ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Rick Santorum”

LGBT

Iowa Newspapers Condemn Politicized Campaign To Oust Supreme Court Justice

By Zack Ford on Sep 25, 2012 at 9:00 am

Bob Vander Plaats, Rick Santorum, and Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) are touring Iowa to campaign against the retention of Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins in retaliation for his participation in a 2009 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. The Iowa State Bar Association is following close behind to rebut their politicizing effort. And as the bus tour continues, the state’s newspapers are railing against the effort. This weekend, the Sioux City Journal addressed the implications for judicial integrity:

Regardless of their views about gay marriage, Iowans should understand: The independent foundation on which a strong court system is based is at risk of being weakened in our state. The kinds of organized campaigns we have witnessed in 2010 and again this year to drive out judges as political retaliation for a ruling establishes an unsettling precedent for a future in which the infusion of political ideology routinely will force Iowa judges to raise money and wage political campaigns to stay on the bench. [...]

According to Vander Plaats, he’s working to restore integrity to our court system. In our view, he’s doing the opposite – sucking integrity out of it.

Rekha Basu, columnist for the Des Moines Register, similarly said last week that “this campaign is nothing more than blackmail”:

Three honorable justices have already lost retention elections over this. Now a fourth could. That’s outrageous. But the damage goes beyond the individuals involved. If this campaign succeeds, it could subvert Iowa’s system of blind and impartial justice and force judges to wage costly campaigns to keep their seats when they issue unpopular rulings.

If justices must calculate the political fallout each time they rule in a controversial case, we could see rulings that are not based on justice, but on preserving careers.

Indeed, marriage equality was the unanimous ruling of the entire state Supreme Court, not partisan judicial activism. The freedom to marry is guaranteed by Iowa’s constitution, and anyone who respects that document should also uphold an independent judiciary, not a politicized one.

LGBT

Mitt Romney Relies On Rick Santorum’s Claims To Defend His Anti-Gay And Anti-Choice Positions

By Zack Ford on Sep 17, 2012 at 10:45 am

Though Mitt Romney did not join his running mate Paul Ryan and other Congressional Republicans at this weekend’s Values Voters Summit, he did address the conference through a prerecorded video. In it, he personally thanked Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council for their “leadership” and for bringing people together to discuss “vital issues.” He went on to reiterate his anti-choice and anti-gay positions, borrowing a Rick Santorum talking point suggesting that liberal social policies contribute to poverty:

ROMNEY: We will uphold the sanctity of life, not abandon or ignore it. And we will defend marriage, not try to redefine it. We need a President who understands that we will not have a strong economy unless we have strong communities and strong families. This isn’t conjecture or some quaint belief, it’s evidenced by a Brookings Institution study that Rick Santorum brought to my attention some time ago. For those who graduate from high school, get a full-time job, and wait until they’re 21 until they marry and then have their first child, the probability that they will be poor is 2 percent, but if those things are absent, the probability of becoming poor is 76 percent. In short, culture matters, and as President, I’ll protect our culture and preserve the values of hard work, personal responsibility, family, and faith.

Watch his full address:

Unlike the America Romney imagines, same-sex families are a part of communities all across this country, and they would benefit from marriage just like other families.

During his presidential campaign during the Republican primaries, Santorum regularly made claims about poverty to defend his socially conservative positions. In January, he claimed that President Obama was de-emphasizing abstinence-only sex education because he “wants people to be in poverty,” despite the fact that such programs are ineffective at preventing teen pregnancy. Santorum also told audiences that kids are better off with a parent in jail than with same-sex parents, conflating the experience of abandoned mothers to the “fatherless” families of lesbian couples.

If Romney wants to cite data when he speaks on social issues — particularly as his campaign prepares to emphasize them more — he should probably consider using information that actually informs his positions, rather than relying on the conjecture of his party’s extremists like Santorum.

Related Posts

Politics

Santorum: ‘We Will Never Have… Smart People On Our Side’

By Judd Legum on Sep 15, 2012 at 5:20 pm

Speaking Saturday at the Values Voters Summit, Rick Santorum said that “smart people” would never side with conservatives. Watch it, via RWW:

Santorum also claimed “the media” and “colleges and universities” would not be “on our side” because “they want to tell you what to do.”

