If you think the debate over abortion in this country has gone forever, consider the one over birth control. Eight years before Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not block access to birth control. The court wrote in Griswold vs. Connecticut that birth control was part of marital privacy.
Nearly half a century later, birth control remains a live and disputed issue, especially in Republican politics. On Friday in New Hampshire, Senator Rick Santorum told the kids and families at the Dublin School in New Hampshire:
This was the Griswold vs. Connecticut case which I was asked about, which created a new constitutional right, which in my opinion is judicial activism, just like Roe vs. Wade was judicial activism, just like the Kelo decision was judicial activism, which is a group of people creating rights in the Constitution that don't exist. We have a way to create new rights. And that way is through the constitutional amendment process. I don't know how any reasonable person can say that the founders intended a right to an abortion in the Constitution when they wrote it. I mean, it would be beyond fantasy to think that that's what the writing of that constitutional document meant. So, if the Supreme Court wants to change things, then what they should is, you know, we write papers about it and say we think this is a bad idea, but it's up to the people to make these decisions, and so with respect to contraception, I think the Griswold decision was wrong. I don't care whether it was about contraception or anything else. It was just creating a right that didn't exist.
On the surface, Mr. Santorum sounds like he's again making a small-government argument -- like he's saying the Supreme Court outgrew its britches on that one. After hearing his answer when Rachel asked him about it after the show on Friday, I'm not sure that's all of it. More on the show tonight.
Thanks to Mark Dunau and Richard Moran of Don'tSubmit.org for sending the video above.
Leave a Comment:
But when his wife's life was endangered by their severely deformed fetus, she would have considered aborting it had she not gone into early labor and delivered in her second trimester. She's on record as saying so. So, double-standard much, Mr. Santorum?
As reported by Daily Kos:
Rick Santorum is a bull @!$%#ter. He knows that the wealth is already unjustly distributed and the top 10% of the country (and that includes the top 1% and their heirs) keeps controlling the wealth. 20% of the population already controls 93% of the financial wealth and the bottom 80% shares the 7% remaining. And never the twine shall meet. So, college degree, marriage or not, that is the unjust distribution of wealth.
Santorum and the rest of the candidates are just keeping their base from rebelling by just giving into their ears promises they will not keep but that their base will not be able to prove. Everybody watch the documentary "the 1%" written and directed by the heir of the Johnson & Johnson fortune.
Out sourcing, H1B visas & refugees are the reason why cuts are being made to the social programs that Americans use. The wealth is being transferred from one program to the other programs. Subsidies being part of that.
"their base" is trailer trash working for minimum wage yet kicking and screaming against Estate Taxes they will never have to pay(the ceiling starts at over a million bucks-two if you are married). Their base has no idea what a birth certificate looks like when they see it. Their base thinks man rode dinosaurs and serpents talk. Their base love guns yet they keep shooting themselves in the foot by echoing what FOX and these dead head candidates say. Their base are far removed from the human race.(sorry 'bout that I get these urges, ugh)
So,when Karen moved out of the Dr's to be with Santorum,as a single girl did she have available to herself oral contraceptives or birth control? if so then Santorum is then a hypocrit.Today contraceptives are too costly for the poor to buy and that is why Obama's option for free contraceptives is good this day and time.
Those kids don't appear to be won over by Santorum's arguments.
"This was the Griswold vs. Connecticut case which I was asked about, which created a new constitutional right, which in my opinion is judicial activism, just like Roe vs. Wade was judicial activism, just like the Kelo decision was judicial activism, which is a group of people creating rights in the Constitution that don't exist."
The right to privacy and control over one's family life was not "created" but was already there. That was the POINT of the various Griswold opinions, including conservative Harlan. Roe also noted the right to privacy was cited back to the 19th Century. Kelo upheld legislative judgment. What "right" was "created" there, exactly?
Agreed 100%. And not only that, I believe that the writers of the Constitution did intend that there is a right to abortion. Maybe not In those exact words, but they certainly believed that it was a woman's decision and the rest of us need to mind our own business (right to privacy). Certainly just because the exact words aren't in there doesn't mean that the meaning is not there. EX., there is nothing in the Constitution about eminent domain for an airport. But the intent is there.
