Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Santorum v. Griswald

Posted by on Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 9:13 AM

In 1961 Estelle Griswold was arrested for giving contraception to a married couple in Connecticut. Background on Griswold here. An op-ed I wrote on Griswold in 2005 here. Irin Carmen draws voters a picture at Salon:

It’s pretty basic: Rick Santorum is coming for your contraception. Any and all of it. And while he may not be alone in his opposition to non-procreative sex, he is certainly the most honest about it — as he himself acknowledged in the interview.

This is important, because while reproductive rights are always cast in terms of pro or against a woman’s right to an abortion and in what circumstances, even liberals are surprised to find out what social conservatives really want to do about contraception. Liberals are even willing to cast the proposed defunding of Planned Parenthood and all Title X programs (a position that has become mainstream in Republican circles) as an abortion issue, when it is actually about contraception. (The Hyde Amendment already bans almost all federal abortion funding.) So is this about “babies” or is this about sex? Rick Santorum isn’t even pretending it’s (only) about childbearing.

Speaking to ABC News’ Jake Tapper, Santorum recently reaffirmed his opposition to Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court decision that struck down a ban on discussing or providing contraception to married couples, and established a right to privacy that would later be integral to Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas. (It is generally better-known how Santorum feels about gay people.) That would be the case where the majority asked, “Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.” Rick Santorum disagrees. He thinks, using the currently popular states’ rights parlance, that “the state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have.” This is a view Santorum has held at least since 2003.

Ninety-nine percent of American women have used birth control... and most of them are using it with American men, so, you know, there's that. But Santorum is a devout Catholic—which means he goes to mass weekly, doesn't use birth control, and has committed adultery with Newt Gingrich—so maybe he should get a pass on his obsession with Griswold since American Catholics don't use birth control. Tell that to the 98% of sexually active Catholics who use birth control—including, presumably, America's most famous "devout Catholic," Callista Gingrich.

 

Comments (74) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
To say nothing of the increase in STDs such a policy would cause. What would be next? Deportation for HIV? Jail time for the clap? Death penalty for crabs (all men must now be waxed)?

Posted by OldFiddler on January 8, 2012 at 9:43 AM · Report this
2
He's not going to get anywhere with this. The pill is too big a revenue generator for pharmaceutical companies. If he seriously starts attempting to ban contraceptives, they will pour money into the coffers of any candidate with a chance to beat him.
Posted by Delafina on January 8, 2012 at 9:51 AM · Report this
3
!!! that's insane! I am so glad I live in the UK where contraception is (condoms, pills, iuds, implants and even a thermometer if you want to use the rhythm method!) available completely free via your doctor or a family planning clinic :0) Tell me there isn;t really a serious possibility that this idiot could be the next president? he sounds like a bad joke!
Posted by UK girlie on January 8, 2012 at 9:52 AM · Report this
Doctor Memory 4
@3: there is no possibility whatsoever that Santorum will even be the nominee, nevermind the next president. He's getting media time now due to the insane vagaries of the Iowa GOP caucus rules and the generally awful slate of Republican candidates. He's going to get crushed in New Hampshire and that will be the end of it.
Posted by Doctor Memory http://blahg.blank.org on January 8, 2012 at 10:05 AM · Report this
5
Does he have a fuckload of children? If not, then he has used contraception at some point.
Posted by sahara29 on January 8, 2012 at 10:08 AM · Report this
6
In their more honest moments I think social conservatives like Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann would admit that they have an anti-extramarital orgasm agenda. Take away condoms, fleshlights, and vibrators. Make oral and anal sex felonies. Stigmatize single parenthood and divorce. All that gives young people a powerful incentive to get married and stay married. Bachmann and Santorum would argue that this is a legitimate public policy objective. They would point it that a large part of what keeps African-Americans mired in poverty is the large number of children born out of wedlock.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 8, 2012 at 10:14 AM · Report this
7
@5 He does have seven children. Six living, one deceased. Like Michelle Bachmann, I think we can give him credit for walking the walk as well as talking the talk.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 8, 2012 at 10:18 AM · Report this
Gern Blanston 8
Did he really say "statues" when the correct term is "statutes?" That should disqualify him to be president right there.
Posted by Gern Blanston on January 8, 2012 at 10:19 AM · Report this
9
yes, he has a fuckload of children. Well, six, plus one deceased, which is a fuckload of children for any modern society with access to healthcare, education, contraception and women's rights.

