Afterparty with the Media Pundit Anal-ysis
Posted: January 7, 2012 Filed under: Live Blog | Tags: X 2012: The ESOTUS (empty suit of the united states) election 34 CommentsHere’s the Live Blog of the NH Debate tonight if you missed it.
George Snuffleopogus’s ABC crack pundit panel say none of the other Republican candidates were able to take down Mittens.
Discuss.
UPDATE…
Here are some Debate youtubes, as they roll in:
Via TPM…
Rick Perry Says He Would Send Troops Back To Iraq:
Hmm… this just showed up on youtube, via a user who goes by “realjoeplummer” (oh dear…) and it’s called “Ron Paul Highlights in 1/07/2012 Debate” (oh dear x 2):
Ekey santorum’s “you lie” moment vis-a-vis Rogue Paul:
I’ll end this with RuPaul in New Hampshire today:
another clip of RuPaul, H/T to our wonderful commenter HT:
If you have any debate links, videos, commentary, etc., please post them in the comments. Good night and good riddance to the GOP clown car.
Live Blog-n-BYOB: Saturday NH Debate
Posted: January 7, 2012 Filed under: Live Blog | Tags: X 2012: The ESOTUS (empty suit of the united states) election 163 CommentsGood evening, news junkies!
- Will Mittens get Newtered?
- Will the media cover anything Hunstman says as something of consequence?
- Will Santorum’s head cavity explode and reveal that there’s been a sparkly stockpile of GLITTER in there all this time?
Join us here at Sky Dancing with your Poison-and/or-Beverage of Choice tonight, as our frontpage team and wonderful commentariat live-blog the Republican debate on ABC in the comments section and find out the answers to all these pressing questions.
If you need something to keep yourself from falling asleep during tonight’s debate and/or from giving in to the urge to file for citizenship elsewhere at the prospect of one of the these GOP loony toons becoming the next ESOTUS (Empty Suit of the United States), below are a couple drinkable recipes to peruse, interspersed with a few newsy links about tonight’s Battle of Unarmed Wits in Manchester, NH.
First, a link where you can find a live feed of the debate via WMUR New Hampshire: Watch Debate at 9pm Eastern/8 pm Central.
ABC.com is also supposed to have livestream here.
I don’t know how reliable those two links will be tonight, so if anyone knows of any other live feed links, please post in the comments.
Now, for one of my favorite grown-up drinks…Blueberry Caipirinhas (h/t Chef Marcus Samuelsson, of Top Chef Masters fame):
- 18 ounces Cachaca or white rum
- 3 Tbsp. light brown sugar
- Juice from 2 limes
- 8 lime wedges
- 1/3 cup blueberries
- 1 Tbsp. shredded mint leaves
In a pitcher, combine the rum, sugar, lime juice and lime wedges. Use a heavy spoon to muddle the ingredients and crush them together. To serve, place 1 1/2 tablespoons of crushed ice in the bottoms of 6 glasses. Divide the blueberries and mint leaves among the glasses, then top with the rum mixture and serve immediately.
In New Hampshire, you are expected to think for yourself and live up to the state's motto, "Live Free or Die." (Robert F. Bukaty/AP)
Let’s be honest, there’s a little truth to New Hampshire’s reputation. The maple syrup is great. The state is not known for its nightlife, and it’s tied for third with West Virginia as the whitest state in America.
So when long-time politician Ray Burton was asked to describe the state in one word, his response was surprising.
“It’s diversity, I believe,” he said. “Variety and diversity.”
The 72-year-old Burton doesn’t mean race or ethnicity, though.
“In the district that I’ve represented now for 34 years, out of the 263,000 people, about a third are Democrats, a third Republicans, and the other third are independents,” he said.
Democratic registration has fared worse than Republicans in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina and Pennsylvania — the eight swing states with party registration. Republican losses are biggest in Nevada, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.
The decline is due to a variety of factors. People move, people die, people revolt in disgust. Many are stripped from registration rolls by states seeking to remove inactive voters.
