a woman's body is hers to do with as she wishes. If you really DO believe this....as I do as a MAN.....then PLEASE stop voting for these republicans and libertarians. THey are ANTI WOMAN and they always have been. I know the dems are no saviors; but they ARE on your side. PLEASE VOTE OUT these right-wing christian republicans and LET'S GET ON with the business of re-making this great country of ours!

+4 # X Dane 2012-01-07 01:17

You are so right Walrus, but I think that most of the women who wote republican believe like Santorum. Phyllis Schaffley and her fanatic Right to life "gang" are just as awful. I have seen them on TV sometimes, the insanity is shining in their eyes. Scary.

+1 # Barbara K 2012-01-08 20:43

Walrus, just to set the record straight, I vote Straight Democratic. I wouldn't vote for any of the crazies running on the other side now or ever.

NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN !!

our future and livelihood are at stake

0 # boudreaux 2012-01-13 09:50

Quoting Barbara K:

Walrus, just to set the record straight, I vote Straight Democratic. I wouldn't vote for any of the crazies running on the other side now or ever.

NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN !!

our future and livelihood are at stake

I think this is the second time that you have had to tell old rubber ass Walrus this and since he isn't listening to us, (I am a woman) then he should just butt out of our conversations, they aren't meant for him b/c he is blind to what is really going on for women, him being a ( man ), and should find someone with like idea's, (maybe another man) to listen to him. I being a woman know more about the issues with women than he will ever know.

+4 # Anastasia 2012-01-07 03:40

Government is too big to fit inside a womans uterus...Did'nt Rick get the memo from the tea party?

0 # RICHARDKANEpa 2012-01-07 09:16

It's rare these days for things to be discussed on the Internet, anyone who goes against the grain is hounded and insulted. Everything on Readers Supported News is per-screened to keep the hate and profanity out. This can be ridiculous such as when talking about the underpants bomb, I mentioned that al Qaeda killed someone with an a-- ---- bomb, [where airport security would have to reach inside a person to detect.]
However I am afraid that “X Dane” silenced “Celtic1967” Celtic 1967 has a right to her opinions. I hope you apologize to keep the discussion going instead of every one Preaching to the Choir like in other blogs. By the way Citizens United for Separation of Church and State actually invites speakers from opposing viewpoints to have a debate with.

0 # X Dane 2012-01-08 13:28

Richardkane I have no intention of silencing anybody, but I sure question the views of Celtic. Using contraceptives is like being an anorexic??? I would say It gives you FREEDOM from WORRYING about an unwanted pregnancy.

And the morning after pill is perfectly safe, and a blessing for a woman, who does not have to have a baby, she may not be able to care for, or have an abortion, which is a difficult choise.

What Celtic also seems to say is: don't have procreative activity if you don't want to have a baby??? That is old fashioned repression. A satisfying sexlife, is important for your overall health and mental well being.

It sounds...to me..as if Celtic wants to take women back a hundred years

I just checked my comments to Celtic. There was nothing to "silence" him or her. That would be presumptive, and I sure would not shut up anybody here. But QUEWSTION some of the remarks I feel free to do. There are some REALLY strange opinions expressed at times.
(and some ARE hateful Richard)

+3 # cypress72 2012-01-07 19:50

Santorum is way, way too socially conservative to ever get elected President. Don't get so apoplectic about it. But by the way, if women truly own their bodies, why is there such a stigma assoicated with prostitution???

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.