Billionaire Santorum backer: In my day, contraception was women putting aspirin between their knees

posted at 3:45 pm on February 16, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite, behold the left’s newest viral sensation. This is a, shall we say, unhelpful soundbite in service to a worthy point, namely, that there are bigger policy fish to fry than birth control at a moment when Obama’s pushing a catastrophic new budget and Iran’s getting closer to nuclear breakout capacity. What I can’t figure out, though, is why a Rick Santorum supporter would be eager to make that point. No one’s benefited more politically from the uproar over HHS’s contraception mandate than his guy, and there may be no politician in either party who’s willing to riff on sex and morals as freely as Santorum is. And not just on sex, of course: Jim Geraghty flags this bit on gambling from RS’s interview with Vegas reporter Jon Ralston a few weeks ago.

I’m someone who takes the opinion that gaming is not something that is beneficial, particularly having that access on the Internet. Just as we’ve seen from a lot of other things that are vices on the Internet, they end to grow exponentially as a result of that. It’s one thing to come to Las Vegas and do gaming and participate in the shows and that kind of thing as entertainment, it’s another thing to sit in your home and have access to that it. I think it would be dangerous to our country to have that type of access to gaming on the Internet.

Freedom’s not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations. You might want to say the same thing about a whole variety of other things that are on the Internet — “let everybody have it, let everybody do it.” No. There are certain things that actually do cost people a lot of money, cost them their lives, cost them their fortunes that we shouldn’t have and make available, to make it that easy to do. That’s why we regulate gambling. You have a big commission here that regulates gambling, for a reason.

I opposed gaming in Pennsylvania . . . A lot of people obviously don’t responsibly gamble and lose a lot and end up in not so great economic straits as a result of that. I believe there should be limitations.

You could swap in “drinking” for “gambling” there and have a rough argument for banning alcohol consumption in homes. (If you’re free to indulge in private, who’ll stop you from going overboard?) If you nominate Santorum, you’re getting a guy who’s more willing to try to save people from themselves than the average “personal responsibility” conservative, which means you’d better prepare for occasional moral tutelage from the presidential podium and maybe some new morals regulations if he can cobble together a congressional majority for it. Which, of course, is what makes Friess’s objection to Mitchell’s question so ironic: Contraception issues are Santorum’s bread and butter, whether he wishes they were or not. He’ll be sidetracked endlessly with this stuff in the general election if he’s the nominee. Arguably that makes him a stronger candidate than Romney since, unlike Mitt, he’ll still have something to campaign on even if the economy recovers. Thing is, it won’t be just abortion questions that are thrown at him on the trail; it’ll be questions about contraception and online gambling and other things he considers vices as a way of teasing out how far his “there is no right to absolute freedom” reasoning extends in the interest of keeping people on the path to virtue. Is that reasoning more or less likely to deliver a victory in the midst of an economic comeback?

By the way: He’s finally overtaken Romney for the national lead in Gallup’s tracker.


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

It’s not going to happen anyway. But, it’s fun to laugh at the Palin crowd, as usual.

Moesart on February 16, 2012 at 10:32 PM

WTF does Palin have to do with this thread, douchebag?

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Religious conservatives would rather lose with Santorum than win with anybody else because they feel the most important issue is that they support someone that “god” supports. They think that god doesn’t care about the economy, it’s abortion and gay marriage and birth control that gets the almighty up in a lather, so they – being good loyal servants of that almighty – better support god’s candidate – whether he wins or loses.

This is why religion is a poison.

Just as we see islamic parties win in first-ever democratic elections made possible only by US troops, it too can actually engineer a win for a socialist in America that otherwise would have been a loss.

keep the change on February 16, 2012 at 9:45 PM

right,.. because you can read a mind at fifty paces.. even without your super secret Religiousity hate-o-meter….

mark81150 on February 16, 2012 at 10:44 PM

This was not Santorum. It was one of his supporters. So what?

My God, Iran is making fuel rods, we have warships in the straights of Hormuz, oil prices are climbing fast, the dollar is falling faster, China wants to take over the World Bank, Obama wants to unilaterally disarm our nuclear weapons and people on here are worried about what some harmless old man is saying about aspirins between your knees. REALLY?

Don’t you people realize that you are playing right into the democrats hands. They have created a straw argument and you are falling for it. Santorum has never said that women should not work and he has never said that women should not have access to birth control. He also has the most consistently conservative record of anyone running and he is a decent, moral man who calls his wife his hero and his rock, and proudly tells almost every audience that she is a neonatal nurse and an attorney. What a male chauvinist pig. s/

fight like a girl on February 16, 2012 at 10:54 PM

I didn’t read through all the comments here, but sheesh people lighten up. I thought it was pretty dang funny. Especially the choking on a furball look Mika had. I’m for anything that can shut that shrew’s mouth for more than 5 seconds.

shelly99032 on February 17, 2012 at 12:21 AM

Let’s cut down every alternative to Obama until the entire conservative movement is demoralized and ineffective!