By contrast, the number of independents has grown for years and is up more than 400,000 since 2008, or 1.7%. States with big gains: Colorado, Florida, North Carolina — and Arizona, a possible target for President Obama in 2012.
The 2012 winner, says North Carolina elections director Gary Bartlett, will be “whoever is attractive to the unaffiliated voter.”
I don’t know about that. I don’t think any of the declared candidates on either side of the aisle are particularly attractive to the unaffiliated voter.
Except the Still Not-a-household-name-Jon-Huntsman, of course.
I’ve made no secret that I’d at least *consider* voting for Huntsman if he made it through the primaries–but I knew that was a long shot from the start.
The Republican grassroots are determined not to nominate the only guy many Independents would take a serious look at. Figures.
Here’s an excerpt from the prolific Charles Pierce’s latest on “Huntsman, Fighting Invisibility Off With Sanity” (H/T Bostonboomer):
I have chaffed him not a little for his chronic bouts of invisibility during this campaign in which, all things being equal, he should be a major player. Alas for him, however, all things are not equal. The calculations in Republican politics are as skewed and goofy as the field of candidates, to say nothing of the ideas most of them have been spewing since everything began last summer. Jon Huntsman should not be polling behind Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. Hell, Trigger shouldn’t poll behind those two. But Jon Huntsman never has been good at the calculus of the crazy, so there he is, chatting with the folks over their eggs, a nice man who’s come to talk and little more than that.
[…]
“The real problem is the insurance companies,” Huntsman said. “We can’t have truly affordable insurance in this country because the insurance companies are not doing what they’re supposed to do — which is take a risk.”
I can assure you that I have listened to these jamokes from one part of the country to another and this is the first time than any of them have mentioned the fact that, perhaps, maybe, if the private insurance companies weren’t such a greedy pack o’ bastards, health-care costs in this country might moderate just a tad. (On Wednesday night, a guy got up at a Santorum event and talked about how hard he had it in the insurance game, and Santorum practically threw him a parade.) It was like a cool breeze blew through the diner. The elderly gentleman relaxed visibly. Jon Huntsman waved, shook hands, posed for a couple of pictures on the front steps, and was gone, leaving just a little bit of sanity behind for people to remember him by.
And boy, in this election year, is that not nearly enough.
The companies on Thursday announced that they have teamed up for a collaboration dubbed the “Yahoo News/Funny or Die Presidential GOP Online Internet Cyber Debate.” It will air Friday at 8am EST on Yahoo News and the Yahoo Screen page, reports the New York Times.
Moderated by former CNN host Larry King, the 16-minute spoof features a side-splitting cast of actors and comedians playing the Republican candidates including Horatio Sanz of Saturday Night Live fame as Newt Gingrich; John C. McGinley from Scrubs as Rick Santorum; Patrick Warburton playing Gov. Rick Perry; Leslie Jordan as Rep. Ron Paul; Greg Germann playing Jon Huntsmann; Erin Gibson as Rep. Michelle Bachmann,; and Twitter funnyman Rob Delaney as Mitt Romney.
Mike Tyson, who has already shown off his comedic chops in Funny or Die election spoofs, will reprise his role as former GOP hopeful and pizza mogul Herman Cain. Additionally, Bryan Safi will play Bachmann’s husband Marcus and Reggie Brown will play President Obama.
I haven’t had a chance to check it out yet, so if you have/find the youtube, please post it!
- 2 cups ice
- 1 cup frozen blueberries
- 1 cup blueberry nectar
- 1/4 cup seltzer
- 2 tablespoons frozen limeade
- 1 tablespoon lime juice
- 3 ounces tequila, optional
- 1 lime wedge
- Coarse salt
Combine ice, blueberries, blueberry nectar, seltzer, limeade, lime juice and tequila, if using, in a blender and blend until smooth. Rub rim of 2 glasses with lime wedge and dip in salt. Divide the margarita between the prepared glasses and serve.
