Associated Press
The anti-pre-natal testing candidate.
Over the last few years, there's been no shortage of attacks from the right against the Affordable Care Act, but going after provisions related to pre-natal testing appears to be a new one.
Rick Santorum accused President Obama of requiring free prenatal testing in the health care plan he signed in 2010 because it would detect if children were disabled, encourage more abortions and save money.
"One of the things that you don't know about ObamaCare in one of the mandates is they require free prenatal testing," Santorum began telling about 400 people here. "Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and, therefore, less care that has to be done, because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society. That too is part of ObamaCare -- another hidden message as to what president Obama thinks of those who are less able than the elites who want to govern our country."
CBS's Bob Schieffer pressed Santorum on this point yesterday, saying, "You sound like you're saying that the purpose of pre-natal care is to cause people to have abortions." The Republican presidential hopeful didn't back down, arguing, "[A] lot of pre-natal tests are done to identify deformities in utero and the customary procedure is to encourage abortions."
Even for Santorum, this is low.
For one thing, medical experts know Santorum's line is nonsense. As MSNBC's First Read explained, "There is value in pre-natal testing, because it can detect potential problems in utero or at delivery and allow parents and doctors to get the proper care for their child."
For another, trying to turn pre-natal care into yet another culture-war battle is ridiculous. University of Chicago professor Harold Pollack, an expert in health policy, added, "Santorum's comments are only made uglier by their utter lack of foundation. There is no evidence whatsoever that liberals -- let alone President Obama -- are less solicitious or caring about the disabled than other Americans. I've never heard any liberal health policy wonk promote genetic technologies to 'cull the ranks of the disabled' or as part of any cost-cutting plan. That ugly meme is completely made up. By any reasonable measure, the proliferation of genetic diagnostic technologies coincides with great progress in public acceptance and support for people with disabilities."
Leave a Comment:
You mean elites like yourself who want to tell people that they can't have pre-natal testing, Mr. Santorum?
FTR Santorum is probably referring to studies like this http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291097-0223%28199909%2919:9%3C808::AID-PD637%3E3.0.CO;2-B/abstract in which it's found that parent's who are advised that their children will have a disability are more likely to terminate the pregnancy. It's an outdated study though (1999). Looking for more updated info atm.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/weekinreview/13harm.html
Here's a NYT article about it...but I can't really find anything that's in depth as a primary source. Anyways it appears that in the right's mind people who have prenatal testing will naturally choose to abort disabled children and people should not be aborting children solely on the basis of that child having a disability. That seems to be the right's argument.
This is a popular meme in the Religious Right community. It has been speculated that it is why Palin announced a new baby coming to her family when McCain sewed up the nomination in 08. At the core of her screeches is a meme that she chose life when she found out via prenatal testing that her new family member would have a disability. She then proceeded to use that poor child as a political prop for a few years. His first few years he was dragged around to all of her appearances. Look at me I chose life. It is a powerful message in the Dominionist community.
Sadly, many of these brainwashed people really do believe that the evil "libruals" really do abort any baby with a problem.
wtf is wrong with aborting a fetus that is definitely going to grow up to be disabled, huh?
remember the story about santorum and his stillborn fetus (taking it home so his kids could hold it and introduce themselves to it, etc.)? still gives me the willies....
I wasn't saying that I agree w/ the position. I was saying that appears to be the right's argument and where it stems from. There is evidence that shows that when people find out their child is disabled they are more likely to abort the fetus. If you are someone who is opposed to abortion because you believe it's murder then you probably wouldn't want people getting tests if you knew that'd increase the likelihood of abortion. Whether you believe that's morally wrong or not is your decision: I just thought it was important to hear his side of the story and that appears to be where it's coming from.
So, disabled people don't deserve to be born? Life as a disabled individual is not really a life? You want to abort the disable?
Sleeping with a dead baby, and then taking the corpse home for the kids to cuddle is bizarre.
What I don't understand is that, given the tendency for poor, minority, women and disabled voters to vote democrat...do republicans actually think babies born sick and/or disabled are going to grow up to vote republican to support policies that are detrimental to them in particular, and our population as a whole?
Consequences, ramifications -- not things these people seem to understand.
I find myself agreeing with John Baer: He's nuts. They're nuts. This is crazy. How can this be the conversation we're actually having in the here and now?
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120220_John_Baer__HED_ALL_ACROSS_KL.html?cmpid=125408628
dumprick.
peanut: good point. This is also the same party (or the crazy, fascist, right-wing portion of the party) that tells people if they end up in the hospital, it's because they did something wrong.
