BooneCountyGirl
skyler the weird
Rick Barton
Joe
Wiley Coyote
Big Government In Your Bedroom
OK, probably not the most romantic headline to jumpstart Valentine’s Day, but it is what it is. In this case, it’s the ostensible GOP Not-Mitt of the Moment, Rick Santorum, holding forth that while it’s a rightful abomination for the Obama administration to force religious-affiliated groups to provide employees with insurance coverage for birth control, it’s somehow acceptable for Big Government to drive public policy on contraception choices.
It’s funny depressing nearly suicidal what you’ll find with a jump in the Google machine to search Santorum and contraception. Sure there’s his recent exchange with NBC’s David Gregory, where Santorum declares:
“What I’ve talked about it with respect is my Catholic faith. I agree with the Catholic Church on the issue of contraception. But as you know, that’s a different position than I have with respect to public policy. You know, public policy, women should have access to contraception. I have no problem with that at all.”
Fine, except there’s this from last October:
One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea … Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay … contraception’s okay.”
It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal … but also procreative.
…
Again, I know most presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues.
Er, what? No. Government should no more be setting policy on an individual’s contraception choices than it should be setting policy that mandates insurance coverage for the same.
Fill in some of the gaps from that October interview (key in around the 17:55 mark) and it’s clear that Santorum equally blurs his views on contraceptive birth control as a social/religious issue and as one that requires government intervention to address a public health issue. And that becomes a very fine and dangerous line to blur.
On the social end, Santorum says contraception is “not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal … but also procreative.”
And continues:
That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’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 of that out? 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 it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.
As a parent who teaches abstinence as a line of first and best defense, I have no problem with Santorum’s rhetoric. But that should be a choice for the parent to preach, not for government to direct. Which is where Santorum heads under the guise of a public health issue:
These have profound impact on the health of our society. I’m not talking about moral health, although clearly moral health; but I’m talking economic health, I’m talking about out-of-wedlock birth rates, sexually transmitted diseases, all these other things.
These are profound issues that we only like to talk about from a scientific point of view. But we also have to have the courage to talk about the moral aspects of it.
Talking about it is great; in fact, I’d strongly encourage parents to have that exact discussion with their kids. But when a suddenly serious challenger for the GOP presidential nod says the Oval Office should be used as bully pulpit to link public policy discussion with the inherent evils of birth control, I’ll take him at his word that he thinks it’s a legitimate role of government to push for control of contraception choices.
And that is a worrisome notion coming from the GOP’s alleged small-government conservative.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: http://pundithouse.com/?p=8658
This is a tough one Mark.
I certainly have no problem with contraception. I do have a problem with government providing it for “free”. (No such thing as free, but I digress.) I also have a problem with government directing third parties (insurance companies) to provide it for “free”. If it’s a choice we make, we need to be prepared to pay for it ourselves.
I’d be curious about Santorum’s ultimate direction. I think it is perfectly acceptable for a President to be a “moral leader”. Clearly, abstinence is the best policy for those not wishing children. I have no problem with a President using a bully pulpit (no pun intended) to recommend that as the proper course of action. The question is, does it progress from advocacy to legislation. That’s where the danger is. We should never limit the market’s ability to provide contraception at a price to the final consumer. I’m not sure if Santorum has actually called for the prohibition. I agree with him on no government funding for it, just perhaps for different reasons.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Have to admit your headline gave me a jolt.
Big Government seems to always be in the bedroom. Republicans/Conservatives just hide under our beds for different reasons.
I don’t believe government can or should pay for everything, but don’t you think birth control is a lot less expensive than supporting the offspring of those who don’t have access to it because of the cost? Just an idea to think about.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Thanks for the comment, welcome to “the House”.
I’d offer two looks.
First off, a condom costs like a buck. If you can’t afford it, chances are you shouldn’t be having sex in the first place.
But if you do, the question becomes is it truly governments roll to confiscate money from those who make responsible decisions to pay for those that don’t? I don’t think so.
Our culture and our government, though tax policy, actually encourages procreation for money. It’s a sad state of affairs. Get your child tax credit here, thanks for plopping out another voter.
If we removed that element, perhaps we’d actually be promoting more responsible behavior in the first place. For those that truly need help, we’ve unfortunately substituted government for real, local, personal, charity. The community used to be able to take care of it’s own before government made it too expensive to do so….or people simply said “to heck with it, I don’t need to help my neighbor. That’s what government is for.”
