Santorum hits Romney hard: Are we really going to nominate the worst possible candidate on health care?

posted at 6:58 pm on February 6, 2012 by Allahpundit

Killer material in Minnesota on the eve of the big vote in the midwest. I tried to find longer clips online but these snippets from CNN are the best I can do. ABC:

“Gov. Romney is dead wrong on the issue of the day and he should not be the nominee of the party,” Santorum said in a hotel ballroom across the street from the hospital, adding the issue of health care is “central to our country, central to this race specifically why Gov. Romney is absolutely incapable of making the case against Obamacare successfully.”…

“The problem is, we have a candidate who is running and seen by the media as the prohibitive favorite, who is the worst possible person in the field to put up on this most fundamental issue in this campaign, and that is Gov. Romney,” Santorum said. “The plan he put together in Massachusetts is in fact ‘ObamaCare’ on the state level.”…

Santorum said the two plans have similar levels, using terms like “gold, silver, and bronze,” and in possibly his most aggressive attack he said they both use “government panels to dictate quality and cost containment,” and for the second day in a row brought up the controversial term “death panels.”

The candidate told the crowd the vulnerable could be at risk under the administration’s plan and are at risk under Romney’s plan because the government could “ultimately decide to ration care.”

Romney should win in Colorado tomorrow (he won big there four years ago), but Minnesota is anyone’s game and Missouri is a binary “Romney vs. Santorum” choice for non-Paul voters thanks to Newt’s failure to qualify for the ballot there. Even Gingrich conceded today that “I think that Santorum’s going to have a pretty good day tomorrow and he will have earned it,” and we already know how worried Romney is. Let me repeat a question Ed asked last night, because if Santorum wins MN and MO, you’ll hear it all day long on Wednesday. Is he the “Not Romney” in the race now after Newt’s Florida flameout? More importantly, how does he convince Gingrich of that before Super Tuesday? Newt’s going to point to his South Carolina win as proof that he’s the “southern candidate” and should stick around for primaries in that region, but if Santorum starts beating him everywhere else, then you have a true “Not Romney” nightmare — a conservative split in which both candidates have bases of support that guarantee they’ll carry the split forward for months. That problem could have been solved by South Carolinians had they united behind Santorum instead of Newt, but … alas:

This is why I keep returning to the idea that Gingrich’s post-Iowa resilience and temporary South Carolina revival ultimately made it easier, not harder, for Romney to coast to the nomination. Romney was always guaranteed a strong showing in the Northeast and the Mountain West, and his moderate baggage (and Mormonism) always ensured that he would be vulnerable in the old Confederacy. The question throughout has been whether any of the not-Romney alternatives could win outside the South, thus transforming a regional protest against the frontrunner into a national campaign. And once the not-Romney alternatives were winnowed to Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, I think it became clear which of the two men stood a better chance of competing with Romney in states like Ohio, Illinois and Pennsylvania.

Now Santorum has a chance to prove that point. But Silver’s scenario is the longest of long shots: Because the voters of South Carolina gave Gingrich the crucial first crack at Romney, Santorum’s moment is almost certainly coming round too late.

The only way to break the Gingrich/Santorum deadlock now, I think, is if Newt’s bitterness at Romney boils over to the point where he decides he’d rather sacrifice his own candidacy and quit simply to make Romney’s life harder. After watching that presser in Vegas on Saturday night, I wouldn’t put it past him. Problem is, the kamikaze scenario conflicts with Newt’s legendary sense of himself as a man of destiny who’s fated to change the world. Is he really going to drop that dream to help a guy to whom he once referred as a “junior partner” in the hope — but hardly the assurance — that it’ll sink his new archenemy? Hmmmm.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

So, repealing Obamacare is “dead wrong”?

Who knew?

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Only going to get rid of parts of it. If a man says he is going to do two opposite things, and he is trying to get something out of you, and when he is talking to you says that he is going to do the thing that you want him to do, you just automatically believe him, right? Riiiiiiight.

astonerii on February 7, 2012 at 11:29 AM

So, this is for Makattak:

How Romney is not worse in the long term.