Rather, according to Santorum, the conservative movement will be supported by “the church and the family.” This summer, however, a group of Catholic nuns have launched a bus tour “to shed light on the effects the House Republican budget would have on the poor.”

NEWS FLASH

Santorum: ‘If You’re A Thug, Call The U.S. An Oppressor And This President Will Sympathize With You’ | Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum (R) backed Mitt Romney’s claims that President Obama’s policies are responsible for the killing of four Americans in Libya. During an interview Wednesday afternoon on the Scott Hennen Show, Santorum charged that Obama has “showed that we’re going to cower to radical Islamists.” “If you’re a thug, you need to just wrap yourself in victimhood and call the United States an oppressor and this president will sympathize with you,” he exclaimed. Listen:

Health

Ryan: Women’s Health Exception Rendered Abortion Ban ‘Virtually Meaningless’

By Zack Beauchamp on Aug 22, 2012 at 11:46 am

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) opposed an exception to a so-called “partial birth abortion” ban when the procedure was necessary to save the mother’s life, according to a 2000 floor speech on the issue. Claiming the women’s health exception included in the bill was “wide enough to drive a mack truck through,” Ryan argued uncompromisingly for it to be removed:

This is not a political issue, this is a human issue. And let me just say this — to all of my colleagues who are about to vote on this issue, on the motion to recommit — the health exception is a loophole wide enough to drive a mack truck through it. The health exception would render this ban virtually meaningless. [...] [H]undreds of OB/GYNs have told us that this is not medically necessary.

Watch it:

Contra Ryan’s claim that the procedure (also known as “intact dilatation and extraction,” or D&E) could never be medically necessary, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists held that D&E reduced the risk of “catastrophic hemorrhage and life-threatening infection” and that “[t]hese safety advantages are widely recognized by experts in the field of women’s health, authoritative medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, and the nation’s leading medical schools.” As such, the American Medical Association, which believes D&E would be employed for health reasons in only a very small number of cases, said that “the physician must…retain the discretion” to use D&E if a particular woman’s health needs demand it.

Ryan’s position, by contrast, was most recently defended by former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), who called a provision designed to protect women from catastrophic hemorrhaging and infections “a phony exception which would make the ban ineffective.” This is all of a piece with Ryan’s long history of anti-choice zealotry, as he has cosponsored bills redefining rape and defining fetuses as persons with Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO). An absolutist position on abortion more broadly is enshrined in the GOP’s 2012 platform. Governor Romney has committed to exceptions for rape and incest, and Ryan defers to him in setting policy for the ticket.

Health

Santorum: Obamacare Is Forcing Catholics Into Confession

By Tara Culp-Ressler on Aug 16, 2012 at 12:30 pm

While stumping for Mitt Romney in Ohio Wednesday, former presidential hopeful Rick Santorum repeated allegations of President Obama’s so-called “War on Religion,” claiming that Catholics’ freedom of religion is being compromised by the implementation of Obamacare. According to Santorum, whose campaign emphasized his far-right social values, Catholics are being forced to sin by complying with an Obamacare provision that requires employers to provide contraceptive services free of charge:

SANTORUM: We have a president who, for the first time in American history, is directly assaulting the First Amendment and freedom of religion. He is going to tell you what to do in the practice of your faith. He is forcing business people right now to do things that are against their conscience, that they will have to — if you’re a Catholic — you’ll have to go to confession … to confess that you are complying with a government program that is a sin in the Catholic Church.

The former Pennsylvania senator’s charges of Obamacare’s affront to religious liberty echo the conservative Catholic leaders who have been fighting against the birth control provision for the past several months. Dozens of Catholic institutions filed a joint lawsuit against the new contraception regulation, which went into effect on August 1.

