http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/rick-santorum-birth-control-sodomy_n_1181291.html?ref=politics


Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, whose strong base of evangelical Christian supporters has thrust him into contention in Iowa, said on Monday that he believes states should have the right to outlaw birth control and sodomy without the interference of the Supreme Court.

In an interview with Jake Tapper on ABC News, Santorum reiterated his opposition to the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling that prevented Connecticut from banning contraception.

“The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that," he said. "It is not a constitutional right. The state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have. That's the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court--they are creating rights, and it should be left up to the people to decide."

Santorum said he also opposes the Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision striking down a ban on sodomy in Texas and 13 other states. Even though he would not personally vote for a ban on sodomy, he said, he thinks states should legally be able to pass them, because sodomy is not a constitutionally protected right.

"I thought that law was an improper law ... but that doesn't mean the state doesn’t have a right to do that," he said.

Disdain for the Supreme Court is becoming a common thread among the GOP candidates. Rick Perry once slammed the Lawrence decision, describing it as the work of "nine oligarchs in robes," although he forgot what the case was about when a reporter asked him about it in Iowa last week. Newt Gingrich recently said he would ignore Supreme Court rulings he dislikes and impeach those judges that make what he believes are "anti-American decisions." Ron Paul has said he would leave many issues to the states, including abortion, same-sex marriage and religion, and frontrunner Mitt Romney agrees that states should have the right to ban abortion.

The political impact of allowing state legislatures to make decisions on social issues such as birth control, abortion and sex acts could be massive. In 2011 alone, state GOP lawmakers introduced 600 bills restricting abortion and passed a record 91 of those bills, and five states placed new restrictions on access to birth control and family planning. The 24 states that passed abortion restrictions stopped short of banning abortion entirely, only because they would face lengthy court battles if they passed bills that fly in the face of Supreme Court precedents preventing states from placing an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to seek an abortion.

For instance, the courts blocked Kansas from passing a law that would have shut down all three abortion clinics in the state, and prevented Nevada from putting a fetal personhood measure on the state ballot that would have banned abortion and certain kinds of birth control. Judges in three states -- Indiana, North Carolina and Kansas -- blocked the enforcement of laws defunding Planned Parenthood this year, unanimously ruling that state governments may not punish a particular health provider for offering abortion services.

The courts will be powerless to block those kinds of laws from going into effect if the GOP candidates have their way, and states would have the power to ban abortion, sodomy, birth control, gay marriage and whatever else a majority of state lawmakers morally oppose. Women and same-sex couples in socially conservative states would be out of luck.

But Santorum says if people have a problem with the laws in their state, they can just take their frustration to the voting booth.

"You shouldn’t create constitutional rights when states do dumb things," he told Tapper. "You should let the people decide if the states are doing dumb things, get rid of the legislature and replace them."

Google "Santorum" and look at the definition but don't tell anyone
I told you.

I do have to wonder how many people also support states having the right to ban contraception, yet also are against abortion.

“Santorum represents, in my view, much of what is wrong the in the Republican Party. While I disagree with him on some fundamental issues, I am much more concerned with his lack of character.”

And then there is this little known tidbit: “I’m a pretty tolerant guy, but beyond his ideology, some of Santorum’s behavior is just a little bizarre. For example, Santorum has six children. In 1996, he had son born prematurely who lived for only two hours. He and wife brought the child home and introduced the dead infant to the rest of their children as ‘your brother Gabriel’ and slept with the body overnight.”

http://radio.foxnews.com/2009/08/13/rick-santorum-took-dead-baby-home-to-meet-family/

hmm, quite a dichotomy

should the feds be telling the states what they can and cant do

and should the states be telling people what they can and cant do

whose power is more valid and reasonable,,,,,,shrug


in any case

if we dont want federal government, the idea is to leave states to their own devices,, so in that context it makes sense

as a law , in and of itself and regardless of who enforces it, ID say banning contraception would be as futile at this point in our oversexed culture as banning sex itself,,,

This should be enough to make most people realize just who he is in it for.... on top of his predjudice, thinking everyone should live by catholisism and just his "wierdness" in general (sleeping with a KNOWN dead fetus.. )

http://www.citizensforethics.org/index.php/press/entry/crew-releases-second-annual-most-corrupt-members-of-congress-report/

Well, if Ron don't get it and it winds up between Barry and Santorum, I'll be forced to go with Santorum.