Romney is experienced at business, but he also is experienced as a governor, cutting and streamlining MA government while he was here. Why is it that you don’t know that I ask myself.

Well, the spin is that he is a Massachusetss..insert name here…and that is supposed to satisfy you with a picture of a politician.

How Romney turned around The Olympics, Massachusetts State government, and companies at Bain, is by looking at the function and looking at the numbers, not by throwing more money at a problem.

In MA he gave the predominantly liberal legislature, Either OR, corollary scenarios. Either you Cut This, or you Cannot Have That. He Cut government, and you will hear that he raised fees. Departments were cut away with excess employees, and where they were hell holes of democrat patronage, they came back with a budget and a number of employees possible, and a fee for that service. You want a driver’s license, we only need This Many employees, This many locations, (we are not renting from your brother in law, we don’t need that location.) Your license can cost $35, and This is what taxpayers, customers will expect for that.

You want hunting licenses and you want duck conservation land? The Conservation land, alas is not free, the duck hunters have to pay for it, not the taxpayers. HOOT! Holler! he is raising fees.

We voted to cut the state tax rate, and he gave a scenario of how to get there.

He vetoed 800 Democrat Liberal Good Ideas.

He doesn’t really care what people think of him, not seeking celebrity like some folks. He took no paycheck while Governor. Did not buy a new Governor Mobile, rode in the old crown vic supplied by the State Troopers: Did not decorate his office.

He tried to permanently fix problems that the liberals would whine over and over about, to take those issues off the table, especially by asking them what the real solution would be if they only had a certain amount of cash, not infinite amounts of cash.

Here is a caution, with any of the candidates we have right now, and it was true for Mitt in MA. You cut thier government jobs, you cut their “stuff” you cut their freebies, you take away their patronage priviledges, and they get mad. A lot of what you read in the Boston Globe or generated by the Boston Globe is…what we are used to here…a distortion of Romney’s record, but also, as misrepresented as possible so as not to offer him any advantage.

Example. They know what makes Romney’s supporters and conservatives mad, so they go with that.

This summer, while Fox News was not following Romney on the campaign trial in NH, Romney came out in support of Cut Cap and Balance. He said so every day. At Fox they dutifully reported that Romney has not weighed in on the Congress.

The ponytailed reporters follwing Romney quibbled with the campaign every day, arguing that they didn’t let in Liberal reporters…I guess they knew they were liberals.

One day, after Mitt attended/participated in an economic Roundtable with…The Rotary?…He talked about the economy and fiscal responsibility All Day. The Liberal media did not report any of it, so you didn’t hear it, the ponytailed reporter stood up and asked Mitt: “What are you going to do about the Gridlock in Washington?” The liberal theme of the summer…and Mitt said he didn’t care about Gridlock, not about democrats and republicans not getting along, he had succeeded in Boston with a Legislature that was 85% democrat, he could work with (around) democrats.

The reason you did not hear about Mitts economic summit, was at the end of the day, the only headline was in the LA Times: Mitt says he can work with democrats.

Mitt is out there every day, and not expecting Fox News to report on him, because he is not a Fox News employee, and they antagonize over the same questions over and over. To prove my point that he is being treated differently regarding a so called problem? I do not see anyone at Fox repeatedly ask Newt before any question, to tell us why Fanny/Freddie is not an obstacle to his getting elected; they don’t ask how Newt went after Clinton on perjury over sex with Monica Lewinsky while conducting a 5 year affair with Callista; THOSE issues, they chirp, have been dealt with by Newt already. How many freaking times has Romney said, his health care initiative was about creating small plans for the uninsured in MA, and they ask him again, What about Health Care? Mitt did not create any health care here in MA, it is all private except for the Federally Government Mandated Medicaid.

So, you see you don’t get jouralism, so you are afraid that Romney has no qualifications, but he has them, they are diverse, And, he really knows how to count money, and is not looking to enrich himself by becoming president. Unlike a lot of other people in D.C….It’s not all about him. I’ll take that any day.

Fleuries on February 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM

So, repealing Obamacare is “dead wrong”?