However, the Catholic case against the contraception mandate is easily dismantled. The exception the provision includes for religious institutions has been widely accepted as a valid compromise that provides women with contraception through outside insurers, so Catholic-affiliated institutions do not have to pay for the cost of birth control if they object to it. Federal judges have already begun to throw out lawsuits against Obamacare, pointing out that there is no compelling evidence of religious discrimination inherent to the law. And in spite of the fabricated controversy over sinful birth control coverage, many large Catholic universities covered contraceptive services even before the health reform law required them to do so.

LGBT

Anti-Gay Chick-fil-A Attracts Losers, Repels Prominent Leaders, Universities, And The Public

By Zack Ford on Jul 30, 2012 at 11:30 am

It seems telling that the political conservatives attracting media attention for coming to the defense of Chick-fil-A and its anti-gay crusades — Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty — are all most recently known for having lost elections. Indeed, the anti-gay vitriol that Chick-fil-A’s president Dan Cathy has repeatedly dispensed has been a loser with the public: YouGov BrandIndex polling shows that the public’s approval of Chick-fil-A has taken a nosedive since Cathy’s interview from 65 to 39:

Meanwhile, a number of prominent leaders have continued to show their displeasure with Chick-fil-A. Here’s a sampling:

  • House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “For the record, I prefer Kentucky Fried Chick. #ChickFilA” (Twitter)
  • Washington, DC Mayor Vince Gray (D): “Given my longstanding strong support for LGBT rights & marriage equality, I would not support #hatechicken” (Twitter)
  • Newark, New Jersey Mayor Cory Booker (D): “Wouldn’t deny a biz a permit on those grounds BUT I’d join my residents in taking my $’s elsewhere” (Twitter)
  • Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA): “I disagree with what the CEO from Chick-fil-A said. I was glad he spoke further and said that his company does not discriminate.” (Boston.com)

To clarify Brown’s remarks, Chick-fil-A said it will “treat every person with honor, dignity and respect,” regardless of sexual orientation, but the company still has no employment protections in its official corporate policies. According to Forbes.com, there have been at least 12 lawsuits against the company since 1988 on various charges of employment discrimination.

New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn (D) wrote to the president of New York University, home to the city’s only Chick-fil-A, urging him to end the university’s relationship with the anti-gay restaurant:

NYC is a place where we celebrate diversity. We do not believe in denigrating others…As you know from recent press coverage, the President of Chick-fil-A continues to make statements and support causes that are clear messages of extreme intolerance and homophobia and a belief that LGBT Americans are less than others and deserve to be treated as such.[...]

I urge you to sever your relationship with the Chick-fil-A establishment that exists on your campus. This establishment should be replaced with an establishment where the ownership does not denigrate a portion of our population.

Another university’s leadership has already taken action against a Chick-fil-A on its campus. The president and provost at the University of Louisville released a statement saying that they “will not be eating at Chick-fil-A anytime soon.” Responding to a growing student petition, U of L administrators are currently assessing the contractual arrangements with the franchise on campus to evaluate further courses of action. At least seven other universities also have petitions underway challenging the existence of a Chick-fil-A on their campuses.

Attacking gay people as purveyors of society’s destruction is harmful to many people, and as public condemnation grows, it’s proving to be a losing philosophy for Chick-fil-A.

Politics

Santorum Defends Penn State, Blasts Freeh Report

By Zack Beauchamp on Jul 27, 2012 at 12:02 pm

Former Senator and GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum (PA) has long positioned himself as a champion of family values, so one might think he would be the strongest advocate for children who had been sexually assaulted by trusted adults.

But during an appearance on Dallas-Ft. Worth’s KSKY 660 AM on Friday, Santorum a Penn State alum and football fan denied the overwhelming evidence that former Penn State Football Coach Joe Paterno, President Graham Spanier, and others intentionally covered up evidence that Assistant Coach Jerry Sandusky molested and raped at least 10 boys:

SANTORUM: I actually read the Freeh Report. I don’t know if you did or not, but I did. And, my concern with the Freeh report, a lot of the conclusions in the Freeh report aren’t matched by the evidence that they presented and so I’ve been talking to a lot of folks at Penn State and they say, ‘you’re just gonna have to wait for the criminal trial of these two guys at Penn State.’ I think there is going to be a whole new line set on what really went on there. So I’m sort of sitting back and waiting for the facts to come out as opposed to at least I’m being told is a version of the facts. … Let’s get the truth. So I think we’re going to see some things come up a little different in the next six months. I just want to make sure we get it right.