Five things to watch for in tonight’s Debate, from the go-to place for campaign news — i.e. the NY Times Caucus Blog (I’m abbreviating the excerpt to the first paragraph after each number, so be sure to click over to read the rest if you’re intrigued):
1. NEWT UNLEASHED: Newt Gingrich continues to insist that he will not go negative in the coming days. But he says that even as he repeatedly lashes out at Mr. Romney’s record, calling him a “Massachusetts moderate” — and worse.
[…]
2. SANTORUM IN THE SPOTLIGHT: Polls going into the weekend showed Rick Santorum gaining strength in both New Hampshire and South Carolina. Though still trailing Mr. Romney by quite a distance, Mr. Santorum, who has been on the fringes of previous debates, is clearly benefiting from a second look by voters after his near-win in Iowa.3. HUNTSMAN’S LAST STAND?: For Jon Huntsman, the challenge is the same as it’s been for the last several months — getting people to notice his campaign. This may be his last chance.
4. NO MORE ‘OOPS’: For Rick Perry, the main challenge is simple — no more mistakes. The debate stage has not been a friendly one for the Texas governor, but the lack of debates has also meant a lack of attention as the media focuses elsewhere. The weekend gives him a last chance to restart his campaign.
5. PAUL’S ATTACKS: Of all the candidates, Ron Paul has seemed the most willing to offer character attacks under his own name. In Iowa, he ran brutal ads against Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, questioning their ethics and their positions.
“I’m going to N.H. on a mission to spread love and set the record straight: contrary to recent reports, I am NOT Ron Paul. And I am not running for president of the United States. I hope to meet Ron Paul in person so we can be seen together to put the rumors to rest once and for all. And to remind Mr. Paul and all the Republican presidential candidates ‘if you can’t love yourself, how in the hell are you going to love somebody else. Can I get an ‘Amen?'”
RuPaul also mentioned that while he is not a political person, “any time a man leaves the house in a wig and a pair of cha cha heels, he’s making a political statement. Let us not forget that this great nation was founded by a bunch of men wearing wigs.”
Why, oh why, is there not a video of this? And if there secretly is, can any of you send it my way? I want to go to there.
Police State Awareness Day
Posted: January 7, 2012 Filed under: Civil Liberties, Civil Rights | Tags: homeland security, indefinite detention of American citizens, police state, under suspicion 9 Comments
I’ve found 2011’s list of Top MuckReads at ProPublica and wanted to highlight the investigative articles involving homeland security. I have to admit that the patterns are ominous. It seems that domestic surveillance is the new reality.
First up is an article that shows how NYPD sends spies to Mosques.
Highlights of AP’s probe into NYPD intelligence operations, Associated Press
“Mosque crawlers” who monitor sermons and “rakers” who embed themselves into minority neighborhoods are among the tactics the New York Police Department has used since 9/11. It was done with the assistance of the CIA, which is prohibited from spying on Americans.
Next is one that shows that the FBI isn’t beyond setting folks up for fun and arrest numbers.
Terrorists for the FBI, Mother Jones
Almost all of the high-profile domestic terror plots of the last decade were actually FBI stings. The story details “how informants are recruited and used and how and why agents are pursuing these aggressive sting operations.”
Here’s an interesting one on the use of force by the Las Vegas Police. This would make me rethink vacations plans.
Deadly Force: When Las Vegas police shoot, and kill, Las Vegas Review-Journal
Analyzing each police shooting in the region since 1990, the Review-Journal found “an insular department that is slow to weed out problem cops and is slower still to adopt policies and procedures that protect both its own officers and the citizens they serve.”
Here’s an interesting set of stories from the Center for Investigative Reporting published as a project called “Under Suspicion”. Basically, investigative reporters have looked at the reports of suspicious activity at The Mall of America and how the Homeland Security programs have worked. Ever visited the Mall of America? You could wind up in counterterrorism reports!