This should give you a good idea about Santorum's attitutudes towards the phrases "modern society", "healthcare", "education", "contraception" and "women's rights". 14th century, here we come!
Posted by mlb on January 8, 2012 at 10:26 AM · Report this
10
@ 4 Sure won't win in NH but Santorum is rishing (hee hee) in SC and who knows how these primaries end up, still doesn't look like he would win in the general.
Posted by Democrat1234 on January 8, 2012 at 10:26 AM · Report this
COMTE 11
Assuming you're correct @6, how does criminalizing contraception HELP poor people (African American or otherwise)?

And I would take this one step farther Dan. People like Bachmann & Santorum aren't just anti-abortion and anti-contraception, they're anti-SEX, period. Somehow they've gotten it into their pointy little heads that their God frowns upon non-procreative sex out of wedlock, and therefore any OTHER form of sex not performed by married couples for the purpose of making babies is immoral, and should be prohibited by force-of-law.

Hell, if they had their way, they'd put cameras in every bedroom in America, to make sure even married heterosexual couples weren't "doing it" except during the roughly two weeks per month when the wife is potentially fertile.
Posted by COMTE on January 8, 2012 at 10:30 AM · Report this
rob! 12
Well, in addition to endangering contraception, he's murdering any possibility of a sweater-vest resurgence.
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on January 8, 2012 at 10:31 AM · Report this
markvz 13
It wouldn't surprise me at all if Rick Santorum and his wife have had sex exactly seven times, each time lasting about four seconds before Ricks balls exploded in procreative bliss.
Posted by markvz on January 8, 2012 at 10:34 AM · Report this
this guy I know in Spokane 14
@13 I accept your apology for introducing that image into my brain.
Posted by this guy I know in Spokane on January 8, 2012 at 10:38 AM · Report this
Fnarf 15
When a man spills his seed, the fully-formed humonculuses inside are not given the opportunity to grow inside the mother to our size.

That's the basis of the Catholic prohibition against contraception, anyways; the men who formulated the rule didn't know about "sperm" and "eggs", and would have been appalled at the news. They believed that the only thing a woman supplied to the creation of children was a warm place for the thing to grow; it was already a person.

This view, and thus the Catholic prohibition, is grossly incompatible with modern science. Santorum might as well be demanding that schools stop teaching that the earth revolves around the sun (which wouldn't surprise me, actually).
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on January 8, 2012 at 10:39 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 16
Has anyone ever prodded at his "My premature baby died therefore I really, really, really don't want you to have an abortion" argument? Does that even make sense? They always write about it in such a respectful tone. Like, well, yeah, he's a radical nutball, but his premature baby died. So you know...

I want to know. How come the fact that his premature baby died gives him extra anti-abortion righteousness?

Because you know, with all the advanced prenatal diagnostics and genetic counseling they have now, giving birth to a doomed baby, and all the suffering that entailed for the baby, his other six kids, and of course his wife who had to carry that doomed child, could have been avoided though abortion at an earlier stage.

Some of us have the courage to look squarely at those unhappy choices and take the better route. Instead of irresponsibly standing back and gazing at your navel while you let God decide how much avoidable pain and heartache to dish out to innocent people.

As Commander in Chief, if Sangorum were given the choice between two necessary actions that both lead to some pain and death, could he choose? Or would he stand back and do nothing and wait for God to deal with it? Because military leadership is all about choosing the lesser of two evils, typically in real time. It takes preparation and practice to make the right decision in situations like that. Ask any veteran.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on January 8, 2012 at 10:43 AM · Report this
ferret 17
@7

Santorum doesn't "walk the talk", his wife technically had a late term abortion to save her life. It really goes down if the birth/miscarriage was "spontaneous" or was it "induced", given her doctors told her that her life was at risk in keeping the pregnancy...

He and his wife pretty much tried to get "government handouts" for their children by having Pennsylvania and the local SW Penn school board paying for their children education while living in Virginia. It is just pure hypocrisy. It is okay for Santorum and his family to have the government helped them, but not for the government to help you...