I can't image the disabled voting Republican, either.
Getting back to the POINT: Whatever the parent(s) decide to do with the fetus once it is determined that it is disabled is their business. It is not the place for the government or the church to chime in regarding what I do with my body in relation to my spiritual beliefs. This admistration (and others) has put in place all options from which one can choose a resolution to their very personal issue one way or the other...that is all. Obama didn't say you HAVE to have pre-natal care (or not)...he didn't say you HAVE to use contraception or abortions (or not)...The decision is between God, (the significant other, if he exists) and the woman. Outside opinions are not warranted. This whole discussion about reproductive rights is unconstitutional (not to mention ridiculous) - no one religious sect has the right to force their beliefs on everyone else. Period. Nuff Said.
And how many more families will be bankrupted by the medical bills associated with the care of babies born with genetic issues or gestational mishaps? How many more divorces will there be because the needs of the child dominate the needs of every other relationship, including (especially?) marriage.
The catastrophic snowball effect in virtually every aspect of our society frighten me utterly. As an SF novelist, my brain automatically starts spinning out the 'what if's', and I find myself having panic attacks when I look into those potential futures. Those aren't books I want to write. They certainly aren't stories I want to live.
We have the opportunity in November to put the crazy back in the box, and I sure hope we take advantage of it.
Uh, David. Check yourself.
What kills me is the fact that prenatal testing, all prenatal care for that matter, has been covered 100 percent by most health insurers for at least two decades.
I had four kids between 1990 and 1995 and my employer based health care provided 100 percent coverage for the entire prenancy (including the evil prenatal screening) up to and including the births and hospital stays. No copays. Where was the right wing outrage back then? Oh, yeah, because there isn't anything to be outraged about. As per usual with these hypocrtical know nothings.
I would really like to know if his poor wife declined to have every prenatal test offered to her with her many pregnancies. I say "poor wife" because obviously her husband has no problem with her risking her health and the health of any child she bears by insisting upon having children into her 50's. I know that sounds judgemental and harsh, but hey, there you have it.
This is much ado about nothing except for the fact that Santorum is a wack a doodle who spouts "No big Government" yet wants to have the biggest government job there is in order to dictate to American women how and when to conduct their own reproductive health. (Oh yes, and abolish public education, but that is a whole other subject, yes?)
I'd like to point out that if you have a 1:4 chance of having a child with a debilitating disability, you are going to make the decision to have or not have that child regardless of if you have prenatal screening to help. Without the prenatal screening, more 100% healthy babies get aborted in such scenarios because a 25% chance at paying for lifelong 24/7 nursing, special diets, special equipment, special schooling, and watching your child die young is not worth it. Reducing information has never led to better decisions being made. Reducing information requires less-informed decisions to be made, which tend to be worse off for everyone.
The general Conservative philosophy is that every zygote must be brought to full term and born.
After that, the child is the responsibility of the parent alone; if they can't handle it they should reach out to their religion - they are a member of a strong local religious community, right? - and seek help there.
I see this primarily as a "you must be a part of a strong local religion" philosophy, whereas the liberal approach tends to be that all external support really should stem from the largest possible risk pool (the Federal government).
If religious conservatives were concerned about children with disabilities getting aborted, not with control over the citizenry, they would (1) make sure that there was abounding support for prenatal and neonatal care for disabled individuals, (2) make sure there was abounding support for families caring for disabled individuals. Given that they absolutely oppose both of those efforts, it is clear they don't give a damn about the disabled individuals.
Overall, removing the right to abortion means that those who have disabled children are more likely to have "accidents" which cause miscarriages, and which quite often seriously injure or kill the mother. Removing the right to the best information practicable regarding the child you are going to be raising means that those who have risk factors for disabled children will be more likely to abort healthy children. For those who don't have risk factors or who choose to take the risk, you are increasing the "gamble" of child rearing, which is much less damaging for folks like Santorum who can afford the 24/7 nursing care and special diets and equipment and schooling and lifelong care associated with disabilities, but far moreso for the average family and the poor.
He's just progressing the dominion of the religious conservatives.
What do you think this is, a country based on secular constitutionalism instead of the bible?
Oh, and they have no other platform to run on, immigration, economy, etc. Once they find something else other than culture wars to latch onto, they'll drop this like their child support until they can secretly pass the legislation when they get elected.