In the founding father's day, abortion was a non-issue. IT DID EXIST. In fact, it did not become illegal because fetuses had a right to life, but because as a medical procedure it was very risky. In 1880s New York, the body of the daughter of a tailor was found mutilated in the East River. It was a sensational crime. She was a nice girl, known by many from working in her father's shop. She had been so brutilized that it was thought to have been a whole band of thugs who had raped her. In fact, it was later discovered, she bled to death from a badly performed abortion. Abortion became illegal to protect women from hack & quack doctors, not to protect the unborn.
In the founding father's day, abortion was a non-issue. IT DID EXIST. In fact, it did not become illegal because fetuses had a right to life, but because as a medical procedure it was very risky. In 1880s New York, the body of the daughter of a tailor was found mutilated in the East River. It was a sensational crime. She was a nice girl, known by many from working in her father's shop. She had been so brutilized that it was thought to have been a whole band of thugs who had raped her. In fact, it was later discovered, she bled to death from a badly performed abortion. Abortion became illegal to protect women from hack & quack doctors, not to protect the unborn.
why is it that Men feel they have a right to make decisions about the Females body? I know one good way of Birth Control keep your legs crossed ladies!
It's so nice that Santorum is making the effort to educate people about the ignorance of "conservatives" such as himself. And not just normal ignorance, the kind that can be cured with information; but willful ignorance, the kind that actively resists education.
Take this nonsense about creating rights. Recall that line from the Declaration of Independence, which says "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." At the time of the founding of the republic, rights were thought of as being natural rights. You could think of rights as being derived from God, or natural laws or just simply as an inevitable part of being human. Rights exist. Period. A proper understanding of natural-rights democracy would lead a person to believe that rights may neither be created nor destroyed. They can be only recognized and protected, or recognized and repressed. In this view, rights are not defined by the Constitution at all. And, in fact, this view is in the Constitution, in the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." But disparaging rights not enumerated in the Constitution is exactly what Santorum and his kind are doing. And by disparaging these rights, Santorum demonstrates both ignorance and contempt for our national origins, the ideas and ideals on which the nation was founded, and for the actual text of the Constitution.
Like I said, it's a valuable service he is performing.
Also, isn't kind of amazing (and disgusting) that while "conservatives" are so enamored of personal liberty in the abstract, yet are so quick to dismiss the existence of particular rights when named and identified?
In the early 60s I remember when abortion was illegal. And there were always in the news of young women that tried to abort the baby themselves using a coat hanger. And not knowing how to work that they were often found in the bathrooms, even in public bathrooms dead of blood loss. Sometime a butcher, unscrupulous doctor was involved which no one accused. It was an opportunity to make an illegal buck. Every time this country have made something illegal it does not discourage but it encourages criminal behavior and therefore Government will need an agency to deal with that. Isn't that what the GOP is trying to avoid? Government growth?
No, hon, actually the Republican Party is trying to avoid people having the determination to live their lives as human beings (especially women!) They don't give a tinker's dam about the size of government especially since they want to turn even the definitiion of a human being into a fertilized ovum.
Which then begs the question, if a human being is a human being from inception, then also every animal that is in a pregnant state is also 2 animals and if you terminate the parent you are guilty of inhumane treatmenttoward the cub. Goes for fish, too. How can Republicans appreciate their caviar if they admit they are eating live fish? I think even Roberts, Thomas and Scalia would have a problem with this one, though we may have the chance to find our.
Hey!!! I just had a great idea!
Since the Republicans are so worried about the sin and punishment of women, how about if those caring and considerate gentlemen offer to save them from the problem by simply cutting off the offending member? Since it takes two to create a child, and they seem to ignore that point, it seems appropriate to me to remove the item that causes the issue in the first place.
Calm down fellas, I'm being sarcastic. Besides the only ones that need trimming are the Republicans that are so offended about women that have rights to the defense of their own bodies.