Santorum is just a mean, dumb hypocritical idiot, who deserves his frothy definition in spades.
Posted by ferret http://https://twitter.com/#!/okojo hide on January 8, 2012 at 10:46 AM · Report this
18
"But Santorum is a devout Catholic—which means he goes to mass weekly, doesn't use birth control, and has committed adultery with Newt Gingrich…"

Is that awkwardly phrased, or did I miss a major headline somewhere?
Posted by skyweaver on January 8, 2012 at 10:51 AM · Report this
19
@11 Criminalizing contraception promotes marriage by making it more difficult for single men to get laid. If hetero-marriage is the only way for a guy to get his rocks off, then he has a powerful incentive to get over his commitment anxiety and get hitched.

@17 You may be right, I don't know much about the man.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 8, 2012 at 11:06 AM · Report this
20
@18 Dan is referencing some other versions of the " devout Catholic", as seen in the GOP. Specifically, Callista Gingrich committed adultery with Newt and has never made a baby with him, but is always referred to as a "devout Catholic".

In theory, she and Newt either can't produce children (ZOMG, they can't be married!), or they use birth control.
Posted by Kaliann on January 8, 2012 at 11:22 AM · Report this
rob! 22
You know, despite my flip comment @12, I see something very unnerving in this video clip: the flashes of megalomania that are unleashed as he begins to feel more confident.

People who feel they are god-directed and god-justified are very dangerous indeed. If you think that any of the repressive regimes of the past couldn't happen now because of—what? the existence of the internet?—you are fooling yourselves. Every new election cycle I think the crazies couldn't possibly get any crazier, and I'm always proven wrong.

What I really, really don't get is why the people who swoon for christofascists like Santorum are also so afraid of Islam. It's the same bloody god, if you're into that sort of thing, Muslims like Jesus and circumcision too, and their most reactionary elements are much more experienced in the present day in the fine points of repression and torture. Really, why not just invite the Taliban in? They could cut a deal that still sends some money to the pope.
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on January 8, 2012 at 11:23 AM · Report this
Joe Szilagyi 23
This can be the campaign theme song for Santorum:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvg…
Posted by Joe Szilagyi http://twitter.com/joeszi on January 8, 2012 at 11:29 AM · Report this
24
@4 that's a relief! I'll admit to getting most of my info about american politics via this site and a couple of others with similar subject matter and agenda's, who have all been talking alot about santotum, bachmann, gingrich et al so I have not heard much about saner possible candidates so it all looked a bit mad from this side of the pond...
Posted by UK girlie on January 8, 2012 at 11:33 AM · Report this
25
@17 -- You said, "He and his wife pretty much tried to get "government handouts" for their children by having Pennsylvania and the local SW Penn school board paying for their children education while living in Virginia. It is just pure hypocrisy. It is okay for Santorum and his family to have the government helped them, but not for the government to help you... "

As I understand it, not only did they try to get Pennsylvania to pay for the children's education but several of them were being home schooled at the time and the others were in expensive charter schools. "Hypocrite" isn't nearly as strong as the word I'd choose.
Posted by Calpete on January 8, 2012 at 12:10 PM · Report this
26
the religious right in this country should be exclusively referred to as 'the american taliban.' that is what they are. not values voters, not family blah, blah, blah. they are the american taliban; make no mistake about it.
Posted by philosophy school dropout on January 8, 2012 at 12:13 PM · Report this
COMTE 27
@16:

But that's the entire POINT according to people like Santorum - God decides EVERYTHING; there's no "free will", it's all pre-ordained by Yahweh himself, and ANYTHING we do along the lines of proactive behavior is simply thwarting God's Will (tm).

That's basically the crux of their anti-abortion/anti-contraception argument: God invented sex for procreation, not for pleasure, and using it for the latter is an abomination in the sight of their Lord, because it goes against God's intent. And IF conception happens to occur regardless, then God MEANT for that to happen, and therefore any effort on the woman's part to terminate the pregnancy - for whatever reason - is also an abomination.

That being said, I never see them address the argument that IF everything IS pre-destined, then our "choosing" to act against God's Will (tm) MUST have been pre-ordained as well, and therefore IS God's Will (tm).