Who knew?

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Only going to get rid of parts of it.

astonerii on February 7, 2012 at 11:29 AM

In his Nevada victory speech, Mitt Romney once again publicly declared, “I will repeal Obamacare”.

Pretty clear, don’t you think.

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 11:40 AM

In his Nevada victory speech, Mitt Romney once again publicly declared, “I will repeal Obamacare”.

Pretty clear, don’t you think.

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Like I said, when a person has two voices, two positions, and is standing in front of the group that wants to hear the one, and he says it, you trust him?

Like Obama saying he would bankrupt energy companies to his liberal buddies in private and telling Americans he wants to have energy independence. What are you going to believe? His public argument? LOL, you probably still think Obama is pushing for American energy independence then, he is still pushing the meme he is all for it!

Romney still thinks Romneycare is great medicine. He thinks much of what is in the Obamacare is great medicine. He told some people what parts he plans to keep… hint, it ends up being the worst parts of Obamacare. he gets rid of any way to pay for it and keeps all the coverages, must issues and personal mandates. Will he tell you that today while he is trying to get the nomination? Of course not, he is a politician, and you are his easily swayed or easily bought hack.

astonerii on February 7, 2012 at 12:03 PM

“Gov. Romney is dead wrong on the issue of the day and he should not be the nominee of the party,”

The “issue of the day” is restraining the size, scope, and cost of government. And on that issue, Santorum sucks.

Greg Q on February 7, 2012 at 12:42 PM

cicerone on February 7, 2012 at 9:45 AM

It is comical to watch the self described TEA Party spokes persons on Hot Air tell us how the TEA Party as a whole will vote in the future. These are the same morons that said the TEA Party would never vote for Romney and here we are and Romney has more TEA Party support than the rest! Bwahahahahaha!!!!

csdeven on February 7, 2012 at 12:42 PM

astonerii on February 7, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Hahahahahahaha!!!! The tiniest portion of the smallest iota of the minority roars again!

rotflmao!!

csdeven on February 7, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Santorum is 100% right. Romney is totally unacceptable and the absolute worst candidate the GOP could run at this point. Yes, we are supposed to believe he is “inevitable” (never mind the fact that he keeps underperforming in 2012 vs. 2008, that will continue in caucuses tonight), but there is no doubt that a Romney nomination would mean 4 more year of Obama.

Norwegian on February 7, 2012 at 12:47 PM

In his Nevada victory speech, Mitt Romney once again publicly declared, “I will repeal Obamacare”.

Pretty clear, don’t you think.

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 11:40 AM

In another speech he said that he would not repeal one word of the abortion laws, not change one word…he would not change one word of the gun laws…that he was proud of health mandates, and the fines imposed on people who did not comply…those he backed up with bills and actions.
And you embrace those?

btw, He can’t repeal ObamaCare, and he knows it…to repeat something that can’t be done…well I guess he can say “I tried but it was deemed illegal”…as if he doesn’t already know he can’t repeal it. He can’t promise something where their is no guarantee, if we don’t win the Senate all of his bloviating is for naught.

Norm Coleman, an adviser to presidential hopeful Mitt Romney whose advice was once described as “critical” by the candidate, believes that his boss — or any Republican — won’t be able to repeal Obamacare if they defeat Barack Obama.

right2bright on February 7, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Are we really going to nominate the worst possible candidate on health care?

Sure looks like it.

Aronne on February 7, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Santorum is 100% right. Romney is totally unacceptable and the absolute worst candidate the GOP could run at this point. Yes, we are supposed to believe he is “inevitable” (never mind the fact that he keeps underperforming in 2012 vs. 2008, that will continue in caucuses tonight), but there is no doubt that a Romney nomination would mean 4 more year of Obama.

Norwegian on February 7, 2012 at 12:47 PM

+137

SparkPlug on February 7, 2012 at 1:10 PM

right2bright on February 7, 2012 at 12:48 PM

So what? The indies are fine with it and the majority of the GOP will put it aside to beat Obama.