I can't understand why in their opinion it is always the woman's fault, while there is no onus on the men that are part and parcel of the issue. Maybe in fairness we should initiate a constitutional amendment that in any case of unwanted pregnancy the woman should carry the baby full term and have a hysterectomy after the birth and the male should be emasculated so he can provide no further unwanted babies? At least there is some fairness in that the woman wouldn't be the only one to bear the pain. Try that one on for size, my Republican friends.
I look forward to the debate on "personhood" and rights.
I cannot understand how the SCOTUS came to the decision (5-4) that corporations are people. I would say breathing would be the determining factor.
I think that is why a fetus is not able to breathe yet, so it cannot live without assistance of either mother or machinery. I have no knowledge of the standards, but I think that is partly why there are reasons for what trimester. I support the well informed decision is ultimately the one who is pregnant and it is not made lightly.
Believe me, I love babies (enjoying a recently born baby in my circle), but I have no right to say you are required to give birth no matter what. There is a right to privacy of a breathing person to ultimately decide.
It is not up to me to force a woman to give birth and that is what the law would say. Then we would have the deadly types anyway. There is much talk of forcing in the Libertarian/Republican mind regarding taxes, but this is truly government boot heel on the neck if there ever was one.
The missing and essential phrase is "Substantive Due Process," and we need a president who will appoint Justices who understand it.
It would be nice if our President could make any of his appointments without having to make a recess appointment because the Republicans are going to obstruct anything he tries to do for our citizens.
Until we get the Republicans into a minority status in our government, we won't have any rights, judicial or constitutional.
But that doesn't make any sense. The Supreme Court in "Love vs. the Commonwealth of Virginia" made it legal for interracial couples to marry. If you put that to a vote, even today, that decision would be overturned. So--according to his logic--people should have to live their lives based on the ignorance and prejudice of others. He's an idiot.
Oh, I wish someone would ask him about that one.
Did Santorum ever consider that the right to privacy exists?
Ask him who his donors are and see.
Only for himself and his family. Not for the rest of us.
He has his right to his opinions but I'd like to know what he would do about it if elected.
Does he believe the government should waste its time adding a contraception amendment to the constitution?
This is just weird to me. What the founders would think is totally irrelevant. They're dead. They're not Jesus. The main thing the founders intended was to create a government that could change to fit the needs of the people.
But lets talk about what childbirth was like in 1776. Lets talk about infant and maternal death rates in the Colonial period.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/childbirth.cfm
yes, I also wonder if the Founders thought about Corporations being people or worrying about air pollution due to automobiles & airplanes... Wonder what will happen when we have a few hundred Duggar families looking for government assistance under his logic!? The Right continues to baffle with their outright stupidity...
Even if abortion wasn't in anyone's mind during the Convention of 1787, the addition of the 9th Amendment makes up for the oversight.
well..then.. as soon as we overturn citizen's united through the amendment process we'll get to work on the amendment 'to protect womens' health from government intrusion and coercion.' or the right to frickin decide for ourselves, thank-you-very-much! (that's not appropriate amendment languate (fyi)...
I noticed that, but it is still good!!!
Please remember, Mr. Santorum is a rabid Catholic, a religion that does not believe in any outside method of birth control. He has his own beliefs and there's nothing wrong with those beliefs. What IS wrong, however, is that he's out to make the laws fit his beliefs and then force those laws (and his beliefs) on all Americans, regardless of how their beliefs may not agree with his. And that's how he thinks. I do not agree in any way, shape, or form, with Mr. Santorum. Our country will fail rapidly if he is elected as President.
Sadly, this applies this to all of the Republican candidates, not just Santorum.
I too am a Catholic, but when it came to how many children my husband and I wanted and WHEN we wanted to start our family, it was OUR choice, not the clergy's! Based on the size of most families today among Catholics, I believe it still is a personal choice, birth control is used, and no one is cranking out large numbers of children because the priests in the parishes or the Pope himself says otherwise.
Santorum is doing everything in his power to dial down, while not retreating from, his social conservative stance. What he claims is "small government" is actually a huge intrusion by "big government" to determine what is moral and ethical inside every citizen's bedroom. He can step around it and reword it however he likes, it doesn't change what his end goal really is, to ban contraception and overturn Roe vs. Wade (among many other fanatical ideas).