On the week of the 10th anniversary of Sept. 11, the Center for Investigative Reporting and NPR published “Under Suspicion,” a joint yearlong investigation that looked at suspicious activity reports at the Mall of America and how the U.S. government has gathered intelligence since Sept. 11.
For CIR’s first live Behind the Story event, we teamed up with the San Francisco Film Society to give people a full look at how we put together an investigation in this digital age. “Under Suspicion” was published in print, broadcast, radio, as an animation and with multimedia components. Watch CIR reporters, producers and editors discuss their methodology and how they put together this innovative package.
There’s a lot of videos and interviews in the link. You can check out NPR’s role in the investigation here.
Since Sept. 11, the nation’s leaders have warned that government agencies like the CIA and the FBI can’t protect the country on their own — private businesses and ordinary citizens have to look out for terrorists, too. So the Obama administration has been promoting programs like “See Something, Say Something” and the “Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative.”
Under programs like these, public attractions such as sports stadiums, amusement parks and shopping malls report suspicious activities to law enforcement agencies. But an investigation by NPR and the Center for Investigative Reporting suggests that at one of the nation’s largest shopping malls, these kinds of programs are disrupting innocent people’s lives.
One afternoon three years ago, Francis Van Asten drove to the Mall of America, near Minneapolis, and started recording. First he filmed driving to the mall. Then he filmed a plane landing at the nearby airport, and then he strolled inside the mall and kept recording as he walked. He says he was taking a video to send to his fiancee in Vietnam.
As he started filming, he didn’t realize that he was about to get caught up in America’s war on terrorism — the mall had formed its own private counterterrorism unit in 2005. And now, a security guard had been tailing Van Asten since before he entered the mall. Van Asten was first approached by a guard outside a clothing store.
“And he asked me what I was doing. And I said, ‘Oh, I’m making a video.’ And I said, ‘Are we allowed to make videos in Mall of America, and take pictures and stuff?’ He says, ‘Oh sure, nothing wrong with that,’ ” explains Van Asten. “So I turn to start walking away, and then he started asking me questions. Why am I making a video, what am I making a video of, what I did for a living, and he asked me, what’s my hobbies?”
The guard called another member of the mall’s security unit, and they questioned Van Asten for almost an hour before summoning two police officers from the Bloomington Police Department.
“I hadn’t done anything wrong. I wasn’t doing anything wrong, according to them even. I asked the policeman why I was being detained,” says Van Asten. “He said, ‘Listen, mister, we can do this any way you want: the easy way or the hard way.’ ”
And then, the police took Van Asten down to a police substation in the mall’s basement.
Oh, and let’s not forget this.
He waited until New Year’s Eve to do it…but he did it. While expressing “serious reservations” about the bill, President Barack Obama on New Year’s Eve signed legislation that cements into law two highly controversial tenets of the war on terror: indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without charge, and the jailing of American citizens without trial. It also takes terrorism-related cases out of the hands of the FBI and the civilian court system and hands them over to the military.Obama approved the bill (known as the National Defense Authorization Act), but at the same time, in a signing statement, claimed his administration would not allow the military to detain Americans indefinitely.Civil libertarians were nonetheless outraged by Obama’s approval of the legislation. They claim that Obama is taking a “Trust me; I won’t do it” position. However, even if he does refrain from abusing the law, there is no guarantee that future presidents won’t imprison Americans and others indefinitely without trial or even without charge.
Saturday Reads: Abortion, Loss, Grief, and Privacy
Posted: January 7, 2012 Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, abortion rights, morning reads, religious extremists, Reproductive Health, Reproductive Rights, Republican politics, Republican presidential politics, U.S. Politics, Women's Rights | Tags: abortion, inducing labor, Karen Santorum, miscarriage, oxytocin, Pitocin, Rick Santorum, spontaneous septic abortion 92 CommentsGood Morning!
