16 Comments on “Rick Santorum: Obama’s abortion views “almost remarkable for a black man.””

1. bostonboomer says:

   January 20, 2011 at 11:09 am

   Dave Wiegel explains what Santorum means.

   The coverage of this quote so far doesn’t appreciate how mainstream Santorum’s point is among pro-life activists. Many pro-life activists consider their work a continuation of other movements that protected human life and elevated the status of people whom the law doesn’t consider “human.” In the 19th century, it was African-Americans; in the 21st century, it’s children in the womb. This is a common point at the annual March for Life. In 2009, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry told activists at the pro-life event: “You are the new abolitionists. You are the new civil-rights movement.”

   Is this something that’ll get Santorum negative stories? Sure, although the choice for him presently is between negative and nothing. Is this something that pro-life voters disagree with? No: They, too, fail to see how the rest of the country misses the connection between the abolitionist movement and the fight to give unborn children the same rights as everyone else.

   Everyone else except women who can get pregnant, that is.

   • dakinikat says:

     January 20, 2011 at 11:43 am

     These folks that don’t recognize the difference between first term fetus and third are pretty good examples of why the us is becoming the worst educated nation in the developed world. They cling to bizarre religious beliefs and ignore science.

     • Minkoff Minx says:

       January 20, 2011 at 1:42 pm

       Damn, these people really piss me off.

       Sorry about the simpleness of this comment, but that is really how I feel.

     • bostonboomer says:

       January 20, 2011 at 2:33 pm

       There’s nothing in the Constitution about fetuses either, as far as I know.

     • Branjor says:

       January 20, 2011 at 2:38 pm

       Their religion could have died out ages ago. But they kept it alive generation after generation because it is easily tailorable to meet their political goals.

   • Seriously says:

     January 20, 2011 at 11:29 pm

     What’s weird is that if they pushed harder on the eugenics theme, it might gain a few votes. There are definitely some people who are receptive to that. But they’re so determined to cast themselves in the role of abolitionists that they can’t stop making these ridiculous analogies that no one thinks are valid and no one actually even understands. I mean, thank goodness they’re so insular and divorced from reality, but it’s just bizarre.

2. Delphyne says:

   January 20, 2011 at 11:10 am

   I can only echo your WTF.

   Here’s another one:

   http://www.grist.org/article/2011-01-19-gop-presidential-candidate-herman-cain-will-snuff-your-seed

3. TheRock says:

   January 20, 2011 at 11:19 am

   The use of the abortion issue to sway ‘unruly’ feminist dissidents, you know, the ones that voted for Hillary over teh one, looks to be going the way of the dingo. Santorum is a serious enough candidate to take with more than a grain of salt.

   The REAL concern is Hillary. Its sad to say, but there really isn’t anyone that can pull us out of this mess save her (and Bill of course, but he has used his 8 yrs in office already). I know she said that she won’t ever run again, but I am signing ever petition and joining every group that is pushing for her to challenge Obumbles in ’12. It’s getting worse in this country every day. Gas here in Houston has hit $3 dollars again. Carpool groups have been on the rise again.

   We are so f*&%d.

   Asshats.

   Hillary 2012

   • TheRock says:

     January 20, 2011 at 11:21 am

     Correction – Santorun isn’t a serious enough candidate to take with more than a grain of salt. My bad….

     Hillary 2012

4. Branjor says:

   January 20, 2011 at 11:29 am

   I’m surprised the “abolitionist” concept of antichoicism has gained traction. I would think the equating of AAs with semi/unformed fetuses and embryos, as the equating of Jews in the holocaust with same, would be considered offensive.

5. mablue2 says:

   January 20, 2011 at 11:53 am

   BB,

   I’m not kidding but we really hear stuff like “especially YOU as a Black man should (not) …” more often than people think, sometimes even from our (White) friends. Most of the times you’re so shocked you barely have the time to realize what just happened.

   Dave Chappelle describe that best in one of my favorite skits. I know exactly what he’s talking about.
   

   • Wonk the Vote says:

     January 20, 2011 at 12:07 pm

     I find the “especially you as a black man” thing very patronizing and despicable in general, but especially when it comes to abortion it seems to stem from that whole weird pro-life canard about eugenics and black babies.

6. cwaltz says:

   January 20, 2011 at 2:18 pm

   Meanwhile bizzaroland hits the House and some of those wonderful Democrats are determined to lead the charge against women’s lives. NOW and NARAL need to target Lipinski if they want to be taken seriously. They need to make it clear there is no room in a party with a pro choice platform for an anti choice view. They also need to make it clear to the GOP women that their birth control is next. The conscience clause allows others to make reproductive choices for them based on that person’s belief set. That means a Catholic pharmacist can tell you no reproductive planning.

   We need to be equally as graphic as the abortion nuts. We need to make it clear a thirteen year old can get pregnant and it is likely she will die. We need to stress death due to preeclampsia and gestational diabetes and fight back that the term ought to be pro lives-as in there are two lives involved in the pregnancy process. If the pro choice movement can not fight back hard we’re going to see a step back for women-particularly the most financially vulnerable and least capable of handling the needs of a child.

   • cwaltz says:

     January 20, 2011 at 2:19 pm

     oops forgot the link.

   • madamab says:

     January 20, 2011 at 4:13 pm

     I agree. The major women’s orgs still think the Ds are on their side, which limits their activism greatly. They need to get over it and get tough with the Democrats who won’t live up to the Party’s platformon choice.

     With regard to the poor and most vulnerable, for the first time in a long while, it is not just they who will suffer if this bill is implemented. Smith-Lipinski will target private abortion insurance too, by imposing a punitive tax on it. That’s right, if you can afford private insurance, you can’t get an abortion without paying extra for the “privilege” of controlling your own reproductive organs. So much for the wingnuts’ hatred of “big government.”

     Maybe this will get the ladies of NOW and NARAL off their fainting couches and get them to organize a big fat march on Washington. It worked back when Roe v. Wade was on the chopping block in 1989. It will work now.

     • Minkoff Minx says:

       January 20, 2011 at 7:04 pm

       Madamab, you touched on something that has always made we wonder…all these right wingnuts are so against any kind of “big government” yet they want to impose all this government control over a woman’s choice.