Hah! :)
What's been on my mind also is that the Catholic Church is also staunchly anti-death penalty. Why aren't they latching on to that? Instead, the skipped death penalty and went from abortions straight to contraceptives. Who knows if the Catholic Church is going to hear this and be like, "Oh, yeah, that's another great idea! Let's be against prenatal screening!" All of this stinks of opportunism to me -- they're taking advantage of the fact that there are no Protestants in the lead of this GOP race, so they're making this as religious as possible in order to falsely frame Obama to the conservative electorate as a war-mongerer on "religious freedoms" (which in itself is incorrect -- our freedom of religion in the 1st Amendment is guaranteed by the government not establishing religion in the first place -- I don't think Santorum gets that last part). Ugh.
This man never gets tired of showing how uninformed and ignorant he is about women's health issues.
Hear, hear!
The way Santorum (and his like-minded GOP ilk) talks about reproductive issues the more you realize that this cretin has evidently had no interaction with anybody who has ever had to experience these kinds of issues. As glib as he is about these issues, you'd think people approach bearing children like cheating on taxes. Of course, his inexperience doesn't excuse him from being a total ignoramus, because one need not be a woman or ob-gyn to have empathy for aspiring families who must consider developmental disabilities in planning their families or couples who desparately need IVF in order to have children.
And, wow, his callous insensitivity (along with that of his GOP brothers-in-arms) makes me long achingly for the good ol' days of W's "compassionate conservatism"...
The more you talk the more I realize that you don't know anything about Santorum. He and his wife have a child that has a genetic disorder that only gives a 10% survival rate. They also had a child that was still born. Sounds like experiences of "these kinds of issues" to me.
Au contraire Sgt. Gym Bunny --- Mr. Santorum DOES have intimate experience with life threatening pregnancies, and children born with disabilities. I believe he has a 3 year old with T-18, and some time ago he and Karen were ready to abort a pregnancy mid-way through because of the health of the fetus and the threat to Karen's life. Instead, they administered antibiotics, to prevent sepsis, and that caused a spontaneous abortion.
As someone who has been through a very similar experience, and searched relentlessly for a solution for 5 weeks, and eventually chose to terminate, rather than letting my family go off a cliff at a rapid speed, I chose to TESTIFY on behalf of future families so they have both the TIME and the OPTIONS to choose what is best for them.
Mr. Santorum, who should KNOW BETTER, and has personally availed himself of pre-natal testing, as well as personally had EVERY OPTION, Is RIGHT NOW, saying YOU YOU YOU don't deserve to have the OPTIONS and INFORMATION HE HAD to make the best decision for his own family. I think that is THE HEIGHT OF EVIL and double standards. What's OK for ME is OK, because it's ME, but if you need similar medical assistance, you should not be allowed to have it.
I get FURIOUS with Mr. Santorum and his supporters. Who, conveniently also want to eliminate funding for EDUCATION and social safety nets for the elderly, indigent and disabled.
As a caregiver to my life-long disabled mother, I can tell you, I personally put in over $100K to care for her, and she had SSDI, Medicare, a private pension and private secondary health insurance. These people are UNMITIGATED EVIL INCARNATE. They are "priveledged" and for them, YOU are a 'parasite' to be defeated. Why anyone would vote for them, when all of us are likely facing an illness, disability or caregiving need as we age is BEYOND ME.
Beautifully said.
President Obama lobbied hard and succeeded in cutting the only funding to Social Security. Yes, he put an IOU in the fund with the intent of borrowing the money at some point and time, still the funding source was cut. I guess that makes you furious as well, huh?
He just gets crazier and crazier. Sometimes I'm speechless at the insanity of it all. I understand his own wife had some kind of pre-natal medical procedure done resulting in an abortion. He is beyond hypocritical.
You. Must. Get. Rid. Of. That. Photo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bz_HLCcoNg
I loved my spider. It was a little Orb Spider outside my house. We became friends and frankly I liked him a lot more than I do some people. Unfortunately he died. I thought about having a burial with a head stone but never got around to it. (kidding) His name was Harry by-the-way!
I've looked, but I can only find lurid stories about his wife's long relationship with an abortion doctor. The Santorums have also claimed (on Salon) that they never induced labor or that Karen Santorum had an abortion. In fact, they are trying to use their daughter, who has some sort of genetic disorder, to great effect (insisting that this pregnancy is the type that others might choose to terminate).
I actually think that is the issue. That the Santorums feel financially secure enough to pay someone to minister to their child's health needs loses sight of the fact that most American families can afford neither the time or the money for such painstaking care of those sorts of health challenges. While I don't begrudge their right to make the choice that they did, I wish that they would be cognizant of policy implications which only pressure women to have a child, but provide no additional resources that would help them provide the consistent care and medical consultation that is part of difficult pregnancies and children with health challenges.