Tonight is the New Hampshire Republican debate. Will there be fireworks between Newt and Mitt or even Newt and Rick Santorum? Newt is still on the warpath. Tonight Wonk the Vote is planning a very special live blog with drinks and maybe drinking games.
I liked the suggestion I heard from Willie Geist on MSNBC yesterday morning. He said people should take a drink every time Rick Santorum says “partial birth abortion.” And then he played audio of Santorum saying it over and over. Okay, I know that’s tasteless, but it did make me laugh yesterday around 5AM. Anyway, be sure to drop by tonight for Wonk’s live blog!
Speaking of late-term abortions (or not-abortions), I’ve been thinking a lot about Rick and Karen Santorum and the story of how they reacted after Karen lost a pregnancy at 19-20 weeks in 1996. Once I started writing, it ended up being the focus of this post. I hope some other people also think it’s worth thinking and writing about and you won’t think I’m too “weird” for doing so.
There has been quite a bit of discussion around the internet about the couple’s decision to bring their dead baby (actually a second trimester fetus) home with them for their children to hold and cuddle. Karen Santorum subsequently wrote a book about the family’s experiences, Letters to Gabriel. Dakinikat wrote about this in a recent post that I can’t seem to locate at the moment. From 2005 NYT article (previously quoted by Dakinikat):
The childbirth in 1996 was a source of terrible heartbreak — the couple were told by doctors early in the pregnancy that the baby Karen was carrying had a fatal defect and would survive only for a short time outside the womb. According to Karen Santorum’s book, “Letters to Gabriel: The True Story of Gabriel Michael Santorum,” she later developed a life-threatening intrauterine infection and a fever that reached nearly 105 degrees. She went into labor when she was 20 weeks pregnant. After resisting at first, she allowed doctors to give her the drug Pitocin to speed the birth. Gabriel lived just two hours.
What happened after the death is a kind of snapshot of a cultural divide. Some would find it discomforting, strange, even ghoulish — others brave and deeply spiritual. Rick and Karen Santorum would not let the morgue take the corpse of their newborn; they slept that night in the hospital with their lifeless baby between them. The next day, they took him home. “Your siblings could not have been more excited about you!” Karen writes in the book, which takes the form of letters to Gabriel, mostly while he is in utero. “Elizabeth and Johnny held you with so much love and tenderness. Elizabeth proudly announced to everyone as she cuddled you, ‘This is my baby brother, Gabriel; he is an angel.'” ”
Pitocin is a synthetic form of oxytocin, a hormone with important roles in childbirth, breastfeeding, and attachment (love). As a drug, it is used to induce labor contractions. Therefore, many people see what happened as a late term abortion. At 19 weeks, the child when delivered is fully formed, but is still technically a fetus because it cannot live outside the womb.
In fact, hospital forms about the death read “20-week-old fetus,” according to a 2005 Washington Post story, but the couple insisted the form be changed to read “20-week-old baby.”
Of course most people would agree that the Santorums did the right thing to save Karen’s life. But since Rick Santorum was the author of the legislation that banned “partial birth abortion” (a made-up medical procedure), some have seen hypocrisy in their choice. Others have mocked them for bringing the corpse home and encouraging their children to handle it.
Alan Colmes was heavily criticized for “mocking” the Santorums on Fox News, and he later apologized to them personally. Eugene Robinson called the Santorums’ actions “weird” in an appearance on MSNBC, and the Washington Post Ombudsman felt the need to weigh in on the reader reaction. According to ABC News,
The Internet lit up with comments this week after Santorum’s meteoric rise to second-place in the Iowa caucuses, nearly tying him with presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Some described Santorum’s story as “weird” or “horrifying.”
So of course now the “experts” are being consulted for their opinions on the Santorum family drama. From the ABC News story:
In the context of the times — the year was 1996 when the family buried Gabriel — their behavior was understandable, according to Dr. David Diamond, a psychologist and co-author of the 2005 book “Unsung Lullabies.”