You’re stuck with Romney. You might as well tell your pastor, and see what he tells you to do next.

csdeven on February 7, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Hahahahahahaha!!!! The tiniest portion of the smallest iota of the minority roars again!

rotflmao!!

csdeven on February 7, 2012 at 12:43 PM

You may dismiss the positions of those of us who cannot vote for the greater of the evils who happens to have an (R) by his name.

We may be miniscule. I don’t want to hear the crying about how conservatives didn’t come out if Romney gets nominated and loses, though.

If Mitt wants my vote, he has to earn it. Unfortunately (for Mitt), talk is cheap and actions reveal true character.

makattak on February 7, 2012 at 1:19 PM

makattak on February 7, 2012 at 1:19 PM

You understand that you are the minority and I respect your position. My comment is directed at those who run around Hot Air telling us all how the TEA Party is going to vote when ALL DATA proves otherwise. Certainly it can change, but as of right now, Romney is cleaning up with almost every demographic.

csdeven on February 7, 2012 at 1:44 PM

In another speech he said that he would not repeal one word of the abortion laws, not change one word…

right2bright on February 7, 2012 at 12:48 PM

And he kept that promise.

So what is the problem?

btw, He can’t repeal ObamaCare, and he knows it…

Then NEITHER can anyone of the other candidates. So, how can Santorum complain about this?

It makes him a hypocrite to claim he can repeal it and Romney can’t, don’t you think?

Norm Coleman, an adviser to presidential hopeful Mitt Romney whose advice was once described as “critical” by the candidate, believes that his boss — or any Republican — won’t be able to repeal Obamacare if they defeat Barack Obama.

right2bright on February 7, 2012 at 12:48 PM

If this is true then Obamacare is off the table as an issue and dinging Romney over it is STUPID for Santorum or anyone else.

So which is it?

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Certainly it can change, but as of right now, Romney is cleaning up with almost every demographic.

csdeven on February 7, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Did you look at the same county-by-county returns in Florida that I saw?

/Gobsmacked

gryphon202 on February 7, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Did you look at the same county-by-county returns in Florida that I saw?

/Gobsmacked

gryphon202 on February 7, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Right, so if the state as a whole doesn’t support your premise, break it down to counties and ignore the state results.

And if that doesn’t work for you, break it down to precincts and ignore the county results.

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Right, so if the state as a whole doesn’t support your premise, break it down to counties and ignore the state results.

And if that doesn’t work for you, break it down to precincts and ignore the county results.

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 1:52 PM

You’re not understanding what I’m getting at, Bill. Most of the counties that went for Romney went for Obama in the 2008 generals. Most of the counties that Obama lost in 2008 voted Gingrich. I know, I know. That’s not true as a blanket assertion, but if you’re looking at the same maps I am, the similarities are harder to ignore. Should these trends hold, Romney is going to continue to slide as he does MUCH worse in the later more rural primaries.

gryphon202 on February 7, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Did you look at the same county-by-county returns in Florida that I saw?

/Gobsmacked

gryphon202 on February 7, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Yeah, what Gunlock Bill said.

Maybe you can go by neighborhoods? Or better yet, casual acquaintances?

csdeven on February 7, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Yeah, what Gunlock Bill said.

Maybe you can go by neighborhoods? Or better yet, casual acquaintances?

csdeven on February 7, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Ignoring it doesn’t make it any less true: County-by-county, the places that voted for Romney were the same places that voted for Obama in 2008. That is a provable take-it-to-the-bank FACT. And if you are going to continue to be such a$$hats about my supposed pendantry, Florida as a whole DID go blue in 2008, as did Nevada and Iowa. I’m not going to let a bunch of libtards pick my presidential candidate because of argument-by-assertion-ad nauseum from a bunch of Romney cheerleaders.

gryphon202 on February 7, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Most of the counties that went for Romney went for Obama in the 2008 generals.

And this is, somehow, bad news?

Most of the counties that Obama lost in 2008 voted Gingrich.

So?