In the 1700's no one knew what abortion or contraception even was so WTF is Santorum talking about ?
Back then they married off their daughters at 13 too lest they get pregnant and shame the family. Is that Santorum's vision for America?
Bill
They knew what abortion was and contraception too in the 18th century. There was nothing against either practice amongst Protestants at least.
If, as some believe, 21st century US is to be governed by a document written in the 18th century, Congress would spend a whole lot of time amending the Constitution. We all recognize that Congress doesn't have the time to do so while it's first priority is raising money for campaigns and making the other party look bad through nothing less than misstatements and propaganda. So what's the answer? An amendment to the Constitution delgating additional decicsion-making authority to elected representatives? God help us with that approach...
Santorum is just looney-tunes. He's also stated that Massachusetts liberalism caused Catholic priests to sexually abuse children; ignoring the plethora of abuse cases outside of Massachusetts, and the role that 'bleeding-heart liberal' Catholic leaders like Cardinal Bernard Law played in covering up the abuse.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/01/05/in-nh-rick-santorum-takes-exception-to-priest-sex-abuse-question/
Please don't insult Bugs, Daffy and Elmer! They are Looney Tunes, Santorum is just plain nuts.
As for the kids who were sexually assaulted (and raped) by Catholic priests, I think that the mandatory vow of celibacy is more to blame than any sort of cultural liberalism, whether it is in Massachusetts, Oregon, Illinois or any other place.
This should have never been issues for the Government to get involved with. They are deeply personal. The Roman Catholic Church has over stepped its bounds and now they have Santorum, to spread their doctrine into our government. Catholic Charities went to Congress for money. Santorum eviscerated Obama for not allowing an institution that discriminates against gays from using tax payer money to fund them..Influencing our policy, laws and Constitution, by a religious institutions ...isn't permitted, we have separation of Church and State. Yet, this Church believes, it has the right to impose their doctrine on a secular society, in a foreign country. They are zealots..who are like a dog with a bone. The Roman Catholic Church should clean up its own back yard and get out of our lives...
Santorum and the Republicans complain about strict construction when it comes to decisions they do not like. But they are willing to overlook strict construction on the issues they do like. The common law and Constitution have long recognized the inviolability of the person and property unless provided by law. That is where the right of privacy stems. The Constitution is a document expressed in broad language as the outlines of government and our rights. It needs to be reinterpreted to meet the needs of a modern society; it is not set in cement nor should it be given a literal interpretation.
I am tired of the abortion debate. Men do not have the right to force women to have a child. The republicans need to go into the inner city and see how the use of no birth control works. I am sick and tired of men who are against birth control and abortion. They are not the ones who suffer the women suffer and the unwanted or unplanned children. They need to go into the inner city and see the suffering. Let's focus on the lives that are already here and educate them about birth control not just abstinence and stop adding more misery to this country. Adopt the children from the inner city and foster care kids I did. We need to move this country forward sex education is necessary birth control is necessary. Those two things combined lower the rate of abortions. Too be a productive and progressive nation we need to stop fighting about these things. All children should be born wanted and loved and into a world where the parents are able to provide and care for them.
I totally agree with you on some points.However,when it comes to adoptions I disagree.I have no use for adoption what so ever,nor do I support CPS either.there are over 80,000 children in the system and growing.We tax payer's have to pay for that.CPS gets all of funding we pay to buy themselves,fancy homes,cars and trips to where they want all at the expense of the unwanted children.If adopted, adoption Agencies and CPS gets more money from the Government(paid by tax payer's) and adoptive parents.It's a win,win situation for A.A and CPS(all about the money). With no births(no babies or children) they loose money from tax payer's.
When Mr. Santorum is spouting off about these things he is simply preaching the views and doctrines of the Catholic Church. Not everyone in this country is Catholic and should not be held to their religious beliefs. They also teach that if there is an incident where it comes to the life of the mother or the child, the child should be saved. Maybe Mrs. Santorum would have had a different idea.
The Catholic Church used to ban any kind of surgery, because cutting open a human being, made in the image of God, would be sacrilegious.
