Thursday, February 16, 2012

2012 GOP Update – the Catholic Church and Birth Control vs Governing – Media Grasping at Straws with Rick Santorum Anti-Woman Rhetoric


Rick Santorum - a Problem with Women? - from Christian Science Monitor



Apparently and according to an Op-ed in the Washington Post, Rick Santorum said “Birth Control is Harmful to Women” – and since he said that (without the entire context of the video which is below) he therefore must be “against women”. However in listening to the entire video – which apparently is one of the few things that the left (or the right, perhaps opposition research) has on Santorum In viewing the entire video, It is quite clear that he was speaking as a Catholic, from a personal perception, which is not to be confused with the way he voted. Santorum supported Contraceptive use from a legislature’s standpoint- period.

The fact is the man understands the separation of Church and State, which the current occupant of the White House apparently does not. This is why the Catholic Church is not buying into the whole: if you own a charity or business and you are the Catholic Church and you fund everything, you must pay for contraceptives and abortions – against the tenants of your faith. When the Bishops rejected that as totally unacceptable (again Church and State), the President pulled an “end-run” and figured he’d just have the insurance companies mandate coverage for birth control and abortion - in essence forcing all religious groups to go against the tenants of their faiths.

The action prompted former Governor of Arkansas and 2008 GOP Contender for the Presidential nomination, to note “We are All Catholics Now” Huffington Post, and leaders of all faiths, including Muslim Clerics, voiced opposition to the President’s plan.
Therefore, as a practicing Catholic, Santorum, in expressing his Catholic viewpoint, is looked at as someone who is “out of touch” or not with or for women. This is, in essence the most ridiculous statement any opponent might take, especially as his record supports the separation between Contraction and the support of bills that included aid for contraceptive use. It is the political attack practice of drawing a conclusion that the individual and “what they might do” as a Catholic (or Christian), is clearly going to influence their position as President - its bunk and they know it.

There was great fear with John F. Kennedy first ran for office, - he was a Catholic, and the opposition were concerned that Rome, the Pope, would run the nation. Of course, now, after history has given us the nature of the man, one finds there was no grounds whatsoever for the charges leveled at Kennedy, and his choice of Religious – again Catholic.
It is that there are practicing Catholics, like a Rick Santorum, and so many Catholics from the other side of the Aisle (Pelosi for example), that do not vote in a manner consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church – In fact, Nancy Pelosi is at odds with the teachings of the church on almost every single issue, especially her support of Abortion at any stage. Yet they are both Catholics, one is touting the line for the Progressives, and denying her faith, while the other is a Catholic, does not deny his faith, yet legislatures with the separation of church and state in mind. It’s honest and frankly refreshing.

The line will become from the left, should Santorum win the nomination and that appears to be increasingly possible, (if not probable should he win the Michigan Primary), then it will that Santorum will be “against women” – even though, his record states otherwise – what one has to understand is that frankly – women are not that stupid. Women understand the difference between the two, just as Senator Santorum understands his roles, and what his role would be as President. The fact that he is so proud of the accomplishments of women, (one need only look to his wife, and how he speaks of her, in terms of his pride of her accomplishments), it would be inconceivable that he would attempt to pull an end run around the constitution, for something as small an issue (in light of the much larger problems facing this nation), similar to that of the President. Sorry, but, one can’t see a President Santorum banning Birth Control from the land.

As far as birth control being dangerous for women, honestly some of it is – as the science of pharmacology develops, there have been, over time, instances where women have suffered because of the use of a particular product ((IUD)), or the benign hormone based birth control, now with much reduced hormones (cancer), is still offering some side effects. There is also, one must note, advances in the product to make them much more “safer” than they were in 2002, or prior to that period.

One must ask – have they yet perfected a bill or devise for men so that women do not have to remember to take that pill, or surgically implant a device? It is the woman who is constantly made responsible, for an action that involves two. The argument could be made that those on the left, screaming about the former Senator, might be a bit anti-feminist (rhetorically speaking).

One must also ask: does one prefer a candidate that has a basis in faith and that subscribes to that faith, and has been consistent in their legislation, and the way they lead their lives, understanding the separation of church and state, or does one prefer a candidate that either does not speak of his faith, or, is at best, unclear as to their faith, and disregards the constitution when it comes to legislation.

As a non-practicing Evangelical Catholic, this blogger appreciates the straight-forward, individual, one who would stand up for the Catholic Church and any Church, while bringing the Constitution to bear on social issues.

The truth of the matter is, all candidates that remain, have either been in the legislature in some capacity, and having done so, have signed bills and supported legislation for spending that would be seen as “big government” and or pork (and yes, that includes Ron Paul), and one who was Governor, who received Pork for the State, and as a private CEO of the Olympics, lobbied hard for Federal Funds. It is who will admit it, who will say, yes I did this because it benefited my state or district, that is the stand-up guy, as long as that individual hasn’t lobbed accusations at his opponents, and only one of the four comes to mind and that is Rick Santorum. Apparently, the left and the right must understand that as well, considering these attacks are, at best flimsy - Santorum is, therefore, the "front-runner" and therefore has not become a threat to Progressives and those candidates remaining in the GOP Presidential nomination process.

Therefore, as a women who is keenly interested in the character of the President, and that candidates record in government or in working with the government, one gets a glimpse of that candidate might approach the presidency. Of the four, Santorum has, given more time in the debate arena, and in the multitude of interviews, shown himself as a “stand-up” guy. Not the lesser of four evils, but someone who one can actually get behind and support. Yes, even as a “woman”, one of the group that is perceived “owned” by a party based on one issue and one issue only – abortion and contraceptives. Not equal pay for equal work, not equal protection under the law, but on a social issue. Nothing could be more insulting to the intellect of the woman who votes.



No comments:

Amazon Picks

Massachusetts Conservative Feminist - Degrees of Moderation and Sanity Headline Animator

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map

Contact Me:

Your Name
Your Email Address
Subject
Message