Because, I have the feeling that would just makes their head's 'splode in a shower of smoke and sparks, like Capt. Kirk arguing with a computer...
Posted by COMTE on January 8, 2012 at 12:22 PM · Report this
Jennifer Nicole 28
@19 "Criminalizing contraception promotes marriage by making it more difficult for single men to get laid. If hetero-marriage is the only way for a guy to get his rocks off, then he has a powerful incentive to get over his commitment anxiety and get hitched."

And yet if we look at history, a lack of contraception and a social stigma against sex outside marriage mostly only caused upper and middle class women to wait until marriage. More lower class women were hookers, and men from all classes patronized them.

So, yeah, let's criminalize contraception and see where THAT leads...
Posted by Jennifer Nicole http://awakenedaesthetic.com on January 8, 2012 at 12:23 PM · Report this
Tingleyfeeln 29
If his chances of winning elective office and regaining significant political influence are as low as they are, is it fair to say he's coming after anything?
People like this aren't going away any time soon, but we are watching their decline as more serious problems confront all of us. Among the younger generations, there are more people who oppose his beliefs than support them.
Posted by Tingleyfeeln on January 8, 2012 at 12:32 PM · Report this
Bauhaus I 30
Uptight white catholic bastard. Nothing about Roe v. Wade creates a right to an abortion. What it does do is state that an abortion is a private decision to be made by doctor and patient. There is no constitutional right to ban abortions or contraception either, half-wit.

If you don't believe in the right to privacy then let me see how tiny your dick is. I'll try not to retch.
Posted by Bauhaus I on January 8, 2012 at 12:39 PM · Report this
31
You know, when JFK ran people mistrusted him because he was Catholic and people thought he would be beholden to the pope. Now, a large number of Americans don't trust you unless you are a religious wingnut of a Jesus flavor.

We've allowed the two parties to threaten the long-term prospects for American Democracy by focussing their election strategies on single-issue voter blocks, especially when the issue is something that doesn't affect governance, such as DOMA. We should refocus on maintaining a healthy society for the next seven generations, which requires the basics:
Sustainable economy
Sustainable resource use
Sustainable education systems
Sustainable democracy

The approach to maintaining those is debatable (thus the two parties) , but most of us should agree that it's not sustainable for the federal government to be surveilling the personal habits of individual citizens.
Posted by beccoid on January 8, 2012 at 12:41 PM · Report this
scary tyler moore 32
@27: wouldn't it be great if santorum kept saying "error error" faster and faster until he DID explode?

dan, honey, it's GRISWOLD, not GRISWALD in your headline. fix, please.
Posted by scary tyler moore http://pushymcshove.blogspot.com/ on January 8, 2012 at 12:42 PM · Report this
Tim Horton 33
Dan, the op-ed is really a brilliant concept. A constitutional amendment ensuring privacy would end these debates. You would like to hope it would also be a winning political issue, bridging the gap between liberals, libertarians, and even some of the national-review small government type conservatives.

Well played.
Posted by Tim Horton on January 8, 2012 at 1:17 PM · Report this
rob! 34
I agree with your priorities, @31, but the problem is that for christofascists like Santorum, "sustainability" is about trying to bring the christian birth rate up to match the madly breeding muslims and godless heathens so sword can meet sword in the global conflagration they envision (and actually welcome/intend to start, because they think it will bring about god's kingdom on earth). They couldn't care less about careful use of resources or species preservation or environmental protection because god put everything here for our maximal [non-sexual] pleasure and exploitation, in their view, and "he will provide" even if it looks like we've fucked something up beyond repair.

I'm not thrilled about even a mild form of "peace-loving" islam becoming dominant for obvious reasons, but I keep thinking all religion will gradually peter out as science and technology advance.

That, of course, makes me just as vulnerable to the delusion I describe @22.
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on January 8, 2012 at 1:23 PM · Report this
attitude devant 35
23, I kept waiting for SOMEONE to link to this!
Posted by attitude devant on January 8, 2012 at 1:29 PM · Report this
36
There is some debate on whether Karen Santorum's medical procedure can be classified as an abortion, and without the medical records we cannot know.

But Mr Santorum informs us that no one, not even devout Catholic married couples have a right to privacy, so these medical records should be seized and made public.
Posted by DNash on January 8, 2012 at 1:29 PM · Report this
zombie eyes 37
Santorum IS a Christo-Fascist authoritarian skunk. That he's even in the pack, raising bags of cash, being seriously listened to is a testament to the stupidity of the American right-wing.