/s

Seriously. This is overplayed bull. I’m more afraid of Obama stepping on my freedom, religious and otherwise, than ANY Christian candidate. Period. Eff’in’. Dot.

Asurea on February 17, 2012 at 12:39 AM

“WTF does Palin have to do with this thread, douchebag?

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:37 PM”

Lol, it’s the invasion of the hijack trolls. The next thing you know triple will come into the thread telling you how God is just your imaginery friend.

The country will be 20 trillion in debt if the moron is re elected and some of these people will be sidetracked by arguments as to whether who sells the best fries McDonalds or Burger King.

Africanus on February 17, 2012 at 1:09 AM

The country will be 20 trillion in debt if the moron is re elected and some of these people will be sidetracked by arguments as to whether who sells the best fries McDonalds or Burger King.

Africanus on February 17, 2012 at 1:09 AM

Mcdonalds are the best in the world and Wendys even has better fries then Burger kings. The Whopper is where Burger King shines.

BoxHead1 on February 17, 2012 at 1:42 AM

Old Rich guy tells old joke. Yep, Santorum is toast now!

/sarc

tom on February 17, 2012 at 2:00 AM

Thank you. Santorum already settled this issue by saying he’s opposed to banning contraception. There’s nothing more to discuss

Oh yes indeed there is. The question is, why does Santorum think it would be constitutional to ban contraception? Why does he think Griswold was wrongly decided?

My question to Santorum and his supporters is this:

Do you think it would be constitutionally permissible to outlaw mas-t*rbation?

If not, why not?

inklake on February 16, 2012 at 4:27 PM

For a serious answer to a presumably serious question: Bans on contraceptives were never considered to violate the Constitution, until the Griswold case, when the Supreme Court declared it was unconstitutional for any federal, state, or local government to ban contraceptives because there was a right to privacy implied in the Constitution.

Santorum disagrees that the Constitution contains a definable right to privacy. Therefore it’s not really unconstitutional to ban contraceptives at all.

Of course, even though Santorum considers the Supreme Court wrong on the issue, SCOTUS still gets to have the last word. Even as president, Santorum can’t make the so-called right to privacy disappear.

I’m not sure how you could ban masturbation unless it’s public masturbation, since there’s no way to know someone’s doing it unless you accidentally walk in on it. I frankly find it hard to see it as a serious question.

My own comments on this:
1) The context in all the discussion is state and local governments
2) The biggest problem with an implied right to privacy is that it means whatever SCOTUS decides it means, and only until SCOTUS decides otherwise. This violates the whole point of a Constitution, which is intended to spell out clearly what rights and roles everyone has. We end up with judicial tyranny. And that is exactly the result of much SCOTUS jurisprudence lately. Abortion is a prime example, and so is the spurious claim that the Constitution requires allowing men to marry each other
3) Banning contraceptives or anything similar is not really a federal issue, so it doesn’t make that much difference what Santorum believes. Which is good, because state and local governments are far closer to the voter, and far less able to pass such laws over voter protest.

tom on February 17, 2012 at 2:18 AM

I can’t believe the up roar?

My mother told me the same thing! Basically, keep your knees together and YOU CAN’T GET PREGNANT!

Another way of putting it is, The best way to avoid pregnancy is NOT to have SEX.

My mom would say, just pretend you have an aspirin between your knees, hold it there, and don’t let go!

OH MY GOD!

Can’t believe this crazy story.

Delsa on February 17, 2012 at 2:23 AM

Of course, even though Santorum considers the Supreme Court wrong on the issue, SCOTUS still gets to have the last word. Even as president, Santorum can’t make the so-called right to privacy disappear.

tom on February 17, 2012 at 2:18 AM

The problem with social conservatism is that in order to claim to be one, it must be part of your core tenets of beliefs. This is fine until you start linking it to legislation as Santorum has. He has used it to get himself elected in local and state elections. Unfortunately it will fail in a general election. He, like you are trying to do, must convince the country that he will cease making that connection to legislation, when it is clearly a very big part of his ideology. This is evident in that he speaks about it. A LOT. In Santorum’s zeal to prove his socon creds, he makes himself an anathema to the people he must have to win a general election. Ergo, he becomes unelectable against Obama. But if he is the nominee I will fully support him because for me, it is ABO.

csdeven on February 17, 2012 at 5:42 AM

That didn’t come out right. It should be:

“Social conservatism must be a core tenet of your beliefs if you claim to be one…….”

csdeven on February 17, 2012 at 5:45 AM

Is it me or is Andrea Mitchell starting to look more like Alan Greenspan ?