I know, I know. That’s not true as a blanket assertion, but if you’re looking at the same maps I am, the similarities are harder to ignore. Should these trends hold, Romney is going to continue to slide as he does MUCH worse in the later more rural primaries.

gryphon202 on February 7, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Then what is it that has you worried?

You don’t like Romney anyway.

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Then what is it that has you worried?

You don’t like Romney anyway.

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Sorry if I came across as worried. I was just stating it as a matter of fact. But this ought to put to lie the notion of Romney’s “inevitibility.” With Rick Santorum in the race at this point, a brokered convention is still a mathematical possibility.

gryphon202 on February 7, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Sorry if I came across as worried. I was just stating it as a matter of fact. But this ought to put to lie the notion of Romney’s “inevitibility.”

Sorry, how does looking at the data from a state that has already voted for Romney “put to lie the notion of Romney’s ‘inevitibility’ “?

With Rick Santorum in the race at this point, a brokered convention is still a mathematical possibility.

gryphon202 on February 7, 2012 at 3:15 PM

So? The vetting of Santorum is just beginning. We will see how well he does.

Not sure why anyone would want a “brokered convention”. If it results in the nomination of an un-vetted candidate that could be disastrous.

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Not sure why anyone would want a “brokered convention”. If it results in the nomination of an un-vetted candidate that could be disastrous.

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Their thinking is that if we have a brokered convention the true and pure could pick the candidate in some smoke filled room..rather than the masses who might actually vote for someone that the self proclaimed leaders of talk radio have not personally okayed…

Terrye on February 7, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Who says Romney is the worst candidate on health care? Santorum?

That would be the same Santorum that caught in a big fat lie just today about Romney?

Apparently Santorum said that Romney required Catholic institutions to provide contraception..the problem with that is that it is not true: From Rubin at WaPo

The Romney camp issued a flat-out denial. Spokeswoman Andrea Saul put out a statement, which reads: “Governor Romney stands with the Catholic Bishops and all religious organizations in their strenuous objection to this liberty- and conscience-stifling regulation. He is committed to repealing Obamacare entirely. On his first day in office, Mitt Romney will eliminate the Obama administration rule that compels religious institutions to violate the tenets of their own faith. We expect these attacks from President Obama and his liberal friends. But from Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, it’s a clear indication of desperation from their campaigns.”

According to Romney’s staff, Massachusetts passed a law in 2002 (before Romney became governor) mandating insurance companies provide contraception coverage. They contend that in 2005 Romney proposed eliminating all insurance mandates, including the contraception mandate. Moreover, and most damning to Santorum’s claims if true, Romney’s team argues that he vetoed an Emergency Contraception bill that would have made the Plan B pill available to young girls without prescription and with no age restriction, but the Democratic-controlled legislature overrode Romney’s veto.

David French, a Romney supporter, provides some more detail over at the National Review:

The legislature passed legislation mandating that hospitals — including the state’s Catholic hospitals — administer [emergency contraception]. Governor Romney vetoed that legislation and the next day took to the pages of the Boston Globe to explain his pro-life stance:

“You can’t be a prolife governor in a prochoice state without understanding that there are heartfelt and thoughtful arguments on both sides of the question. Many women considering abortions face terrible pressures, hurts, and fears; we should come to their aid with all the resourcefulness and empathy we can offer. At the same time, the starting point should be the innocence and vulnerability of the child waiting to be born.

In some respects, these convictions have evolved and deepened during my time as governor. In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead — to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or a commodity to be exploited.”

Unfortunately, however, the legislature overrode his veto (by overwhelming margins). What followed was a dispute over the meaning of two seemingly conflicting state laws: a decades-old law exempting private hospitals from providing contraceptives and the newer law containing no such exemptions. Initially, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (which was charged with crafting regulations implementing the new EC law) took the position that the new law didn’t supersede the old and that Catholic hospitals could opt out. Two days later, the Romney administration reversed this view, stating the proper legal interpretation was that the new law did, in fact, apply to all hospitals in the state.

Terrye on February 7, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Not sure why anyone would want a “brokered convention”. If it results in the nomination of an un-vetted candidate that could be disastrous.