Helen Coons, a clinical psychologist and president of Women’s Mental Health Associates in Philadelphia, said couples are not encouraged to bring a deceased fetus home.
Apparently at the time, couples were being encouraged to express their grief over miscarriages and stillborn babies.
Diamond said that 20 years ago, around the time that the Santorums suffered their loss, professionals encouraged their response.
“It was getting to be more in fashion,” he said.
“The trend was, rather than ignoring, to help people with their grieving and make it a real loss rather than something stuck in their minds and imagination for years,” he said. “Even before that, they allowed families to hold the dead infant or fetus and spend time with them — as much as they wanted.”
A corpse was not often taken home, but might be kept in the refrigerator for “a couple of days,” so the family could have access, according to Diamond.
“It was kept in the hospital, but of course you can’t do that for too many days,” Diamond said. “But there were cases were they basically allowed the family to handle and be with baby and say goodbye.”
I can certainly identify with the grief the family felt, and I could even understand having the children view the child’s body in the hospital; but I admit to feeling uncomfortable with the idea of taking the body home. I’m not sure how long they kept it either; none of the articles I’ve read are specific on that point.
Charles Lane, a columnist at the Washington Post, wrote about his own and his wife’s experience of losing a baby in the third trimester.
Nine years ago, my son Jonathan’s heart mysteriously stopped in utero — two hours prior to a scheduled c-section that would have brought him out after 33 weeks. Next came hours of induced labor so that my wife could produce a lifeless child. I cannot describe the anxiety, emotional pain, and physical horror.
And then there was the question: what about the corpse? Fortunately for us, our hospital’s nurses were trained to deal with infant death. They washed the baby, wrapped him in a blanket and put a little cotton cap on his head, just as they would have done if he had been born alive. They then recommended that we spend as much time with him as we wanted.
My wife held Jonathan for a long while. I hesitated to do so. At the urging of the nurses and my wife, I summoned the courage to cradle Jonathan’s body, long enough to get a good look at his face and to muse how much he looked like his brother — then say goodbye. I am glad that my love for him overcame my fear of the dead.
We, like the Santorums, took a photograph of the baby — lying, as if asleep, in my wife’s arms. We have a framed copy in our bedroom. It’s beautiful.
Lane says that his six-year-old son asked where the baby was, and Lane now regrets not letting his son see the body.
I think part of the squeamishness that I feel–and I’m probably not alone–is that the Santorums chose to share their experience with the public. Santorum’s general fetishizing of fetuses and his absolute anti-abortion stand–even to the point of saying a victim of rape or incest who gets pregnant or a woman whose life is in danger should not be able to have the procedure–naturally leads people to question why he agreed to doctors inducing labor to rid his wife’s body of a fetus that was endangering her.
Here is what Rick Santorum has said about abortions to save the life of the mother:
ABORTION EXCEPTIONS TO PROTECT WOMEN’S HEALTH ARE ‘PHONY’: While discussing his track record as a champion of the partial birth abortion ban in June, Santorum dismissed exceptions other senators wanted to carve out to protect the life and health of mothers, calling such exceptions “phony.” “They wanted a health exception, which of course is a phony exception which would make the ban ineffective,” he said.
So the second part of the public discussion of what I think should really be a private issue (but the Santorums are the ones who made it very public) is did Karen Santorum have an abortion or not? At Salon, writer Irin Carmon reports that an unnamed “expert” says no, it wasn’t an abortion.
Of course, without direct access to Karen Santorum’s medical files, we have to take their word for what happened, and with only sketchy details. But according to a nationally respected obstetrician-gynecologist from a Center for Cosmetic & Reconstructive Gynecology who has long been active in the reproductive health community and who provides abortion services — who spoke on condition of anonymity due to not having treated Santorum directly — by their own account, the Santorums neither induced labor nor terminated the pregnancy.