More than half of all Catholics use birth control and disagree with the Church's pronouncements on birth control. Many also disagree with the abortion stance of the Catholic Church. If Santorum is betting on a big Catholic vote for him, it is not going to happen.
Disaffected NH Dems, Here's Your Chance
The following is the text of today's endorsement of Darcy Richardson's presidential campaign by the New Progressive Alliance. Click here to see the NPA website.
Let the party know you're pissed. Vote Darcy Richardson.
And not just because Richardson is what Obama is not: An actual Progressive. Richardson has endorsed the Unified Progressive Platform, a document assembling the ideals of two legacy and four current Progressive organizations. That platform, written and ratified last summer, is only the first hurdle to gaining the NPA's endorsement.
Richardson's courage deserves your support. A longtime electoral activist who believes we deserve more than the two rancid, illusory "choices" the military industrial complex deigns to allow voters every four years, Richardson earns props as a true illuminator of the just-described kabuki. He began working to awaken the "99 percent" 30 years before that term was minted, as a candidate of the Philadelphia-based Consumer Party.
The NPA is proud to give Darcy Richardson our highest endorsement. We strongly encourage voters in New Hampshire to give him theirs as well, this Tuesday, January 10.
Quoting Judge Louis Brandeis, "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." In the 2012 Democratic primaries, Darcy Richardson is the best way for Democrats sick of the past three - and 30 - years' needless compromises to register their dissent. Voters in Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Louisiana take note: Richardson is on the primary ballot in your states, too. And working even now to get on the ballot in Wisconsin.
THIS IS WHAT ELECTORAL DISSENT LOOKS LIKE!
READ MORE AND COMMENT HERE
Please visit the campaign website at Darcy2012.com and give your most generous contribution to help us continue offering Democrats a REAL choice.
You can donate via secure online form with your credit card. And, you have my word that every single dollar we raise will go towards our ballot access drive.
We have a President that is a very good President. I don't know the first thing about someone named Darcy Richardson, but I do know the meaning of the word spoiler. A pox on your program
Privacy and physical integrity are implied inherent (inalienable) rights which need not be granted to us by any law or document. Just like the right to walk freely upon the planet, breathe the air, drink the water, and speak our minds. The founders knew this. Subsequent court cases involving privacy confirm it. We have a right to do with our bodies what we feel is right, freely, without interference or seizure from government or religion. All medical and family decisions are private. It's only religious zealots who would like to pick and choose them for us.
The Constitution set forth the means of Governance. It's Bill of Rights set up the basic tenants. Remember not to confuse the Constitution with it's amendments which were written later in accordance with the rules of Governance. Amendments are ratified by the states. They can be repealed as was prohibition.
One thing the writers of the Constitution did address, is the subject of when to recognize a person. And the answer is unambiguous: The Constitution recognizes the person at birth. Period. At birth. Citizenship and all rights pertaining thereto are established at birth, not before.
Er, Mr. Santorum, excuse me for asking, but do you think the Founding Fathers, by not expressly granting the right to contraception, intended to forbid contraception? I don't know how any reasonable person can say that the founders intended to deny a woman her right to choose in the Constitution when they wrote it.
I don't want Santorum anywhere near my lady bits!
If you and your partner don't want to use contraception, fine. That's your right, but it's not any of your business, Mr. "Small Government" Santorum if others want to enjoy safe and consensual relations with one another. Nor should it be.
I'm getting really sick of the evangelical right thinking they should rule the country/world. If you want to be a spritual leader, become a minister or priest. If you want to lead a country that was founded on religious freedom and certain inalienable rights, with separation from church - THEN you can be a politician.
Vote.
In every election, with wisdom and discretion. But no matter what, VOTE!!!!!!
Oh, trust me on that - I never miss an opportunity to get or keep Repubs out of office. And if Santorum thinks Roe v. Wade and Griswold were activist judges, what does he think about Citizens United? The courts CAN make law through their decisions where no legal precedent exists and the law as written is ambiguous or unclear. That's the beauty of the balance of power among the three branches of government. But I'm sure that's lost on people like Santorum, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann (God rest her soul). Hey Michele - congrats on being a ZERO TERM PRESIDENT.