Ok, enough levity.

“Freedom’s not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations.”

It is also NOT the governments right to impose,name,codify, legislate, mandate those responsibilities to ourselves and each other. For IF we are a government of,by and for the people then it is the right of the people to impose those responsibilities.

Santorum is close to being correct here. Freedoms ARE absolute HOWEVER, they come with responsibilities, not limitations.

DevilsPrinciple on February 17, 2012 at 6:52 AM

It doesn’t matter Santorum will never b president. Hi socon shtick may work in a republican primary against pathetically weak candidates like our current crop, but indies and right wing libertarians will never vote for this guy. I honestly doubt he could crack 40% in a general.

snoopicus on February 17, 2012 at 7:27 AM

So he’s a Catholic who wants women to stay at home with their children rather than work and will give tax benefits for the same.

So what? It can be argued that having mom at home is better than day care both socially and fiscally.

One could also argue that the positions opened up by women staying home could be taken by the unemployed.

Is he going to force any of your concerns? Personally, I’d rather see women taking care of their own kids rather than farming them out to a day care. Socially and in the long run it may be a better thing on many fronts and to discuss this fully would be a very long post.

If you can show that he is interested in forcing his beliefs on us a la Obama rather than just his stating so in a book of his beliefs, then by all means.

I don’t think offering a tax credit for mothers to stay home is a terrible thing. You act like it’s free money where it’s just allowing people to stay home rather than pay a day care center.

Do you run a day care center? I can see moving the money from one to the family’s pockets to be a concern for them.

kim roy on February 16, 2012 at 5:39 PM

The issue is his focus on women. Last time I checked, men are perfectly capable of taking care of the kids. Heck, considering Santorum was such flop as a legislator, perhaps his wife should have been the one working and he should have been the one playing Mr. Mom.

Illinidiva on February 17, 2012 at 7:42 AM

fight like a girl on February 16, 2012 at 10:54 PM

Great post, it really is stupid how this has become the big deal of the day.

wi farmgirl on February 17, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Amusingly, aspirin does indeed work, as this article suggests:

http://contraception.about.com/b/2007/09/04/myth-busters-aspirin-as-a-birth-control-method.htm

The operative sentence comes at the end: “Going back to the aspirin belief, if you are determined to use it as a form of birth control, I will leave you with the following suggestion: the only way that an aspirin can prevent pregnancy is for a woman to carefully place it between her knees and HOLD it there (by keeping her knees and therefore her legs) closed. ☺”

So, aspirin between the legs as a form of contraception is indeed well known by conservatives, but not so well known by the normally spread-legged liberals.

unclesmrgol on February 17, 2012 at 12:08 PM

In case nobody remembers, Abigale VanBuren (Dear Abby) recommended just that thing to a young lady, almost fifty years ago.

It’s nothing new folks.

Mr. Grump on February 17, 2012 at 12:44 PM

He means THEY KEPT THEIR LEGS SHUT, you f’n morons.

rayra on February 17, 2012 at 2:21 PM

I’m not sure how you could ban masturbation unless it’s public masturbation, since there’s no way to know someone’s doing it unless you accidentally walk in on it. I frankly find it hard to see it as a serious question.

tom on February 17, 2012 at 2:18 AM

But you could make the same argument about the sodomy laws… it wasn’t just public sodomy that was illegal in Texas, it was sodomy in the privacy of your own home. So, if a state/local government can ban sodomy in the privacy of the bedroom (as Santorum believes), why couldn’t they ban masturbation? Or any other behavior?

It is a very serious question.

zarathustra on February 17, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Wait…were you the one who, last time, claimed that his statement about “less regulation” was only actually referring to prostitution…despite the fact that he never mentioned it?

MadisonConservative on February 16, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Wait….no, I wasn’t…I was the one who pointed out that he precisily stated extreme elements within the Tea Party…and you were one of the ones who was stating that he was “dissing” the Tea Party.
I straightened you out on that, and also on the “libertines”, that is who he was talking about….the part of society that has no moral base, it’s pretty obvious, except for those who are looking, reaching, for anything, anything at all to convict him…
Look somewhere else, this is something that Rachel Madcow made up, and the rest of you are gobbling it up…so easy to lead people like you…

right2bright on February 17, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Maybe America wouldn’t have such a HUGE welfare bill if Progressives/Dummycrats/Commies hadn’t completely destroyed this country’s morality!?! I think the asprin thing is most accurate!?! Furthermore, if and until we get the pinkos out of education, there will be NO morality in our children, EVER!?! Which, in and of itself, spells the end of America.

Colatteral Damage on February 17, 2012 at 5:37 PM

It is a very serious question.

zarathustra on February 17, 2012 at 2:46 PM

I totally concerned!

/s

tom daschle concerned on February 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5