@19, If you've got some proof, data, statistics or tea leaves to back up your bar room philosiphies let's see them. Your theory is equivilent to claiming that wearing a seatbelt makes one a better driver. Banning contraception will definitely result in the death of women in backstreet abortion clinics, and even more unwanted, unplanned and uncared-for children.
Posted by zombie eyes on January 8, 2012 at 1:36 PM · Report this
38
Who is he to say "how things are supposed to be"? If he means some historical state of humanity, who's to decide the reference time? Go far enough back and a guy like that would have been beaten to death simply for being small and annoying. Or how about we just go back to what would have been considered "traditional" in the Middle East during Jesus' time. There'd be a harem system where a guy like Santorum wouldn't have reproduced at all because he's a weenie. (And all those un-mated guys running around? That's where rape and dock-fucking really come into play.)
Posted by beccoid on January 8, 2012 at 2:06 PM · Report this
39
@37 According to the US Census Bureau in the 1950s 10% of births in the US occurred out of wedlock. By the early 1990s that number had risen to 40%. You can read more about that here:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/doc…

Rick Santorum would argue that this shows that more permissive attitudes about pre-marital sex have resulted in more unwanted, unplanned, and uncared-for children. It is a well established fact that children raised by single mothers are more likely to live in poverty than children raised by married couples.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM · Report this
40
Santorum is so full of santorum. Civil rights are "created", or rather, RECOGNIZED via a country's or State's constitution, charter of rights and freedoms, or legal decisions (i.e. laws); but human rights exist quite independent of these artificial constructs. The founding fathers of America didn't envision that enslaved people or women should have their civil or human rights recognized, but that doesn't mean those people didn't have those rights. The most revolutionary civil and political and philosophical development in all of human history is the notion that individuals have instrinsic rights to life, bodily autonomy, and to not be dominated and exploited, and have the right to resist being coerced or forced or abused by others.

I do hope Americans recognize that Santorum and his lot of xenophobic home-schooling, patriarchy-loving, religious douchebags have turned the Republican party into the party of Fascism.
Posted by ignatz ratzkywatzky on January 8, 2012 at 2:34 PM · Report this
41
@39, this would have to be cross-checked against poverty levels (which are, in my own country, Brazil, a good predictor of the number of single mothers -- much better than simple marriage statistics over time). The correlation you mention -- single mothers and poverty -- is a correlation that could go either way (i.e., poverty might be the cause of a higher number of single mothers rather than single mothers leading to poverty), to say nothing of other possible third factors.

Note that, if changes in permissiveness happened in society as a hole (as you suggest Mr Santorum might claim), one should not expect poverty to be, by itself, a predictor. Unless one for some reason expects the poor to become especially promiscuous -- in which case poverty again looks like a factor, rather than permissiveness per se.

Posted by ankylosaur on January 8, 2012 at 2:36 PM · Report this
42
@6, I think you're right that people like Bachmann and Santorum are really anti-extra-marital orgasm. They would claim that this is because of their religious (I'd rather say sanctimoniious) beliefs. What is surprising to me, however, is the number of people who apparently agree with them in the US. Even after so much time and so many discussions, it seems lots of people think that sex is best left untouched till marriage, and after marriage only with a view to reproduction.
Posted by ankylosaur on January 8, 2012 at 2:39 PM · Report this
43
Wearing a sweater vest is the ultimate male contraceptive.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on January 8, 2012 at 3:07 PM · Report this
44
@41 The '50s was a time of economic prosperity in the United States, but the '30s was not. According to that census study I linked to in my last post the rate of out of wedlock births between 1955 and 1959 was 10%, between 1930 and 1934 it was 8.2%. If single parenthood is caused by poverty shouldn't there have been more of it during the Great Depression?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 8, 2012 at 3:18 PM · Report this
45
#44

My gut says the opposite. When times are good women feel free to explore sex because they can afford their baby if the guy runs out.

That is why the 60s was the age of Free Love.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on January 8, 2012 at 3:33 PM · Report this
46
You folks expend a LOT of emotional energy on a guy with no more chance of becoming president than you have.
Posted by Seattleblues on January 8, 2012 at 3:35 PM · Report this
47
@37

Cool. You read leftist blogs and repeat all the insane catchphrases. Bully for you.

