Rick Santorum: In His Own Words

17 02 2012

States have the right to ban contraception, but shouldn’t

Q: [to Romney] Sen. Santorum has been very clear in his belief that the Supreme Court was wrong when it decided that a right to privacy was embedded in the Constitution. And following from that, he believes that states have the right to ban contraception. Now I should add that he said he’s not recommending that states do that.

SANTORUM: No, let’s be clear. We’re talking about the 10th Amendment and the right of states to act.

Q: Gov. Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?

ROMNEY: I can’t imagine a state banning contraception. I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception.

SANTORUM: The Supreme Court created through a penumbra of rights a new right to privacy that was not in the Constitution. It created a right through boot-strapping, through creating something that wasn’t there. I believe it should be overturned.

Source: WMUR 2012 GOP New Hampshire debate , Jan 7, 2012

No abortions even in cases of rape; one violence is enough

Q: In June, you said, “I believe that any doctor who performs an abortion should be criminally charged for doing so.” You would allow no exceptions for cases of rape and incest?

SANTORUM: You know, the US Supreme Court on a recent case said that a man who committed rape could not be killed, could not be subject to the death penalty, yet the child conceived as a result of that rape could be. That to me sounds like a country that doesn’t have its morals correct. That child did nothing wrong. That child is an innocent victim. To be victimized twice would be a horrible thing. It is an innocent human life. It is genetically human from the moment of conception. And it is a human life. And we in America should be big enough to try to surround ourselves and help women in those terrible situations who’ve been traumatized already. To put them through another trauma of an abortion I think is too much to ask. And so I would absolutely stand and say that one violence is enough.

Source: Iowa Straw Poll 2011 GOP debate in Ames Iowa , Aug 11, 2011

I’ve not only taken the pledge; I’ve taken the bullets

Q: [to Santorum]: You are staunchly pro-life. Gov. Romney used to support abortion rights until he changed his position on this a few years ago. Should this be an issue in this primary campaign?

SANTORUM: I think an issue should be looking at the authenticity of that candidate and looking at their record over time and what they fought for. You can look at my record. Not only have I been consistently pro-life. I’ve not just taken the pledge, I’ve taken the bullets to go out there and fight for thi and lead on those issues. And I think that’s a factor that people should consider. A lot of folks run for president as pro-life and then that issue gets shoved to the back burner. The issue of pro-life, the sanctity and dignity of every human life, not just on the issue of abortion, but with respect to the entire life, and the dignity of people at the end of life, those issues will be top priority issues for me to make sure that all life is respected and held with dignity.

Source: 2011 GOP primary debate in Manchester NH , Jun 13, 2011

Plan B morning-after pill is abortion, and dangerous

Q: The FDA has said that Plan B, the morning-after pill, can be sold over the counter. Are you in favor?

SANTORUM: No, I’m not. I agree that it is an abortifacient, and that it’s dangerous to give a dose of hormones equivalent to one third of a whole series of birth control pills to someone without any kind of doctor supervision.

CASEY: Yes, I’m in favor. I think what emergency contraception is contraception.

Q: But you do believe life begins at conception?

CASEY: I do.

Q: If this was fertilized, would you call it abortion?

CASEY: The science is clear on this. It is contraception, and I support it. I think we’ve got to make it widely available, and I think that’s one of the ways we reach common ground on the very tough issue of abortion: emergency contraception can reduce the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies. That’s what we should emphasize.

SANTORUM: The science is clear. In fact, it is an abortifacient in certain circumstances.

Source: PA 2006 Senate Debate, Tim Russert moderator (X-ref Casey) , Sep 3, 2006

Partial birth abortion is not used only for abnormalities

In 2003, Sen. Hillary Clinton [commented] about the anatomically correct drawings I used to demonstrate the partial birth abortion procedure:

CLINTON: The visual aids show a perfectly formed fetus, and that is misleading. We should have a chart that demonstrates tragic abnormalities.

SANTORUM: Do we consider a child that may not live long, or may have an abnormality, to be less of a child? Don’t those who are not perfect don’t even deserve the opportunity to live?

CLINTON: Does the Senator’s legislation make exceptions for serious life-threatening abnormalities?

SANTORUM: No, if–

CLINTON: That is the point.

SANTORUM: If you want to create a separation in the law between those children who are perfect and those children who are not–

SANTORUM: If a child is not perfect, that child can be aborted under any circumstances. But if that child is perfect, we are going to protect that child more. The Americans with Disabilities Act says we treat all of God’s children the same.

Source: It Takes A Family, by Sen. Rick Santorum, p.258-261 , Apr 30, 2006

Scientifically, an embryo is human from moment of conception

I was very much like most Americans and most nominal Catholics before I decided to enter public life. I didn’t like the idea of abortion–I knew it was wrong, but I wasn’t sure if it was the government’s business to do anything about it. When I decided to run for public office in 1989, I was told that I had to “make up my mind on abortion.”

Through both scientific reasoning and moral reasoning the answer was clear to me. Abortion was the taking of an innocent human life. Scientifically, the embryo is human from the moment of conception (it has a complete, unique human genetic code) and it is alive: therefore, it is literally a human life.

I looked at it one other way. Did I see the child in the womb as a person entitled to protection under the law, or as a property owned by the mother, with no rights until the moment she was physically separated from her mother? No, I couldn’t see myself on the “mere property” side of this argument.

Source: It Takes A Family, by Sen. Rick Santorum, p.239-240 , Apr 30, 2006

93% of abortions are post-conception birth control

When you hear an abortion supporter argue his or her position, nowhere do you hear that a baby’s heart can be seen beating at three weeks. They appear to exhibit a whole range of typical baby behavior and moods.