And what about the poor children left in institutions to languish and die? Who is thinking about them? Santorum told a lady who could not afford the treatment for her dying child essentially, tough luck. If you can prevent a child from suffering by having an abortion how is that bad? I just hate his lack of understanding and caring.
Well there's another article I read when looking up information on where this whole 'pro-disability' thing comes from and I found it on an atheist website. I didn't link it because it's not a reputable source, but essentially the argument seems to be that liberals do not classify the fetus as a child until it's in it's last tier of growth and/or until it's born. Because of this liberals look at aborting the child as the compassionate thing to do in order to prevent harm to something that otherwise hadn't existed. In the minds of conservatives the fetus is a child and therefore harm cannot be prevented since it is already in existence. The article then goes on to meet the religious-right halfway and say that let's presume that the fetus is in fact a human life and our moral obligation to prevent it's death (abortion) is on the grounds that murder is wrong. If this is the case then there could be no exclusion for rape or incest or physical maladies to the infant as justification for abortion. Yet the article named a study that was done in 2007 which found that more than 70% of religious conservatives agree w/ the premise that it's OK to abort a fetus if it's found out the fetus has or is at significant risk of having a disorder that will impact it's quality of life severely. I could not find the primary study (as I referenced in my first post), but if that website is true this would be another example of just how extreme Santorum's world view actually is. It would also indicate the hypocrisy of someone who says that it's OK to murder in instances of rape or incest or disability even though you're supposedly 'pro-life.' Interesting, no?
Also you befriended a spider? That sent shivers down my back news >.>
hoosierprof: Addtionally, in tandem with this view on pre-natal screening, Santorum also wants to wipe out health-related entitlements altogether, does not want to bring down prescription drug costs, etc. It is mind-boggling.
Mouzer: Spiders are good. They eat bugs and insects. I hope you don't intend to send your little avatar out to eat my spider avatar?? :(
Well I'll meet you half way: spiders eat crickets and if I had to pick the bugs that creep me out the most it'd be crickets and grasshoppers. *shuddddders*. So if your little spider pal is eating crickets and grasshoppers then I'll keep my lemur pal away ;-)
ok :)
Santorum and his ilk only care about children while they're in the womb. Once they're out they're on thier own.
Santorum elevates Catholic dogma above the Constitution.
OK let me get this straight.
- A mother must not be allowed to learn anything about the health of her fetus.
- Unless she's considering having an abortion, in which case she has to let someone stick a metal probe up her vagina.
Riiiiiighht ...
Pretty much
Your Vagina are belong to us !
Don't you read your bible ?
Apparently santorum doesn't read the bible, either. But that's not really news:
If you look at his comments, he is for pre-natal testing like sonograms and so on. What he focuses on is tests like amniocentesis which often result in termination of the pregnancy. He thinks that women should be compelled by law to give birth. From moment of fertilization on, he very much does assert dominion, and he and the bishops are blunt about it.
Take Bishop Aquila's comments. There is this reactionary wing of the old guard of the Church that are at war with the liberals in the church who are being actively suppressed. Accommodation is now weakness. Aquila ties the liberals in the church to their woes with pedophilia. The problem is, as the bishops see it is that they are too shy about "Correction". And that is precisely what Santorum thinks went wrong. In the 60s, Church liberals were weak and gave up the farm by accommodating "feminist issues" like Choice. Santorum likes to quote Aquila whose views are militant:
In the article the quote was taken from, Aquila quotes Mathew 8, but misrepresents its meaning. Jesus doesn't say you should punish anyone. He says you should treat them like pagans. Actually, he treated pagans with kindness and respect.
What these all male panels are doing is all a horrible perversion of not just Christianity but sprituality. This sort of domination goes on in practically every religion and these idolators should be ashamed of themselves. Respecting the dominion of individuals is quite beyond them.
That was well said John. More often than not I think dogmatic religion has crushed spirituality and taken Jesus out of Christianity. When people care more for doctrine than they care about compassion it is a sad day. I think they forget religion is supposed to help people not punish them.
p.s. What do you think of Harry my new avatar?
Correct! Because when you force someone into submission for fear of consequence that's totally the same as someone naturally coming to the same conclusion as you through acceptance and logical argument. I believe Jesus had something to say about that, am I wrong? It went something like being loved by those who already think like you do isn't worth @!$%#.