Seriously- Christo-fascist? I mean, that one just makes you look really stupid. When you grow up and move out of the basement you'll look back on that one and cringe.
Posted by Seattleblues on January 8, 2012 at 3:46 PM · Report this
48
However,

Mr. Savage, thanks so much for the de facto admission that you were entirely wrong to turn political opposition to some private jihad. (I know, you really really want Mr. Santorum to return your depraved love for him. He just won't. He's a man, you're a deviant. It isn't going to happen.) 4 or 5 posts attempting to defend your indefensible behavior with regard to a private citizen apparently strikes EVEN YOU as too much, hence the frantic defense.

Methinks the lady doth protest o'er much.
Posted by Seattleblues on January 8, 2012 at 3:56 PM · Report this
balderdash 49
With all the old hatreds in this country, why did we do away with hating Catholics and keep racism and homophobia? Sheesh. I can't believe this fucking clown is JFK's legacy.
Posted by balderdash http://introverse.blogspot.com on January 8, 2012 at 4:10 PM · Report this
50
Ken M - when a practice is illegal, statistics about its prevalence cannot be trusted (unless its effects are extremely easy to detect, such as murder).

That is the case regarding the rate of out of wedlock births in the era when such births stigmatized both mother and child. Such children tended to be "born" to relatives or strangers, or not to be born at all. (You are to consider that contraceptives have brought *down* the rate of actual, as opposed to reported, abortion, for the same reason that abortion is less prevalent in the Netherlands than in the US.)

Now let's assume for the sake of argument your thesis that children being born out of wedlock is an intrinsically bad thing. That would argue for making the prevention and termination of pregnancies legal, easy, and safe, rather than the opposite, wouldn't it? (Note that our "conservatives" who want to recriminalize abortion convenient ignore that it was only criminalized relatively recently - in England that happened in 1803. Kinda puts a different perspective on things, doesn't it?)
Posted by codairem on January 8, 2012 at 4:33 PM · Report this
51
@50 I agree that measuring out of wedlock births is tricky, especially back in the '30s and '40s when children were less likely to be born in hospitals or under the supervision of doctors. I share Mr. Santorum's concern about single parents. However, I think condoms, abortion, and allowing committed same-sex couples to adopt are a better solution than shotgun marriages.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 8, 2012 at 5:37 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 53
@27

Rick Santorum is a Roman Catholic, not a Calvinist Protestant, you ignorant slut. If you're going to criticize these fucks you have to at least learn the rules they're playing by. Read a book or something.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on January 8, 2012 at 5:53 PM · Report this
54
The ninth amendment pretty clearly states that not all our rights are expressly listed. It's there because a number of the founders did not even think we needed a bill of rights out of fear that it would be taken as an exclusive list.

A liberty that does not include control over your own body at the very minimum cannot be called liberty.
Posted by giffy on January 8, 2012 at 5:58 PM · Report this
venomlash 55
@27: Islam actually does address that, curiously enough. There is a hadith in which a few men come to Mohammed with the question of whether it is acceptable to practice contraception via the withdrawal method. He tells them, essentially, that God decides whether or not a child will be born and that they're not capable of interfering with His plans.
Posted by venomlash on January 8, 2012 at 6:11 PM · Report this
56
And there's this lovely new quote from Pope Frothy: "I was so outraged by the President of the United States for standing up and saying every child in America should go to college. Well who are you? ...I mean, the hubris of this president to think that he knows what's best....This is the kind of snobbery that we see from those who think they know how to run our lives. Rise up America, defend your own freedoms. And overthrow these folks who think they know how to orchestrate every aspect of your lives."

I just...can't...
Posted by msfloyd on January 8, 2012 at 6:18 PM · Report this
balderdash 57
@52, and good riddance to it. We can quite well afford to lose an archaic ritual that symbolically - though fortunately no longer quite literally - makes a woman the property of a man. Maybe Dan has to publicly put on a show of wanting to preserve the institution of marriage, but rest assured a lot of us out here just don't give a fuck. We're more concerned with love, and building a strong family, and raising children well, than with any "institution" or the labels that come with it.