Listen:

Contra Santorum, the Freeh Report’s central finding — that “nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity” by Penn State’s leaders — has been treated as conclusive by most observers of the scandal. There’s a good reason for that: the report parsed 3.5 million emails and conducted around 430 interviews. A number of emails arrayed in the report’s timeline of events confirm that Paterno, Spanier, and others had been presented with strong evidence of Sandusky’s actions and yet still decided to sweep the events under the rug — enabling multiple instances of abuse to take place. Unless Santorum has reason to believe these were falsified or somehow insufficient, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that he’s in denial about what took place at his alma mater.

Indeed, when the abuse scandal broke, Santorum expressed support for Paterno, saying “I have no idea what his side of the story is” and “of course I’ll be rooting for him and wish him the best.” Eight months later, Santorum is still supporting the former coach.

Justice

Santorum Backer The Latest Millionaire Donor To Abandon Campaign Finance Disclosure

By Josh Israel on Jul 20, 2012 at 10:26 am

Foster Friess

Foster Friess

During the Republican primaries, millionaire Foster Friess became a household name for his more than $2 million in donations to the pro-Rick Santorum Red, White & Blue Super PAC. At that time, he told ThinkProgress that he would like to see more flexibility for big donors like himself to give directly to the candidates and full disclosure.

But like casino billionaire and Super PAC funder Sheldon Adelson, Friess has decided he would rather avoid the scrutiny of having his future political spending made public.

CNN reports that Friess “has decided his financial donations in the future will mostly be to [501(c)(4)] groups that do not have to disclose their donors.” He told the network:

I was kind of shocked to see the notoriety, the high profile I got. I didn’t know if I needed that. People looked at me as a villain.

The vast majority of Americans hate the massive influx of “independent” expenditures by Super PACs and secret-money 501(c)(4) groups enabled by the Supreme Court’s 5-4 Citizens United ruling. With the Senate Republican’s successful filibuster of the DISCLOSE Act, donors like Adelson and Friess are free to do what they are doing — simply move their donations to undisclosed groups and spend at will, while the public has no way of knowing who is behind the attack ads they bankroll.

Still, if Adelson and Friess really don’t want to be looked upon as villains, they could spend their money on something else.

Health

OOPS: Rick Santorum Confuses Romneycare With Obamacare

By Igor Volsky on Jul 11, 2012 at 1:44 pm

Throughout the GOP presidential primary, Rick Santorum argued that Mitt Romney “created the blueprint for Obamacare and advocated for exactly what Obamacare is” when he passed health care reform in Massachusetts. Now, as a Romney supporter, Santorum is still struggling to differentiate between the two laws.

While discussing the Republicans’ effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act during a radio interview with Boston’s Talk 1200 Wednesday morning, Santorum confused Romney’s Medicaid expansion with Obama’s, falsely suggesting that Obamacare opened the Medicaid program to people with incomes 300 percent above the federal poverty line (FPL):

SANTORUM: Medicaid was the principal way that Obama was going to cover more people under this health care bill. … It’s what happened in Massachusetts of course, where Medicaid was the area that was expanded to cover more people in Massachusetts and under this bill, it would clearly be the way that more people would get insurance. …. Most states cover anywhere from 75 to 100 percent of poverty. … Now under Obamacare, it’s going to go to 300 percent of poverty. So you’re talking about $90,000 income being eligible for Medicaid.

Listen:

In truth, Romneycare “included an expansion of Medicaid to children up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level” and increased enrollment caps for adults to cover an additional 92,500 people. President Obama’s law, on the other hand, expands the program to everyone with incomes up to 133 percent of the FPL. The federal government will “pay the entire cost for three years, from 2014 to 2017, and at least 90 percent after that.”

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up