Very well said, John. Thank you for sharing. :)
News- I think Harry looks more like a Charlotte- a wise woman who knew a thing or two about talking to animals, fooling people into doing the right thing, a kind of patient resignation about the persistence of silly patterns of behavior.
Also maybe Arachne a mortal turned into spider by the vindictive God Santorum! Seems like that is what it is coming to with him.
And They're coming to take me away Ha Ha
They're coming to take me away ho ho he he ha ha
to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time,
and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats
and they're coming to take me away ha ha...
Rick Santorum believes in limited government and individual responsibility.
Except when he is telling you what medical tests you cannot have because you might make a decision he disagrees with.
You know I should know Santorum and the other Republicans a lot more than I do. Seeing as they spend so much time talking about my uterus...I'm started to feel uncomfortable. (Seriously)...It's starting to feel like an assault in more ways than one..It's actually pretty creepy how obsessed they are. Starting to think I should yell Stranger Danger when any of them show up in my State...
Santorum's argument was advanced when abortion was legalized. The anti-abortion movement was claiming that woman would abort fetuses that were malformed. This argument was made with the other argument that women would use abortion as a birth control method. Both arguments are based on the idea that a fetus is a person at all stages of conception and pregnancy. The SCOTUS tried to strike a balance in Roe v. Wade by differentiating the woman's rights and the state during the 3 trimesters. The abortion decisions uphold the woman's right to terminate a malformed fetus and the right to an abortion for any reason in the first trimester. The right to terminate a pregnancy because of health reasons exists during the whole pregnancy. These rights proceed from the notion that the woman has superior rights to the fetus. It is during the second and third trimester that the SCOTUS tried to strike a compromise, but it is a messy compromise because of the various state laws passed to restrict abortions. The obvious solution was and still is the best; the right to abortion is a medical decision between a woman and her doctor. The state has no business making medical decisions or putting limitations on that decision.
This from Planned Parenthood's History and Successes page:
Anger from abortion proponents that you could not abort deformed babies. Seems like Santorum at least has a point to discuss even if you disagree with his position.
Not sure I agree 100% with your policework there Lou ("Fargo")
The quote says that public anger was against banning abortions not that the public was angry at people aborting deformed fetuses.
Or am I missing something in either the quote or your take on it?
1966? Really?
That's how I read it too 80sGirl.
Correct. The public anger was against bans on abortion given the high incident of deformities because of rubella epidemic. The two are linked together.
Yea, amazing how quickly they learned to hide real motives, huh?
Lastly, I'm not saying Rick is correct, but that it is a discussion worth having. It is an ethical dilemma.
I do apologize RobDon but confusion reigns ... maybe it's my flu meds ...
Are you saying that the high incidents of rubella-caused deformities was the cause of a higher number of abortions? Or at least was the cause of a higher number of people who wanted access to abortion services? If I knew my fetus was badly deformed and had very little chance at surviving much past birth and that whatever time they did have would be painful ... yes, I would very much want to know that the option of abortion was available to me.
I do agree though that is a discussion worth having - between a woman and her doctor. Also agree it is an ethical dilemma and to sort it all out a woman should discuss this dilemma with her doctor and/or her spiritual advisor. Not the president or congress.
Ditto 80sGirl
I don't disagree with this. I do think it is unrealistic to limit it to that small of a vacuum. Not that everyone should be involved in an individual woman's conversation with her doctor, but society at large and even the medical community as a small subset often discuss the ethnicity of varies medical behaviors/treatments/standards, i.e. cloning, organ selling, etc.
So, yes, the culture can discuss the issue and in groups or in majority weigh in on what is acceptable and unacceptable, ethical or unethical, practices. We do it all the time. Are you saying we don't or shouldn't? Someone should be able to say "It is my body and if I want to sell a kidney, what's it to you?" And society shouldn't or doesn't, at the very least, have a right to voice an opinion?
I would absolutely agree that society has the right to voice an opinion. No problem. They have the right to stand in protest outside an abortion clinic. No problem there either. They have the right to stand up in front of the TV cameras or in Congress or in church or set up a soapbox at the local mall and shout to the rafters that X behaviour is immoral or unethical and shouldn't be allowed. They don't have the right to legislate their particular brand of morality.
The problem we now face (well, not me because I'm Canadian) is that the front-runner in the GOP race - at least until someone else who's not Mitt Romney surfaces - believes that it is the right of a few members of a society to make those choices for every other member of the society based on his morals.