Ridiculous!!! I am Pro Choice anyways!!!

We DON"T have to vote gop or dem...
there are other choices.

Why does it have to be one party or the other?
That's part of the problem...

Do you support him allowing states to ban contraception?

As long as it doesn't cost us trillions like with Hussein.

Why don't you share with us why you'd be for banning contraception?

There are many Evangelists in Iowa.....I don't think Santorum will make the final cut anyways....There may be a decent 3rd Party Nominee.....time will tell......

Ron Paul, if he sees he's running behind could well run a third party.

The Bottom 99%

Sen. Rick Santorum is getting a serious look from the Tea Party in consideration of its support for his Presidential bid, but before Tea Partiers cast their weight behind his brand of politics, they might want to brush up on his history with some of their favorite issues.

Sen. Santorum has long been a supporter of changing the Social Security program. The problem is that his initial support started back in the 90s. If he had extended his vision of change then, the Tea Party folks would already have their government entitlement programs reduced – meaning that many who are now collecting Social Security might otherwise not have been eligible. Talk about “keep your government hands off my Social Security”!

Some voters, of course, may be completely OK with raising the eligibility age for Social Security, especially for those of us who are now paying for it but will not be eligible at the same age as those already qualified. So perhaps this issue works for them now, but Santorum’s flip-flopping on the issue may be another matter altogether: please see video below.

Rick Santorum’s integral involvement in the corrupt K-Street Project is nothing less than full-on Crony Capitalism. Santorum enthusiastically kept the revolving door spinning between Lobbyist and Party Loyalists. Again, because this was in the interests of the Republican Party, perhaps the Tea Party will now gladly look the other way. However, it would smack of sell-out hypocrisy for the Tea Party, known for condemning government corruption, to now support one of its most active participants. They might want to question Sen. Santorum on his well-documented participation with, and close ties to, disgraced ex-con lobbyist Jack Abramoff – whose new book, profiled recently on 60 Minutes and The Colbert Report, condemns precisely the process Santorum coordinated for the GOP: facilitating post-Capitol Hill lobbying positions to those holding Congressional office and their staffers.

Read the facts below, and consider whether the Tea Party really stands for what they claim are their core issues when they support a candidate.

Here’s another take on Santorum’s involvement with the K-Street Project
From Dennis G at www.ballon-juice.com

Social Security – Raise the Age



Crony Capitalism – The K-Street Project


The K Street Project is an effort by the Republican Party to pressure Washington lobbying firms to hire Republicans in top positions, and to reward loyal GOP lobbyists with access to influential officials. It was launched in 1995 by Republican strategist Grover Norquist and then-House majority whip Tom DeLay. It has been criticized as being part of a “coziness” between the GOP and large corporations which has allegedly allowed business to rewrite government regulations affecting their own industries.

Shortly after the 1994 elections which gave a majority of seats to Republican candidates, DeLay called prominent Washington lobbyists into his office. He had pulled the public records of political contributions that they made to Democrats and Republicans. According to Texans for Public Justice, “he reminded them that Republicans were in charge and their political giving had better reflect that—or else. The “or else” was a threat to cut off access to the Republican House leadership.”

The project is named for K Street in Washington, D.C., where the largest lobbying firms have their headquarters. Lobbyists are, in some circles, referred to as the “fourth branch of government,” as some have great influence in U.S. national politics due to their monetary resources and the “revolving-door” practice of hiring former government officials. It is widely believed to be common practice for politicians to solicit money from lobbying firms in exchange for better access to officials, especially members of the United States Congress, and to buy favoritism in policies.

Candidates seeking to succeed DeLay as majority leader sought to distance themselves from the project, and as of January 15, 2006, all three announced candidates had vowed to dismantle it and overhaul the lobbying process. The fundamental quid pro quo at the center of the K Street Project — the withholding of policy favors from interest groups and lobbying firms that hire Democrats — is now illegal: the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, Sec 102, bans members of Congress and staffers from using their political power to influence the employment decision of any private entity “on the basis of partisan political affiliation”.

Learn more about Sen. Santorum’s direct involvement in this now illegal practice.