Almost never do I hear about what is being chosen, other than the sterile words “terminating pregnancy.” Nowhere do you hear that over 93% of abortions are performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies who were not the victim of rape or incest, which means that in the vast majority of cases abortion is actually post-conception birth control.

The advocates of abortion, like Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League, teach that if you have to say anything about what is in the womb you should use dehumanizing terms like “product of conception,” “embryo,” & “fetal tissue.” Or, if you must, fetus. Thanks to a lot of help from their allies in the news and entertainment media, they have turned the child in the womb into a NOBODY, and therefore “NOBODY gets hurt.”

Source: It Takes A Family, by Sen. Rick Santorum, p.253 , Apr 30, 2006

Partial birth abortion allows killing baby if only toe is in

On Oct. 20, 1999, I had a colloquy with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D, CA) about where to draw the line on partial birth abortion:

SANTORUM: If the baby’s foot was inside the mother but the rest of the baby was outside, could that baby be killed?

BOXER: The baby is born when the baby is born. That is the answer to the question.

SANTORUM: I am asking for you to define for me what that is: the baby is being born.

BOXER: In the process of being born, to me it is obvious when a baby is born; to you it isn’t obvious.

SANTORUM: Maybe you can make it obvious to me. What you are suggesting is if the baby’s toe is still inside of the mother that baby can then still be killed?

BOXER: Absolutely not.

SANTORUM: OK. So if the baby’s toe is in, you can’t kill the baby. How about if the baby’s foot is in? We are trying to draw a line here.

BOXER: I am not answering these questions.

Source: It Takes A Family, by Sen. Rick Santorum, p.255-257 , Apr 30, 2006

There is no federal right to privacy

Q: Your view on the right to privacy?

A: The undermining of the fabric of our society all comes from this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in the US Constitution. This right was created in Griswold–the contraceptive case–and abortion. And now we’re just extending it out. Whether it’s polygamy or sodomy, all of those things are antithetical to a stable, traditional family. The idea of the “right to privacy” is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ passions. I disagree with that. There are consequences to letting people live out whatever passions they desire. And we’re seeing it in our society.

Q: Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy?

A: The right to privacy was created in a law about individual passions. And I don’t agree with that. So I would put it back to the democratic process. If NY doesn’t want sodomy laws, if NY wants abortion, fine. I wouldn’t agree with it, but that’s their right. But I don’t agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

Source: Associated Press in USA Today: Santorum Interview , Apr 23, 2003

Responsible stem cell research doesn’t destroy embryos

I support the Responsible Stem Cell Research Act of 2001, legislation aimed at committing our Nation to a bold investment in promising, ethical medical research with which we all can live. I fervently believe that fertilization produces a new member of the human species. To use a human being, even a newly conceived one, as a commodity is never morally acceptable. Unfortunately, the opportunities for developing successful therapies from stem cells that do not require the destruction of human embryos have been given relative short shrift. But adult and other post-natal stem cells have been successfully extracted from umbilical cord blood placentas and other organs. In order to build upon the successes of this promising research, the Responsible Stem Cell Research Act would authorize $275 million for this ethical stem cell research which is actually proven to help hundreds of thousands of patient. This represents a 50% increase in current NIH funding being devoted to this stem cell research.

Source: Santorum speech in “A Senator Speaks Out”, p.141-142 , Aug 3, 2001

Protect any child born alive from botched abortion

My amendment is simple. My amendment says any child born alive is entitled to protection under the laws. Unfortunately, this amendment is necessary for two reasons:

  1. The treatment of children who are delivered as a result of an abortion that was botched. We have ample testimony to, unfortunately, show that children born alive as a result of induced abortions are discarded, [instead of being] cared for as appropriate to their gestational age. The laws of the land should apply to even children who are born alive as a result of abortion.
  2. Two Supreme Court Justices in the most recent abortion decision, the Nebraska decision, stated that any procedure that the doctor would permit is OK, [if] the doctor believes it is in the best health interests o the mother. That, to me, leaves open the possibility, if the doctor decides in the health interest of a mother that the best thing is to deliver the baby alive and then kill the baby. So I think it is important for us to draw a line at least here.

Source: Santorum speech in “A Senator Speaks Out”, p.137-138 , Jun 29, 2001

Partial birth abortion should shock your conscience

[Partial birth abortion] is not about pro-life or pro-choice. This is about a horrific procedure that should shock the conscience of anyone who has heard how this procedure is done. There is some sort of moral code in this country. To see a baby 3/4 born have scissors stuck in the back of their brain–where have we come as a country when we say, “Well, we need a statute to prohibit that,”–this is wrong. I do not even think we should be having debate about it.

There is an obvious truth here. You have a baby, not what they like to refer to as, “an intact dilation and extraction.” That is the way they describe this. An intact procedure. This intact thing is a baby, and it is 3/4 of the way delivered through the birth canal. It is not terminated, it is killed. Whether you are for abortions or against abortions, you cannot be for doing this. It shocks the conscience of a society and should not–should not–be a procedure that is sanctioned.

Source: Santorum speech in “A Senator Speaks Out”, p.145-146 , Dec 7, 1995

Advertisements

Actions

Information

One response

17 02 2012
Pro-Life Profiles « conservativechick757

[…] About Facebook RSS Feed ← Celebrating Black History in America Rick Santorum: Pro-Life Profile Part 1- In his own words → […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: