This soundbite of Rick Santorum has been running around Twitter lately, and I wanted to see if he was being quoted out of context: “Contraception is not okay. It’s a license to do things in the sexual realm.”
The results of my investigation: no, that’s pretty much what he thinks. If you want more depth on what Santorum said he thinks about contraception and the meaning of sex, read on. The original source is <http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/10/19/348007/rick-santorum-pledges-to-defund-contraception-its-not-okay-its-a-license-to-do-things/>, which links to a 45-minute YouTube video of a Santorum interview with Shane Vander Hart, the editor of CaffeinatedThoughts.com, posted 2011-10-18, at <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN7WfIZh690#t=17m45s>. It currently has 52760 views, which seems disappointingly few for such an important tidbit. Santorum starts talking about contraception at time 17:45, just after talking about his severely retarded daughter, in answer to the question, “What can we do to advance the pro-life agenda beyond what we’ve already done?” I have taken a great deal of care to transcribe this with the greatest possible accuracy, and I will publish any corrections. > I’ll repeal all funding of abortion. We won’t, we’ll repeal > Obamacare and get rid of any, any, any, uh, any kind of idea that, > that you have to have abortion coverage or contraceptive coverage. > One of the uh things I will talk about, that no president has talked > about before is, is, I think, the dangers of contraception in this > country, well, I mean, the whole sexual liber-, libertine idea. And > many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay.” I mean, > you know, is, “contraception’s okay.” > > It’s not okay. Because uh, it’s a license. To uh, uh, to do things > in the sexual, in the sexual realm that is, that’s counter to what, > what, how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within > marriage, they’re supposed to be um, for purposes that are, yes, > conjugal, but also, uh, immunative [?], but also procreative. And > that’s, that’s the perfect way that, that a sexual union should > happen. And when we take any part of that out, we diminish the act. > If you can take one part out --- it’s not for, for purposes of > procreation, it’s not, it’s not one of the reasons --- then you > diminish this very special bond between men and women. > > So why can’t you take other parts out, then? What you, and then, > and all of a sudden it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s > simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it, and um, it’s an > important part of it, don’t get me wrong! But there’s a lot of > things we do for pleasure. And, uh, this is special. And it needs > to be seen as special. > > Again, I, I know most presidents don’t talk about those things. And > maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things. Uh, but, I > think it’s, I think it’s important that, that you, you are who you > are. I’m not, you know, I’m not running for preacher. I’m not > running for pastor. But these are important public policy issues. > These have profound impact on the health of our society. Now, I’m > not talking about moral health --- uh, although, clearly moral > health! But I’m talking economic health, I’m talking, talking about > out-of-wedlock birth rates, sexually transmitted diseases. All of > these other things. > > These are profound issues that, we only like to talk about it from a > scientific point of view. Well, that’s one point of view! But we > also need to have the courage to talk about the um, uh, the moral > aspects of it, and, and, uh, and, sort of the purpose, the reason, > the rationale for why we do what we do. [ending time 20:07] I certainly agree with Santorum that contraception and people’s attitude toward sexuality are profound issues with profound impact on the health of our society. And I remember when I thought more or less as he did, when I was 8 and 9 years old, as a result of reading a lot of Hare Krishna books. I changed my mind because, after asking a housemate about her use of the Today contraceptive sponge at 9, and suggesting to my father that we go to a Birthright fundraiser when I was 10, I found out that my entire family disagreed with me. (It turns out that people’s beliefs are generally not rational assessments of reality, but mostly just copies of other people’s beliefs, particularly when it comes to good and evil.) Factually speaking, I think the effect of implementing the policies Santorum advocates --- eliminating public funding for contraception and abortion --- would be a large, immediate, and permanent increase in abortions, out-of-wedlock birth rates, and sexually transmitted diseases, and a corresponding decline in economic health over the following decades as single mothers and their children dropped out of school. That’s because people (men and boys, but especially women and girls) use contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. I am not sure what Santorum imagines the effect would be. -- To unsubscribe: http://lists.canonical.org/mailman/listinfo/kragen-tol