Thanks again for joining the commentary.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Women don’t wear condoms. Men should, but they (much too often) do not. I understand a woman can buy condoms, but dismissing the discussion by saying, “if you can’t afford a condom you shouldn’t be having sex” doesn’t get us very far in the discussion. There is far more to it than that.
But since we are talking about wasting tax dollars on bedroom issues. Let’s talk about the massive waste of tax dollars being spent amending the state constitution to make illegal something that is already illegal.
Unfortunately, real local, personal, charity no longer exists. Far too many churches take their charity out of this country. They will send tons of supplies to Haiti after an earthquake, but do very little to help the poor family down the street. (not intending to be completely literal here…just offering an example) I’ll go out on a limb here and say recent events with reduced government aid to charities might show donors have stepped up for the arts and other organizations, but those directly benefiting the poor haven’t fared as well. When time allows I might just research this.
One group we volunteer for in our family is Beds for Kids. They help local families and the community has responded to the point they have to schedule volunteers out weeks into the future. I’m not certain they are getting the financial support they need. I have no way of knowing that detail. http://www.bedsforkids.org/
Thanks for the warm welcome. I’m sure we agree on very little politically, but it’s nice to have a civil conversation.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I don’t think the gay marriage amendment referendum is costing the state government much $$$, if any. It is on a ballot for a primary election that would be held anyway? How is this a “massive waste of tax dollars”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Maybe not a waste of money but certainly a waste of time. You cannot decry government control of healthcare, education etc and then turn around and say government should control consensual relationships between grownups. You cannot accept tax breaks for your marriage under the guise of “its my money” then deny gay people that same right. Gay people pay taxes too and they deserve equal protection under the law. If you oppose Gay marriage don’t marry a man. OR BETTER YET – get government out of the marriage business altogether. Just as the contraception issue is not about religion but about the 1st ammendement, gay marriage is not about morality but about equal protection under the law. If we conservatives want others to respect our contention that the government has limited powers, we need to stop trying to use the power of government to limit our fellow citizen’s rights.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
To say that women would not “have access” to birth control unless their insurance company provides it for free is a specious argument at best. Every girl in any high school can tell you EXACTLY where to go to get the pill or other birth control. And people give money to other countries b/c their money goes DIRECTLY to the recipient for the purpose intended. (For example, if they give to help a breast cancer victim it goes right to her, not to an abortion provider) People don’t give as much to charity b/c the government steals half of their money allegedly so charity will not be required. But if the government is so good at providing a safety net, why are there ever increasing numbers of folks requiring one?
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
What’s depressing is the fact that 70% of black children are born into single parent homes and the overall rate is over 40%.
The idea that we can teach school children about birth control and give it away for “free” and somehow turn this statistic around is a myth.
Government needs to stay away from sexual education and stop incentivizing promiscuity!
This Heritage article advocates Marriage as the greatest weapon against child poverty (I think it addresses the point that Sen. Santorum was trying to make): http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/marriage-america-s-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I believe Santorum is saying that the media portrayal of contraception does not expose the underbelly of contaception. The popular media decries any limits on our expressions of sexuality. This wide open stance has drawbacks on society as a whole. Santorum’s quotes in this article are in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church on sexuality. Santorum would like to bring another perspective to the public arena.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Good for him. I would like a President who uses the bible as his guiding principle in his PRIVATE affairs and the CONSTITUTION as his guiding principle in governing. The role of government is to protect individual property and the collective defense. When the government ceases doing everything else, we will be prosperous. And prosperous people tend to make good choices – look at out of wedlock birth rates, age of mother when first child is born, marriage rates, etc by income and education levels. If you are prosperous you have skin in the game. Poor people have no skin in the game. Shaming them will not change behavior. But employment will….
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
This country’s $16 trillion in debt with 20% unemployment and you monkeys are yapping about CONDOMS?
In the immortal words of Jim Traficant, BEAM ME UP.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Yikes, I thought we were yapping about the appropriate role of government and its disturbing propensity for overreach and abuse of authority.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And the way to do that is to ask whether car insurance should pay for oil changes and headlamps. And when the respondent says “no” ask them why then should health insurance pay maintenance costs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yeah Herm a couple of billion dollars in Taxes to pay for some that are probably defective so the same PP foundation that provides them gets anoth 40 or 50 billion in taxes to provide abortions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0