Do I think that anyone who wants to sell a kidney should be allowed to? Yes, if their doctor attests it will do them no harm and the person is of sound mind and fully understands the potential risks and complications. Should people be forced to sell/donate a kidney even if it would save someone's life? No. Should the sale of kidney's be regulated? Yes, otherwise we'd end up with back-alley kidney mills or joggers being mutilated in the park (saw that in a CSI episode once :-) )
All societies evolve an accepted set of norms and mores. Those will necessarily change over time. But, that change should always arrive in defence of personal liberty and individual freedom to choose. Not because one group would rather not deal with or face the choices of other groups.
Given that the particular blurb you are quoting was written recently, the page having been edited at least since last October, I think you have seriously flawed reasoning.
To the point, though, yes, when people who are being forced to carry babies to term who die minutes after birth or who need professional facilities to care for them, those people will be pissed that the far more humane option of an abortion is not available. Also note that 20% of cases where the mother is infected with rubella self-abort, which is incredibly dangerous for the mother as well as obviously killing the fetus.
I wouldn't make my dog suffer through the more severe deformities rubella causes.
Can anyone clarify if the ACA actually DOES mandate this kind of testing? It would seem strange if it did, and that's the premise of Santorum's remark.
It does not mandate the testing, but the act does require insurance companies to offer coverage for these tests and prenatal care.
What is the ACA? Do you mean ACOG? American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologist?
He meant the Affordable Care Act chocolate.
Ah, gotcha. That makes sense.
Mike, your response sounds right, but why is no one picking up on this?
he said that ACA's mandates "require free prenatal testing". If this is false, it is very important. Remember, women are not required to give birth in hospitals, or even to immunize babies. The way he pretends this is a "requirement" is an very important lie that fits with attempts to characterize Obama as an over-reacher.
The Christian right does not want women to be able to determine the status of the fetus. They would prefer to ban those prenatal procedures and put up roadblocks to anything that might help a woman decide to have an abortion. Lying about the ACA is what Republicans have been doing all along. No surprise there.
The ACA does not mandate that any kind of testing be performed. What it does mandate is that if such testing is required, insurance must cover it at 100% with no copayment. That's all it says.
Thus it mandates "free pre-natal testing," it's your option to use or not. Thanks for the clarification.
Religious conservative republicans are now comfortable saying that they aren't concerned with people at all, and certainly not with their quality of life. At all. Period.
Prenatal tests are necessary for a whole raft of reasons, not the least of which is identifying problems with fetal development. Many problems can be dealt with in utero so the baby can be born healthy and whole. If these problems go undiagnosed, by the time the baby is delivered, things can have progressed to the point where the infant isn't viable ex-utero, or will have a life so circumscribed by health issues and medical expense that it breaks the family.
Republicans are doing their level best to take away the social and financial supports for families with such babies, so the families will be even more likely to fail under their burdens.
Republicans aren't concerned with the family, or the individual, or society as a whole. They are concerned only with extracting as much money from this nation as they can, and sending it off shore without paying taxes on it.
More people are bankrupt and homeless than ever before because of medical bills, and republicans only want to make things worse.
They are not conservatives, they are radical fundamentalists, who since day one have endevoured to destroy the constitution because it mandates separation of church and state. Just listen to Santorum for a minute and you can see the wisdom of that mandate.
Well said peanut, just another way to hold people down, and create more wage slaves. Just think how much it cost insurance companies and how much Catholic hospitals make off of these children with issues that could have been prevented?
But, A.j., the irony is that babies born with disabilities do not necessarily grow up to be breadwinners.
Consequence and ramification. Not the breadwinner? In need of governmental assistance programs? Uh oh.
Peanut9000--so true so true!!
Yup, the GOP wants government SO SMALL that it can fit inside a woman's uterus. And they wonder why woman tend to vote Democrat.
gonna see those o' bumper stickers, "dumprick" he keeps this up!
In my opinion there seems to be a group of politicians, religious zelots, controlled power mongers, and "wealthers", that don't want any group to have rights. Gays and marriages, birth control, abortion, no tax cuts for the wealthy...I can go on and on. The problem is these are not the issues that are a priority. Republicians use these issues because they are emotional moral issues that can upset people but the republician tend to focus on these issues... BECAUSE THEY ARE DVERSIONS, from what the Bush era created in the first place economically and poltically.
I saw the clip. Santorum made it clear that he is in favor of prenatal care. He specifically is against prenatal amniocentesis testing, as that is the testing that alerts women to abnormalities and allows them to consider abortion. He does not want women to have that choice or that information, and does not want ins co making it easy by providing coverage for that testing.