“Based on what is presented here in these couple of pages, it looks to me as if there’s confusion with some people about what the word ‘abortion’ means,” the doctor told me today. “The word ‘abortion’ probably shouldn’t even be used in this context.” (It is technically correct to say that Karen Santorum had a septic spontaneous abortion, but that’s a medical term for an involuntary event that is different from “induced abortion,” which describes a willful termination.)
After rumors spread in Pennsylvania that Karen Santorum had an abortion, the Philadelphia Inquirer spoke to the Santorums for a story that has served as the main source for the recent chatter. In the 19th week of pregnancy, the paper reported, “a radiologist told them that the fetus Karen was carrying had a fatal defect and was going to die.” They opted for a “bladder shunt” surgery that led to an intrauterine infection and a high fever. The Santorums were told that “unless the source of the infection, the fetus, was removed from Karen’s body, she would likely die.”
There is no mention in the Salon article or in the Philadelphia Inquirer article about the injection of Pitocin that is mentioned in the longer NYT piece. So did Karen have an abortion. I’d say so. Even the “expert” in the Salon story says that what happened was “a septic spontaneous abortion.” So what’s the basis for saying it wasn’t an abortion? I guess the the “expert” feels some compassion for Karen, and so do I. Unlike Karen’s husband, I can empathize with people who are experience something terrible–even if it’s something I’ve never personally experienced.
But it is important when the person is running for President of the U.S. and he promises, if elected, to do everything in his power to ban all access to not only abortion, but also birth control. From the Salon article:
Rick Santorum did tell the Inquirer that “if that had to be the call, we would have induced labor if we had to,” under the understanding that the fetus was going to die anyway and intervening would save Karen’s life. And it is accurate to say that the direct experience of a life-threatening pregnancy and a tragic loss did not leave Rick Santorum with any empathy for women who do have to make those difficult decisions in extremely murky circumstances.
As the doctor put it, “One takes from this that pregnancies can go very, very wrong, very quickly.” Moreover, the kinds of legislative hurdles Santorum wants — or hospital administrative committees that seek to supersede the family’s decision-making — can certainly slow down the process and endanger women’s lives in the process.
Carmon writes that she feels “uncomfortable about having gone this far up Karen Santorum’s womb,” and I do too. But let’s face it: Santorum wants every woman’s womb to be invaded and her every decision about her pregnancy analyzed by strangers on committees. For that reason, I do think it’s important to talk about the choices made by Rick and Karen Santorum.
To summarize, I think grief over a miscarriage, even early in a pregnancy is normal and natural. When it happens late after the baby’s body is fully formed, it’s probably even more traumatic. In fact, according to Dr. Andres Bustillo, many women opt for cosmetic surgery as a way to cope with grief and extreme stress. Charles Lane’s story gave me a lot to think about, and after reading it, I agree that having young children view the body in the hospital could be appropriate.
However, I really think “kissing and cuddling” a corpse “for several hours is a little strange. Keep in mind that the other children were only 6, 4, and 18 months at the time. I also think frequently talking about the dead baby in public in the present tense and showing it’s photo to people is extremely weird. But that’s just me.
The people who are trying to absolve Rick Santorum of hypocrisy by claiming what happened wasn’t an abortion are mistaken. What happened is indistinguishable from the experience of many women–women who would not be able to receive the treatment Karen Santorum got if her husband achieves his political goals.
I’m sorry for the pain this public discussion is probably causing Rick and Karen Santorum and their children. But that’s the price of running for president. Think of the public discussion of the Clinton’s private lives that the media has engaged in for decades! In Santorum’s case, it will probably be over soon, because he’s not likely to get the nomination or ever become president.
Bottom line, this man wants to take away women’s constitutional rights. We’re talking about a politician whose main focus as Senator and in his campaign has been denying women privacy and control over their own bodies. Therefore, I think it’s normal for people to discuss the Santorums’ somewhat unusual, even arguably odd, behavior and to explore the question of whether Karen Santorum had an abortion or not.
I promise you some links to other news in the comments. What are you reading and blogging about today?









Recent Comments