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 3:37 PM

As opposed to the field we have now? A brokered convention is the only way to get a not-Romney-not-Gingrich-not-Santorum candidate. So the longer Santorum stays in the race, the better as far as I’m concerned. I’ve seen many many examples of evidence (not proof-positive, but simply arguable evidence) that America deserves another four years of Obama anyhow. I have no intention whatsoever of making that a reality, but if it happened, I wouldn’t shed a single tear.

gryphon202 on February 7, 2012 at 3:54 PM

A brokered convention is the only way to get a not-Romney-not-Gingrich-not-Santorum candidate.

And there is no guarantee that a brokered convention will give us one any better. In fact, I see it as most likely giving us someone far worse.

I’ve seen many many examples of evidence (not proof-positive, but simply arguable evidence) that America deserves another four years of Obama anyhow.

Wash your mouth out with soap!

I have no intention whatsoever of making that a reality, but if it happened, I wouldn’t shed a single tear.

gryphon202 on February 7, 2012 at 3:54 PM

I don’t know what to say to that.

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 4:04 PM

gryphon202 on February 7, 2012 at 3:54 PM

I don’t know what to say to that.

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 4:04 PM

It’s just an opinion. You can agree with it or disagree with it. And I think I can make a pretty educated guess which side you stand on. Like I said, I am not staying home, nor am I voting for Obama. But the ignorance of our constitution and what “freedom” really means is just grotesque to me.

gryphon202 on February 7, 2012 at 4:18 PM

pannw:

No, he did not. It is one thing to say that he should have disobeyed the law of his state and refused to uphold that law..but the idea that he did the same thing Obama did is just big fat lie on Santorum’s part. That is what you are overlooking. The law dates back to 2002 before Romney was even Governor.

And btw, Santorum voted for Sonia Santomayer who was very pro choice. And I remember conservatives getting upset about that vote.

Terrye on February 7, 2012 at 4:25 PM

pannw on February 7, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Something you missed.

Romney said. “I think, in my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape,”

You just needed to read further.

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 4:26 PM

And btw, Santorum voted for Sonia Santomayer who was very pro choice. And I remember conservatives getting upset about that vote.

Terrye on February 7, 2012 at 4:25 PM

clarification…Santorum voted for Sotomayer for district judge.

Terrye on February 7, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Hahahahahahaha!!!! The tiniest portion of the smallest iota of the minority roars again!

rotflmao!!

csdeven on February 7, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Oh look, ridicule. csdeven is laughing at someone. lets all join it, it will be so fun. Hah hah hah that astonerii person is such a dweeb. Look, astonerii is going to tell his mommy on us, Hah hah hah.

You know, I remember a time when I was willing to allow arguments like that to affect my view of someone. But by the time I reached about 6th maybe 7th grade, the effect wore off, and I understood the insecurity and lack of self confidence that the activity was hiding in those who used your tactic.

astonerii on February 7, 2012 at 5:32 PM

AH_C on February 7, 2012 at 10:49 AM

I didn’t bother reading your screed in detail as your tone is so unhinged it’s doesn’t deserve a response. I will only say:

I approve of every other conscience clause exemption but this one.
Very often the only hospitals that service a geographical region are Catholic hospitals. To suggest that someone who has just been raped should literally take a hike sounds unnecessarily cruel.

In any case you may want to send a copy of your screed to the Catholic Bishops of Connecticut who concluded:

The bishops now emphasize that the Church has not rendered a definitive judgment on that issue. “To administer Plan B pills without an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act,” the bishops said in a statement released through the Connecticut Catholic Conference. “Since the teaching authority of the Church has not definitively resolved this matter and since there is serious doubt about how Plan B pills work, the Catholic bishops of Connecticut have stated that Catholic hospitals in the state may follow protocols that do not require an ovulation test in the treatment of victims of rape.”

Note that the above statement was made in 2007. Much more is known about the drug now, as per the link I provided earlier dated April 2011.

Buy Danish on February 7, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Sorry, March 2011 (not April…). Here’s the link to the study.