He want every woman to follow his moral opinion, period. No information, no choice, no ins coverage making it easier to afford to pay on your own.
If he is really prolife, not just probirth, then I expect to see him going after ways to force the fathers of every pregnancy to be identified and forced to provide for that child's life, and to go after more suppport for health coverage for every child so each child can have a healthy life, and for education for each child...and for ins cov for a nanny for the family of a disabled child so the mother can take proper care of each other child, etc....I am not seeing that concern from him. I am simply seeing that he is the one true god and he insists we must all follow his dictates or we are wrong....and insisting on every birth as a consequence for women who fornicate...excuse me...who have sex....they must get that consequence! It's is not about the child or what is best for every fertilized egg's life....it is about making women deal with the consequence of having sex.
Has he had a campaing shot on the top of a mountain holding a stone tablet yet?
patricia-3344231,
Let us remember that HE USED PRENATAL TESTS and was ready to ABORT.
BUT YOU CAN NOT.
You are not in the "in-club"
Sorry if YOU die giving birth, and YOUR CHILDREN are left to be orphans.
Sorry if YOU have to spend all your time at the hospital caring for a critically ill infant, and YOUR OTHER CHILDREN are 'emotional' orphans.
Sorry if YOU lose your life and leave your HUSBAND to become a WIDOW, one who has to handle grief, loss, a severely disabled child's care needs, and other healthy children's parenting needs ALL WHILE NEEDING TO PROVIDE for himself and the family.
Sorry if this whole experience BANKRUPTS you or makes YOUR family HOMELESS after one-month of hospital bills.
Sorry if YOU or your husband loses their JOB because of the overwhelming needs for care you will need to provide for this child--all while the financial pressures intensify for your family.
And, FU, you're ON YOUR OWN, we're going to cut Federal and State education funds, as well as Social Safety net funding for elderly, infirm and disabled.
Oh, and VOTE FOR ME, I'm the one-true-religion.
Thanks (FU)
Addendum: I would like to have the financial specifics of the costs for the life of his daughter made public.....how much from ins co and how much himself....and then have an interviewer corner him and ask him how on earth a regular American family can afford to manage this. Or is he planning to start fighting for equal financial support for every disabled child born??
Right - between his half-baked tax policy that favors the richest, his inclination to wipe out all entitlements (including those health-related), and your point here -- he may well be more out of touch with humanity than even Mittens. #Shocker
I'd like to know who his insurer is. Is it the taxpayer? Has anyone said?
It's a really moot point whether the insurer is the taxpayer or not. If a private company doesn't cover you then everyone else ends up paying for your lack of coverage when you go to the hospital. This is part of why it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have the healthcare industry be privatized as a primary resource. As a secondary resource sure, but not as a primary.
patricia -
My mom was life-long disabled, even with her SSDI and Medicare, and her private pension and private secondary health insurance, I PERSONALLY PAID over $100k over 10 years, and her siblings and parents kicked in as well...
AND we still had to declare bankruptcy for her, and eventually have her live with me while I quit my job to care for her full-time. (I really wanted to care for her in my home, and I'm glad I did, but often felt I was a SLAVE and often wished either she or I were dead--I know that sounds awful---it was just the circumstances, it was just SOOOOOOOOOOOO HARD. And not her FAULT. Just unimaginable stress 24/7/365 with no end in sight---financially, emotionally, logistically.)
to Mouzer:
my interest in knowing the amount of ins money involved is to make it clear that good ins coverage is necessary to manage saving seriously impaired lives....so will RS guarantee to all mothers the same high quality insur. coverage he has that allows him to save his child????
likewise my interest in knowing how much of his own money he has spent....what about those of us who do not have those resources, either???
When I see pics of him so lovingly holding up his daughter, I am furious about the lack of support available for the rest of us...oh, yeah, I forgot...we don't count...
Ahhhh I see what you mean patricia. I thought you were trying to say that maybe Santorum is justifying his stance based on costs. I was countering that by saying that we all have to pay for the costs one way or another. It's just if you don't have coverage (like he and his family do) your life is going to be miserable and the point leading up to when you can finally get healthcare usually is too little, too late (as they say).
Santorum is staunchly Catholic. It colors his thinking in all aspects of his life and is the basis of his campaign and his policies. So, does that mean he is in favor of child molestation? It is Catholic policy to hide the problem and transfer it's clergy accused of that horrendous crime is it not? Guilt by association. If you don't condemn, it means you are compicit, doesn't it? Isn't the 'church' being sued right now over this policy?