From an Aug. 2, 2002, article in The Washington Post by Jim VandeHei:

“The Senate ethics committee, reacting to a controversial document being assembled by Republican activists, plans to warn senators today not to use political affiliation as a basis for deciding who gets access to them or their staffs, a source familiar with the effort said last night.

“The committee’s warning comes in response to a Washington Post report in June that Republicans were researching the party affiliation and campaign donations of hundreds of lobbyists, as a way to deny government access and jobs to those who don’t share their political views.

“The research project, headed by GOP activist Grover Norquist, was discussed in June in a private meeting in the Capitol hosted by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). Several Republican lawmakers already have copies of the dossier, dubbed the ‘K Street Project,’ according to GOP aides.”

From a July 13, 2003, Slate Magazine column by Timothy Noah:

“Every Tuesday morning, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., meets with a couple dozen Republican lobbyists. Here is how Nicholas Confessore describes the ritual in the July/August Washington Monthly:

“[T]he lobbyists present pass around a list of the [lobbying] jobs available and discuss whom to support. Santorum’s responsibility is to make sure each one is filled by a loyal Republican — a Senator’s chief of staff, for instance, or a top White House aide, or another lobbyist whose reliability has been demonstrated. After Santorum settles on a candidate, the lobbyists present make sure it is known whom the Republican leadership favors.”

From a Sept. 13, 2004, Roll Call piece by Brody Mullins:

“As recently as this summer, the GOP failed to convince the Motion Picture Association of America to hire a Republican to succeed Jack Valenti, who is set to retire as Hollywood’s man in Washington after a long and legendary tenure.

“Instead, the trade association announced in August that it had hired former Clinton administration Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman.

“The move infuriated Republicans. Santorum even raised the issue of Glickman’s hire at a closed-door meeting of high-ranking Republican Senators.

“‘Yeah, we had a meeting and, yeah, we talked about making sure that we have fair representation on K Street,’” Santorum said soon after the hire. “‘I admit that I pay attention to who is hiring, and I think it’s important for leadership to pay attention.’”

“Some lobbyists speculate that Congressional Republicans will seek to punish the movie industry legislatively for tapping Glickman.”

From a subsequent Mullins piece on Oct. 7, 2004:

“Three months after Hollywood slapped the Republican Party by hiring Democrat Dan Glickman to head its Washington trade association, Congressional Republicans sliced more than $1 billion in tax credits for movie studios from a far-reaching international tax bill that the House and Senate plan to take up today.

“Though the tax credits for Hollywood were included in a version of the bill approved by the Senate this summer, a Republican-dominated conference committee voted Tuesday evening to leave the provisions on the cutting-room floor …

“‘The Glickman thing is going to cost them. No Republican will fight for the movie industry,’ said one GOP lobbyist for the industry. …

“Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, said there were three reasons Republicans voted against the movie-industry provisions: ‘One, it’s bad tax policy because it’s industry-specific. Two, it’s bad tax policy because it subsidizes an industry for signing bad labor contracts and, three, Hollywood has recently expressed contempt for the Republican leadership in the House, Senate and White House.’…

“Two weeks after Glickman was hired, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) convened a meeting of top Republicans to discuss the move.”

And finally, from a profile of Grover Norquist by John Cassidy in the Aug. 1, 2005, New Yorker:

“In recent years, [Norquist] has also been involved in the K-Street Project, an audacious attempt by Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, including Tom DeLay and Senator Rick Santorum, of Pennsylvania, to turn the busy thoroughfare where many corporate influence peddlers have their offices into an affiliate of the Republican Party.”

Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau said it best:


“The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.”

He clarified his remarks yesterday.

He said that he felt states should have the right to ban contraception, but was not advocating that they should.

This is why republicans look like fools.

These idiot candidates play to the moralist voters and make outlandish statements that no one agrees with except a very small minority of fundamentalists.

Santorum is a clown.

He is a big spending, pork barrel loving, statist.

His foreign policy positions are ridiculous and anyone that votes for him needs their head examined.

I think he said the same about the sodomy issue. I guess he's just trying to cover all his bases by making the extreme religious right happy at the thought of these things being banned?

Yep sodomy and birth control is the reason this country is over populated and unemployed?I think this country should do both to help control the human population....