Buy Danish on February 7, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Terrye on February 7, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Yes he did. Did you read the link I provided or just get your answer from whyRomney.com? Yes, the original law was before he was in office. His veto of the new law was overridden and then bumped things back to the old law. However, he used the EO to impose the new law that rejected conscientious objection. The old law exempted private hospitals. Romney’s own health dept disagreed with him on removing those with the EO that he imposed.

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 4:26 PM

I read the whole thing, thank you Bill. Unfortunately for the pro-abortion crowd, the Catholic Church does not approve abortion in any case, including rape.

And btw, Santorum voted for Sonia Santomayer who was very pro choice. And I remember conservatives getting upset about that vote.
Terrye on February 7, 2012 at 4:25 PM
clarification…Santorum voted for Sotomayer for district judge.
Terrye on February 7, 2012 at 4:57 PM

I don’t know where you get proof that she was very pro choice. What I have found gives little insight into how she would rule on abortion cases. And she was nominated to the court by a Republican, GHW Bush, so I don’t see using her as a great attack against Santorum.

Note that the above statement was made in 2007. Much more is known about the drug now, as per the link I provided earlier dated April 2011.
Buy Danish on February 7, 2012 at 5:41 PM

In 2008 the Pontifical Academy on Life released a decision that confirmed the Church’s opposition to the use of emergency contraception.

pannw on February 7, 2012 at 10:01 PM

“Are we really going to nominate the worst possible candidate on health care?” Here’s a better question: Are we seriously going to nominate a candidate who shamelessly defends his well-documented record of supporting & submitting his own pork spending bills when one of the biggest problems we face in this country are politicians like him who don’t get the concepts & importance of a ‘balanced budget’ or ‘fiscal responsibility’?

easyt65 on February 8, 2012 at 7:43 AM

Gov. Romney is dead wrong on the issue of the day

…which Rick defines here as Obama Care. But Romney is saying the same thing as Rick, Rick does not have an exclusive right to say he wants to repeal Obama Care.

Rick was persuaded to add the prescription drug care to Medicare when he was a Senator. Does that disqualify him from repealing Obama Care?

Rick is saying also that the issue of the Day, is that Romney wanted Catholic Hospitals to be forced to give rape victims drugs. It works for Rick, but gee, it’s not the truth, Romney Vetoed that. It’s kind of like losing to Casey, it happens when more liberals show up. You know they hear the cry “Women Will Die” and the shrillness wakes them from their stupor.

The issue of the day is saving the country from the federal government turning into the BLOB and swallowing us whole, especially as the government is growing by about 50K employees every year under Obama. The deficit is quadrupling. We need someone who can count large piles of money, and like Romney who has cut and streamlined government and private sector projects, and actually run something…a lot of somethings.

Fleuries on February 8, 2012 at 3:25 PM

The legislature passed legislation mandating that hospitals — including the state’s Catholic hospitals — administer [emergency contraception]. Governor Romney vetoed that legislation

As I recall, the legislature did not want an exception for Catholic hospitals, what they did re affirm in the end, was an individual right of hospital employees not to engage in anything not conforming to their concience. Also, Catholic Hospitals in MA never had to perform abortions, or do anything they did not want to. The issue was forced because they could use the Rape scenario, which liberals are in love with, for high drama. (It was just the same when they started pushing Gay Marriage, all kinds of scenarios and high drama.)

Bloggists all, The Plan B drug is an oral contraceptive that prevents ovulation. If you are raped you might not want to ovulate. All of the caveats about abortion associated with Plan B are the same caveats that perhaps it is possible, like with a 28 day pill.

Plan B says clearly on the outside, not to take it if you are already pregnant. It will have a similar effect as taking the 28 day pills while pregnant, not much effect. Probably Nausea…if you are feeling that way already, I don’t know how you can tell.

Someone has labeled this drug The Morning After Pill, however “The” seems to indicate there is only one. There are a lot of drugs, and some are really for abortion, and I am not sure which side benefits from this confusion, but I don’t think it is helpful to anyone.

I think the pro choice like it when pro life people sound stupid, suggesting you rally against a birth control based pill.

Fleuries on February 8, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5