I'm tired of him representing himself as a holy man, the model Catholic..implying that we are wrong to disagree with what he says because he is telling us what god wants and what the...that is...what THE...Bible.....says...
hey, who are we to criticize or disagree with Rick's god????
no....I don't fall for it anymore....he is a narcissist, a control freak, and a misogynist.
I am left totally (or obviously not completely) speechless. Every time one of these completely brain dead "politicians" makes another 100% stupid remark, or pushes some completely insane ideology I am completely rendered open-mouthed. And the thing that completely takes me aback is that during this completely inane political maneuver of primaries and such this completely STUPID man is garnering votes. Really? I mean really. Please tell me that I am going to like completely wake up tomorrow and this entire phase of our countries history will be completely a bad dream. I am bumbfuzzeled on so many levels and finished completely!
I don't believe Santorum believes a word of his own rhetoric. It's a spin thought up by some out of touch strategist who thinks this is what the unwashed, superstitious masses need to hear and will get him elected. Soon he'll start ranting about end times and try to scare the voters into thinking he is the only one capable of leading the country when the biblical waste material hit the air circulation device. On another note it's been said that the anti-Christ would use religion to gain control hasn't it?
Rick -- unfortunately no...if only he was just a SHILL.
In reality, there are these FEROCIOUS people who do choose to carry to term when they learn of terrible diagnoses for mother and baby. He has a child with T-18, and was only ready to abort for another after it was clear Karen would have DIED otherwise.
There are a lot of these ferocious parental advocates of their children with disabilities, especially the ones who learned during the pregnancy.
Obviously that decision made sense for their family. What's UNFORTUNATE and MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE in my opinion is that they would deny others access to information and medical care and the ability for each family to examine their own conscience and evaluate their own resources for their own situation.
I personally feel their efforts would be more LAUDABLE if they were to advocate for those ALREADY BORN--increasing awareness of the disabled children and babies languishing in overstuffed orphanages around the world.
Lobbying congress and state legislatures for increased funding and services.
Depriving others of the ACCESS and the PROCESS they availed for themselves IS, FRANKLY, DISGUSTING and ABOMINABLE. We need to say NO! Loudly. And often.
As a disability rights activist I get where Santorum's coming from but given the abysmal state of our safety net it's understandable that many women will make the choice to terminate a DS fetus.
The fact is being abled is a temporary condition for most of us, we're all eligible for major accidents and debilitating diseases, not to mention increasing dependencies with age. Our society would rather ignore and segregate what it deems unfit, because what is needed requires resources far beyond what it takes to provide sidewalk handicap access.
Without that infrastructure, without the financial resources of someone like Santorum abortion will be the only and difficult choice for some women.
I managed a group home in @!$%# hole Texas, which is notorious for its non-existent safety net. These homes are staffed by low wage, un-educated, generally impatient, hard-hearted aids who come from seedy subcultures, including ex-felons. Abuse and suspicious deaths are frequent occurrences. I wouldn't let my dog live in one, but for too many it's the only option.
There is a movement http://communitynowfreedom.org/ to get these disabled folks out of pernicious care and into the community, which has had ZERO support by Texas Republicans for years, for obvious reasons.
If Santorum wants to reduce these abortions he can work to transform our culture from abelist to one that recognizes and supports the needy. As if.
Or perhaps he should be required to work in a group home for the disabled for a living. (Which I did for my whole adult life). Then he might give up his self righteous BS schtick. (Because that is all it is at the end of the day).
Flawedplan: perfect. Mr. Rick should put his money and his effort where his mouth is!
flawedplan -- TOTALLY. My mom lived in a place for a few years that 'seemed' nice, but she would tell horror stories. And we got her out as soon as we could.
And, I don't see why people like Ricky or other ferocious ideologues direct their time toward increasing resources for the people who are already BORN--especially the babies with disabilities languishing in orphanages.
It is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO disqusting and morally reprehensible to bully and pressure women who were in mine and Ms. Santorum's vulnerable and shameful emotional state to PRESSURE them into carrying to term.
To create MORE orphans, or more people in need of preciously scarce resources, while SIMULTANEOUSLY defunding social safety nets is BEYOND THE PALE.
This is the same man who took his tiny marionette deep purple deceased baby's body--their MUCH MUCH LOVED and wanted child---TO HIS OTHER CHILDREN TO have to see. Regardless of whether or not this would SCAR them for LIFE.
My husband could not look. He was disturbed already and our son is 3 there's NO WAY we would ever risk giving him NIGHTMARES on purpose. WTF????