And for what it's worth I don't really understand why you think Dan asserts that marriage is "thriving." One of his favorite talking points is that marriage is less popular among young people, and divorce rates remain high, and that since that shows that marriage actually IS in trouble, it's stupid to deny it to people who want it. It's almost like you're, I don't know, just making shit up.
Posted by balderdash http://introverse.blogspot.com on January 8, 2012 at 6:28 PM · Report this
TreGibbs 58
Neither blow-up dolls nor lifelike Japanese robots need to use contraception, so Callista Gingrich is off the hook...
Posted by TreGibbs on January 8, 2012 at 6:31 PM · Report this
59
@55 So...withdrawl is okay, then? Since God's going to make it happen if he wants it to?
Posted by sahara29 on January 8, 2012 at 7:20 PM · Report this
Charles Maguro 60
And Seattleblues gets to rub another one (or two or three) out.
Posted by Charles Maguro on January 8, 2012 at 7:20 PM · Report this
COMTE 62
@53:

Santorum may be a practicing Roman Catholic, but his avouched position on contraception at least is far to the right of most American R.C.'s, and in fact falls right in line with the much more conservative Calvinist Protestant doctrine. Which, when you think about it does make a certain amount of sense, because that's the electorate he's courting, not his fellow Catholics, so it's not surprising he would express his moral point-of-view using deterministic terms.
Posted by COMTE on January 8, 2012 at 7:53 PM · Report this
63
@62, you make me wanna go avouching.
Posted by gloomy gus on January 8, 2012 at 8:10 PM · Report this
balderdash 65
@61, so, no actual response, then? Since you didn't address anything I said, can I consider this an abject concession? I'm going to. In fact, don't even bother confirming; I won't read it. I'm just going to assume from this point onward that you agree with everything I say.
Posted by balderdash http://introverse.blogspot.com on January 8, 2012 at 11:16 PM · Report this
66
If it's about babies, then everyone should be banned from producing them until all the ones who need adopting get adopted.
Posted by samshortis on January 8, 2012 at 11:43 PM · Report this
sissoucat 67
@57 balderdash I totally agree. Marriage is off my list of things to do, forever.

I've spent much too much time being considered as a furniture, when I was living with the jerk. As soon as you've popped out a kid, you start being treated like shit, because let's face it : the prospect of ending up in poverty as a single mom will give you pause - and the jerk will be able to do whatever he wants. You're not going anywhere once you've become a mother, even if you have an education and a job.

Children in loving households of two adults fare better than children of single moms. Divorce helps making households with two parents "loving households".

There was no divorce back when women were not allowed to divorce ; do you think that the children of undivorced households of yesterday, having grown up seeing day after day daddy beating down mummy, fared much better than the children of today's single mothers ? Those children became themselves abusers or abused in adulthood. At least, with divorce, the children of unhappy households can have a shot at growing up without too much violence around them.

As for poverty - what money was left when father and/or mother had drunk all the money ? Unhappiness leads to poverty, married or divorced. Unhappiness leads to violence, and divorce suppresses most of the violence. Forcing women to endure the violence, by removing divorce, doesn't help the children. The only one it helps is the abuser - more often than not the man.
Posted by sissoucat on January 9, 2012 at 12:21 AM · Report this
sissoucat 68
@66 You're quite right.

Frothy Mix doesn't care about the welfare of kids. He cares about Men. Like Roman Catholicism : a religion made by men for the exclusive interests of Men.

Man's best interest is to have a lot of slaves around him, everyone he can dominate physically, so basically, women and children. That's what a woman is for : a slave herself, she gives birth to more slaves. If she tries to wriggle out of being a slave producer, by contraception, then it's "not the way it should be".

Frothy Mix is against divorce too, though I guess he won't say it too loudly. But I've never seen a Roman Catholic agreeing with divorce : it gives rights to women. Dangerous thing !

And all the while he tries to put back the big stick into the hands of the ones who should have it (the white male hands), he's secretly afraid of somehow ending on the receiving end of the stick. Frothy Mix is afraid of men maybe trying to probe his ass, because he knows he's a wimp, and though he advocates for Men having unlimited power over everything, he'd rather not be confused with a woman and see man power forced over his own body.

That's why he's a homohater, and of the worse kind : the kind that is deadly afraid that Dan Savage could come one day and anally rape him. He doesn't want to be treated the way he wants Men to be able to treat women. He'd rather preemptively put Dan Savage in prison on the grounds that "gay is morally wrong".
Posted by sissoucat on January 9, 2012 at 12:33 AM · Report this
69
Lets take his argument to the logical extreme, since this is what people like him love to do(and also what the "there is no separation of church and state in the constitution!' crowd enjoy). He is basically saying that any right not explicitly mentioned in the constitution doesn't exist. Last time I checked, the constitution does not explicitly spell out my right to poop. So basically according to Santorum, that right essentially does not exist because it is not explicitly stated in the constitution. So in order to protect my right to poop we should have to have a constitutional amendment? It would take the entire world's supply of paper to print out one copy of the constitution if all the rights we have were all spelled out explicitly.

No, what this shows is that Rick Santorum is either lying about the Constitution, or knows absolutely nothing about it. The founders INTENTIONALLY made it vague and flexible so that it could adapt and change. Thats why the US government is the oldest continually operating government on the planet right now, by opposing this flexibility Santorum is essentially saying "I hate America"
Posted by Motile Sperm on January 9, 2012 at 3:11 AM · Report this
70
@42 this belief is especially difficult to understand in light of what we know about sexuality in the US, over 95% of Americans engage in pre-martial sex, hell even in the 1940s between 80-90% of women weren't virgins on their wedding night, and yet here we are..... People in general, and Americans in particular, seem to have this weird cognitive dissonance when it comes to what they "believe"(and what they think others should do), and what they practice. And it's not just in regards to puritanical stuff like sex.

There have been numerous surveys that show that people often over-estimate the % of obese people in a given population, while often grossly underestimating(or just lying) about their own BMI and how it is classified. Most obese people don't think they are obese....
Posted by Motile Sperm on January 9, 2012 at 3:27 AM · Report this
71
Yeah, yeah. Just tell everyone that he wants them to be Catholics.

Peace.
Posted by Married in MA on January 9, 2012 at 6:47 AM · Report this
72
Um, by the way, not that there is anything wrong with being Catholic, it is just a problem if it isn't one's own choice. But if you want a quick and dirty knock down to give to, say evangelical Protestant types, that might do.

In fact, this line of "attack" is exactly what was defeated by JFK: As POTUS he would NOT be ruled by the dictates of God's representative on Earth, the Pope. Frothyman is going right down the papist party line however (but as far as the evangelicals are concerned, at least he IS a Christian).

Peace.
Posted by Married in MA on January 9, 2012 at 7:10 AM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 73
46, We spend less emotional energy than you do, thinking, obsessing, and posting about Dan Savage. Do you ever go a day without thinking about him? An hour?
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on January 9, 2012 at 7:40 AM · Report this
scary tyler moore 74
demmit, sebbich! it's GRISWOLD, not GRISWALD. i told you TWICE to feex eet. vat's vith yu?
Posted by scary tyler moore http://pushymcshove.blogspot.com/ on January 9, 2012 at 9:41 AM · Report this
75
62, your opponent was right the first time. You are utterly misunderstanding why Roman Catholics oppose contraception. I agree with you that all of these people are crazy, but it is in fact a good idea to determine what their arguments are. They are absolutely not making a Calvinist argument, even if the end point is the same. In short, don't be glib, as Tom Cruise would say.
Posted by Suzy on January 9, 2012 at 10:35 AM · Report this
Kevin_BGFH 76
@20 - Aside from the fact that it's ridiculous for the State to pressure men to get married just so they can get laid, how does that relate to Groswold v. Connecticut, the landmark case in which a legally married heterosexual couple had to sue for the right to use contraception?
Posted by Kevin_BGFH http://biggayfrathouse.typepad.com/blog/ on January 9, 2012 at 11:27 AM · Report this
aureolaborealis 77
@69: Pooping is a privilege. Grow up and move out of Mom's basement, hippie.
Posted by aureolaborealis on January 9, 2012 at 12:35 PM · Report this
venomlash 78
@69: And if the Constitution in that scenario was printed out, there'd be no wood pulp left for toilet paper anyway!
And now if you'll excuse me, I'll be on the can making an unconstitutional power grab.
Posted by venomlash on January 9, 2012 at 12:41 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy