Do States have the RIGHT to BAN birth control devices as Rick Santorum stated?

[teapartysamurai]

We get it. This is why Stephanopolus peppered Romney with the "can states ban birth control."

This is why Obama is trying to force free birth control on Catholic Hospitals and how to force insurance companies to pay for it.

You want to convince people with the fictitious fear that Republicans want to ban birth control.

So, here's the thing.

Give me ONE EXAMPLE of a Republican Gov, President, Congressman, etc, EVER banning birth control and you will have your argument.

Until then, this is all just BS fear mongering by a desperate president who can't run on his own record, because his own record SUCKS.

So, bring it. Give us the examples.

My guess is, there will stuipid quotes of Santorum from six years ago. There will be NO EXAMPLES OF Republicans trying to ban birth control. There will be total silence. OR there will be just the usual sputtering from outraged liberals because no one should ever dare pin them down on their total preposterous lies.

Bring it libs. I'm waiting. I know I won't get a straight answer.

PS, ABORTION IS NOT BIRTH CONTROL. That's infanticide. There are plenty of methods of birth control that prevents conception.

You know why you libs have changed the subject to birth control. You have lost the argument on abortion. Most people are against it now.

You started the subject, so don't change it, because someone's pinned you down on it. BIRTH CONTROL. Give us the examples.

I'm waiting, but I won't hold my breathe.

Fear Mongering?

from liberals?

nah, can't be. remember their brain is busted and don't have a fear response.

This is hate mongering.

They fear monger. Republicans want you to have "dirty air, dirty water." They want to take away your Social Security.

Now, it's birth control???????

This is all they have is fear mongering. They sure can't run on Obama's record.

 

[Two Thumbs]

We get it. This is why Stephanopolus peppered Romney with the "can states ban birth control."

This is why Obama is trying to force free birth control on Catholic Hospitals and how to force insurance companies to pay for it.

You want to convince people with the fictitious fear that Republicans want to ban birth control.

So, here's the thing.

Give me ONE EXAMPLE of a Republican Gov, President, Congressman, etc, EVER banning birth control and you will have your argument.

Until then, this is all just BS fear mongering by a desperate president who can't run on his own record, because his own record SUCKS.

So, bring it. Give us the examples.

My guess is, there will stuipid quotes of Santorum from six years ago. There will be NO EXAMPLES OF Republicans trying to ban birth control. There will be total silence. OR there will be just the usual sputtering from outraged liberals because no one should ever dare pin them down on their total preposterous lies.

Bring it libs. I'm waiting. I know I won't get a straight answer.

PS, ABORTION IS NOT BIRTH CONTROL. That's infanticide. There are plenty of methods of birth control that prevents conception.

You know why you libs have changed the subject to birth control. You have lost the argument on abortion. Most people are against it now.

You started the subject, so don't change it, because someone's pinned you down on it. BIRTH CONTROL. Give us the examples.

I'm waiting, but I won't hold my breathe.

Fear Mongering?

from liberals?

nah, can't be. remember their brain is busted and don't have a fear response.

This is hate mongering.

They fear monger. Republicans want you to have "dirty air, dirty water." They want to take away your Social Security.

Now, it's birth control???????

This is all they have is fear mongering. They sure can't run on Obama's record.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REvmhBO99I4]Danger, Will Robinson! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[geauxtohell]

Lets re-cap.

According to the "conservatives" posting here, because the Federal Constitution does not specifically mention Pringles and Bud Light, any State has the right to ban all sales of Pringles and Bud light.

You guys should run on that. Really.

That's a slippery slope bud!

Ban my Boulevard Wheat and we got a problem.

Singlewide is better.

 

[oreo]

I still see that we have 14 on this board that feel State can BAN birth control contraceptives--LOL

The issue was already decided in a 1965 U.S. Supreme court case--Griswold v Connecticut in a 7 to 2 ruling--stating the State does NOT have the RIGHT to intervene in the PRIVATE intimate matters that go on between a man and woman or husband and wife.

Only Rick Santorum believes that.

Griswold v. Connecticut

 

[oreo]

Your being a hack Bro

True story

I see you still haven't watched the above video--so here's another for the BRAIN DEAD--

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, whose strong base of evangelical Christian supporters has thrust him into contention in Iowa, said on Monday that he believes states should have the right to outlaw birth control and sodomy without the interference of the Supreme Court.

In an interview with Jake Tapper on ABC News, Santorum reiterated his opposition to the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling that prevented Connecticut from banning contraception.

“The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that," he said. "It is not a constitutional right. The state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have.That's the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court--they are creating rights, and it should be left up to the people to decide."

Rick Santorum: States Should Have Power To Ban Birth Control, Sodomy

No--the U.S. Supreme court is for protecting the citizens from social freak nut-cases like Rick Santorum. He is all for the STATE getting involved between the intimacy between a man and woman--husband and wife--on their personal decision of how many children they want. He does not understand BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS--because of his religion--that he wants to shove down everyone else's throat.

He obviously doesn't understand the constitution. He must believe a state could ban gun ownership, too.

Yeah--some of these social right wing nut cases, don't seem to understand that the U.S. Constitution was provided to the citizens of this country so it could protect us from freak social nut-cases like Rick Santorum--that needs to be kicked back into the 17th century.

The HYPOCRISY on this--is that while everyone is furious over the government over-reach of Obamacare--they appear to be perfectly O.K with Santorum stating that States have the right to intervene in the individual rights of a husband and wife to be able to choose how many children they have-- UNBELIEVABLE.

 

[Texanmike]

I see you still haven't watched the above video--so here's another for the BRAIN DEAD--


Rick Santorum: States Should Have Power To Ban Birth Control, Sodomy

No--the U.S. Supreme court is for protecting the citizens from social freak nut-cases like Rick Santorum. He is all for the STATE getting involved between the intimacy between a man and woman--husband and wife--on their personal decision of how many children they want. He does not understand BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS--because of his religion--that he wants to shove down everyone else's throat.

He obviously doesn't understand the constitution. He must believe a state could ban gun ownership, too.

Yeah--some of these social right wing nut cases, don't seem to understand that the U.S. Constitution was provided to the citizens of this country so it could protect us from freak social nut-cases like Rick Santorum--that needs to be kicked back into the 17th century.

The HYPOCRISY on this--is that while everyone is furious over the government over-reach of Obamacare--they appear to be perfectly O.K with Santorum stating that States have the right to intervene in the individual rights of a husband and wife to be able to choose how many children they have-- UNBELIEVABLE.

I find it funny that you make that claim. The Constitution was created for no such purpose. If that is what you believe then show me your sources, or is that just what you "think" or "feel" it was created for?

Go read the books written by the founders and then come back and show me where you get your ideas.

Otherwise you are just providing fodder for a useless discussion.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

I still see that we have 14 on this board that feel State can BAN birth control contraceptives--LOL

The issue was already decided in a 1965 U.S. Supreme court case--Griswold v Connecticut in a 7 to 2 ruling--stating the State does NOT have the RIGHT to intervene in the PRIVATE intimate matters that go on between a man and woman or husband and wife.

Only Rick Santorum believes that.

Griswold v. Connecticut

From your link:

The Supreme Court justice who wrote the majority opinion in Griswold argued that they had found a new “right of privacy" in the Constitution which could be used to strike down the Connecticut law. Although this so called "right of privacy" could not be found anywhere in the actual text of the Constitution or its amendments, the majority argued that it is "implied" by the words and phrases of other constitutional amendments.

From Justice Curtis

When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean."

It works when your people are in power... not so well when they aren't. Stop giving the federal government every authority you can find when it reaches the end you wish because at some point in the future that same authority will be used against you when the people you do not wish to have power have power.


Mike

 

[oreo]

of course not

It looks like right now we have 16 idiots that don't realize that this question was already resolved in 1965 by the U.S. Supreme court in Griswold v Connecticut---

Griswold v. Connecticut

States do not have the right to interfere in the PRIVATE matters of individuals--including those between the intimate relationship between man and wife and their personal decision on birth control devices.

The SANTORUM hypocrisy is--that while he is out there on the campaign trail railing against Obamcare/Romneycare--and the GOVERNMENT overreach of that--he is completely O.K. with insisting that States can BAN birth control devices if they so choose.

 

[Maple]

what? so having birth control is now a basic human right?

It's not a basic human right, but a state has absolutely NO right to step all over my individual rights to tell me that I can't use contraceptives, none what-so-ever.

 

[Maple]

of course not

It looks like right now we have 16 idiots that don't realize that this question was already resolved in 1965 by the U.S. Supreme court in Griswold v Connecticut---

Griswold v. Connecticut

States do not have the right to interfere in the PRIVATE matters of individuals--including those between the intimate relationship between man and wife and their personal decision on birth control devices.

The SANTORUM hypocrisy is--that while he is out there on the campaign trail railing against Obamcare/Romneycare--and the GOVERNMENT overreach of that--he is completely O.K. with insisting that States can BAN birth control devices if they so choose.

Excellent point!!!! He is calling those two programs an over-reach by the government yet is okay with banning contraceptives. Pretty crazy guy.

 

[Maple]

of course not

It looks like right now we have 16 idiots that don't realize that this question was already resolved in 1965 by the U.S. Supreme court in Griswold v Connecticut---

Griswold v. Connecticut

States do not have the right to interfere in the PRIVATE matters of individuals--including those between the intimate relationship between man and wife and their personal decision on birth control devices.

The SANTORUM hypocrisy is--that while he is out there on the campaign trail railing against Obamcare/Romneycare--and the GOVERNMENT overreach of that--he is completely O.K. with insisting that States can BAN birth control devices if they so choose.

Excellent point!!!! He is calling those two programs an over-reach by the government yet is okay with banning contraceptives. Pretty crazy guy.

I wonder if he thinks the women voters will warm up to him over this?? What I get a kick out of, is he wears that christianity, Catholic stuff all over his sweater vest and gave a WHOPPING 2.4% to charity out of his million dollar income. Hey, Rick, you are that good of a Catholic, I think it's more like 10% you should tithe. I give more of a percentage of my income than he does. Hypocrisy in full view for all to see.

 

[Maple]

It looks like right now we have 16 idiots that don't realize that this question was already resolved in 1965 by the U.S. Supreme court in Griswold v Connecticut---

Griswold v. Connecticut

States do not have the right to interfere in the PRIVATE matters of individuals--including those between the intimate relationship between man and wife and their personal decision on birth control devices.

The SANTORUM hypocrisy is--that while he is out there on the campaign trail railing against Obamcare/Romneycare--and the GOVERNMENT overreach of that--he is completely O.K. with insisting that States can BAN birth control devices if they so choose.

Excellent point!!!! He is calling those two programs an over-reach by the government yet is okay with banning contraceptives. Pretty crazy guy.

I wonder if he thinks the women voters will warm up to him over this?? What I get a kick out of, is he wears that christianity, Catholic stuff all over his sweater vest and gave a WHOPPING 2.4% to charity out of his million dollar income. Hey, Rick, you are that good of a Catholic, I think it's more like 10% you should tithe. I give more of a percentage of my income than he does. Hypocrisy in full view for all to see.

Yep, he just lost the women vote over this one. I am surprised that men would go along with his radical views as they would be the ones paying the price for this, especially in the bedroom.

 

[oreo]

It looks like right now we have 16 idiots that don't realize that this question was already resolved in 1965 by the U.S. Supreme court in Griswold v Connecticut---

Griswold v. Connecticut

States do not have the right to interfere in the PRIVATE matters of individuals--including those between the intimate relationship between man and wife and their personal decision on birth control devices.

The SANTORUM hypocrisy is--that while he is out there on the campaign trail railing against Obamcare/Romneycare--and the GOVERNMENT of that, he insists that it's O.K. for STATES to be able to BAN birth control pills, condoms and all other devices that prevent pregnancy--thereby interfering in the PERSONAL--PRIVATE intimate relationships between a man and woman and their PERSONAL--PRIVATE decision on birth control and their personal--private decision on how many children they have--LOL

Excellent point!!!! He is calling those two programs an over-reach by the government yet is okay with banning contraceptives. Pretty crazy guy.

I wonder if he thinks the women voters will warm up to him over this?? What I get a kick out of, is he wears that christianity, Catholic stuff all over his sweater vest and gave a WHOPPING 2.4% to charity out of his million dollar income. Hey, Rick, you are that good of a Catholic, I think it's more like 10% you should tithe. I give more of a percentage of my income than he does. Hypocrisy in full view for all to see.

Nope--I really don't think any voters (male or female) would care for the idea that the STATE can decide if they can use birth control pills-or not-

Only a few nutcases like Santorum would be O.K. with that--

The absolute in your face hypocrisy of this candidate is astounding. Railing against the government OVER--reach of government regarding Obamacare/Romney care--but is perfectly O.K. with State intervention into the private--personal lives of men & women on their private--personal decisions regarding birth control contraceptatives.

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, whose strong base of evangelical Christian supporters has thrust him into contention in Iowa, said on Monday that he believes states should have the right to outlaw birth control and sodomy without the interference of the Supreme Court.

In an interview with Jake Tapper on ABC News, Santorum reiterated his opposition to the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling that prevented Connecticut from banning contraception.

“The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that," he said. "It is not a constitutional right. The state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have. That's the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court--they are creating rights, and it should be left up to the people to decide."

Rick Santorum: States Should Have Power To Ban Birth Control, Sodomy

My next door neighbor--as Santorum stated here, has no business to the matter in which I chose birth control or how many kids I have--only Santorum thinks they do.

No--Santorum--the U.S. Constitution does NOT GIVE us rights--it protects our RIGHTS from from social freak nut-cases like you.

 

[frazzledgear]

I found this very interesting explanation of the U.S. Constitution--along with the 4th amendment that says Santorum is WRONG on this issue.

No STATE can interfere with the intimate relationship between a Husband & Wife--or between Man & woman on their personal decision as to how many children they want--as it is considered a matter of privacy.

Surging Republican Santorum thinks condoms should be outlawed? - YouTube

You know with all the REAL issues facing this nation and very real, very serious problems -why do you think the left is trying to manufacture such a stupid NON-ISSUE like this? NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE is trying to ban birth control. IN ANY STATE. This is NOT an issue whatsoever! So who cares what Santorum's personal opinion is about whether a state can do it or not when NO ONE is going to try and do that? It was his opinion and it is based on the fact that states had previously banned certain types of contraceptives and didn't stop until they chose to reverse their laws themselves. NOT because some court ordered them to change the law. So he is using our own history to back up his answer -not some theoretical, nonexistent legal challenge that is NEVER going to happen because NO ONE is trying to ban birth control in ANY state ANYWAY.

This is a phony ass manufactured non-issue because the left doesn't want the election to be about Obama's record. So they pay off a Democrat patsy hired to play "news anchor" to ask a STUPID ASS, PHONY question that has nothing to do with any legitimate issue anywhere in this country or in ANY state anywhere -and never will. It is NO coincidence he asked this RIGHT before the controversy about forcing the Catholic Church to pay for abortifacients and birth control pills broke -clearly a coordinated effort to help Obama. Just like the coordinated effort between that lying ass PHONY "charity" MediaMatters and the White House to hire private investigators for the purpose of finding dirt on Fox employees and destroy their lives and memos regarding the coordinated efforts to "discredit" Fox at all costs. Just imagine if Republicans and conservatives were running that kind of coordinated effort to destroy a specific media station. Except Republicans don't fear other opinions like the left does. The left believes they are just so.........NOBLE-Y and all, it gives them an inherent "right" to destroy any dissenting voices at all costs. (Which is why having a different political opinion in countries where the left takes ultimate power will get you a prison sentence if you are lucky -and an execution squad if you aren't.) ALL of this is being done as a big coordinated leftwing LYING ASS SCUM SUCKING plan to get Obama re-elected at all costs. I don't know how these mother fuckers sleep at night frankly. People ought to be furious about a slanted, untrustworthy, lying ass media proving once again they exist as Democrat shills in this way. Except expecting the media to investigate and report honestly on their own participation is NEVER going to happen.

WHO GIVES A FLYING **** WHAT SANTORUM'S OPINION IS ON THIS when it has NO relevance to a ******* THING that faces this country ANYWHERE? Santorum isn't running on a platform urging a statewide ban on contraceptives ANYWHERE. In spite of lying ass claims otherwise -NOT TRUE. Although he does believe the people who actually want to use them should be the people to pay for them! Wow, what a novel idea, huh. And the left is going BONKERS over that idea -because Obama and Democrats have repeatedly stated they believe it should be those who AREN'T using them who should foot the bill. Except they call it "free" because they think Americans are so ******* dumb they will think it means it really is free. What they mean is "free" to the women who want them -but PAID for by the people who DON'T want them!

Why waste everyone's time with this kind of total bullshit that has no bearing on ANY real issue and is just a phony ass manufactured one done to avoid debate on the REAL issue? Why not run a little poll asking who people think should pay for birth control -the person who wants to use them -or those who don't? Let's see how THAT one turns out. Because THAT one is a REAL issue -and Obama, Pelosi and other Democrats think those who don't want birth control pills should be footing the bill for them in this country!

 

[Texanmike]

of course not

It looks like right now we have 16 idiots that don't realize that this question was already resolved in 1965 by the U.S. Supreme court in Griswold v Connecticut---

Griswold v. Connecticut

States do not have the right to interfere in the PRIVATE matters of individuals--including those between the intimate relationship between man and wife and their personal decision on birth control devices.

The SANTORUM hypocrisy is--that while he is out there on the campaign trail railing against Obamcare/Romneycare--and the GOVERNMENT overreach of that--he is completely O.K. with insisting that States can BAN birth control devices if they so choose.

OK. I'm going to be civil but I am going to explain the problem with what you just did. Have you looked into and read the opinions in Griswold v. Connecticut? Have you looked at the powers they reference?

What I fail to understand is how someone can hold a document like the Constitution sacred while making no attempt to understand its origin or its purpose. I would highly suggest you look at the tenure of the Marshall courts. He is revered in any "Constitutional Law" class you might take but his arguments were usually dubious at best.

First, lets examine the decision. Griswold made the arguement that the ban of contraceptives violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Have you ever looked at the 14th Amendement, independent of 150+ years of judicial lattitude?

Where exactly do all of these rights come from? Do you have any idea why the 14th Amendment was created? It wasn't created to grant new rights, or for the courts to define new rights as they saw fit. The 14th Amendment was created exclusively to ensure that former slaves received the same treatments that everyone else received. It did step into the boundaries of what had traditionally been state boundaries in order to protect former slaves. That is the only purpose of the due process clause of section 1.

The problem with allowing and accepting the various ways that it has been expanded by the courts is that we are giving 9 men who are not in any way accountable to anyone (the impeachment trial of Chase set the standard that we will not kick out judges for political reasons) are free to interpret legislation and Amendments in whatever way they see fit. There have been a long train of abuses on both state sovereignty and civil liberty by the court. Look, for example, into the bussing of kids across cities to fill "race quotas". In the end the court's solution to racial divides was to divide racially. It resulted in children, against the will of there parents, being bussed sometimes 3 hours a day to attend schools. Warren even claimed that the court could not be bound by the people of 1868. What he is saying is that he is not bound by the original intent of the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment has even been used to nullify private contracts (Shelley vs Kraemer). There was a private agreement between homeowners to not sell a house to a non-white. The State Supreme Court uphled the contract just like it would a will or a scholarship that is granted to one specific race or class. The supreme court stepped in and said that it was a violation of the 14th amendment. How can a person violate an amendment which applies to the states? I'm not sure exactly. The supreme court has not used such ruling to nullify scholarships directed at a group or class exclusively (which surely is a violation of the due process clause as understood by the SCOTUS).

I think it is ridiculous to have legislation that bans contraception, as I think segregation is heinous. I think that the population should call on the legislature to initiate an amendment to the Constitution or demand the state government bend to the will of the people. Having a 9 person counsel set the policy for all of the country is just a bad idea.

Mike

 

[oreo]

He obviously doesn't understand the constitution. He must believe a state could ban gun ownership, too.

Yeah--some of these social right wing nut cases, don't seem to understand that the U.S. Constitution was provided to the citizens of this country so it could protect us from freak social nut-cases like Rick Santorum--that needs to be kicked back into the 17th century.

The HYPOCRISY on this--is that while everyone is furious over the government over-reach of Obamacare--they appear to be perfectly O.K with Santorum stating that States have the right to intervene in the individual rights of a husband and wife to be able to choose how many children they have-- UNBELIEVABLE.

I find it funny that you make that claim. The Constitution was created for no such purpose. If that is what you believe then show me your sources, or is that just what you "think" or "feel" it was created for?

Go read the books written by the founders and then come back and show me where you get your ideas.

Otherwise you are just providing fodder for a useless discussion.

Mike

I don't have to show you--this case of states being able to ban birth control contraceptives was already settled by the U.S. Supreme court in 1965 in Griswold v Connecticut- in a decision that was 7 to 2.--

Griswold v. Connecticut

Griswold v. Connecticut involved a statute adopted by the state of Connecticut in 1879 which made it illegal for any person to use, or assist in using, any "drug, medicinal article, or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception", even among married couples. The statute was first challenged in 1943 in Tileston v. Ullman where the Supreme Court found that the plaintiff "lacked standing." The statute was later challenged in 1961, in Poe v. Ullman. The Court decided in that case that the controversy was not "ripe" because the plaintiff had not actually been prosecuted for breaking the statute. Then in 1965, suit was initiated by two members of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Their Executive Director, Estelle Griswold, had been convicted of providing contraceptive information, instruction, and medical advice to a married couple. Her conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Connecticut. The case then went to the U.S. Supreme Court where the Connecticut law and Mrs. Griswold's conviction were ruled unconstitutional by a vote of 7-2, and Connecticut’s law was found to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court justice who wrote the majority opinion in Griswold argued that they had found a new “right of privacy" in the Constitution which could be used to strike down the Connecticut law. Although this so called "right of privacy" could not be found anywhere in the actual text of the Constitution or its amendments, the majority argued that it is "implied" by the words and phrases of other constitutional amendments.

And I certainly don't think you know more about the constitution than U.S. Supreme court justices--- This is why we have Supreme court justices to "interpret" the Constitution as our forefathers would have intended.

 

[oreo]

I still see that we have 14 on this board that feel State can BAN birth control contraceptives--LOL

The issue was already decided in a 1965 U.S. Supreme court case--Griswold v Connecticut in a 7 to 2 ruling--stating the State does NOT have the RIGHT to intervene in the PRIVATE intimate matters that go on between a man and woman or husband and wife.

Only Rick Santorum believes that.

Griswold v. Connecticut

From your link:

The Supreme Court justice who wrote the majority opinion in Griswold argued that they had found a new “right of privacy" in the Constitution which could be used to strike down the Connecticut law. Although this so can.


Again--Mike--the right of privacy is INHERENT in the way we live our daily lives-[/B]-and the U.S. Supreme court found for that RIGHT in their decision in 1965 in Roswold v Connecticut--stating that NO STATE has the RIGHT to intervene in the private matters between Husband and Wife on their PERSONAL decision to how many children they have.

Now--just because the WORD (privacy) does not exist in the constitution as our fore-fathers wrote it--the U.S. Supreme court (after review) stated that PRIVACY was IMPLIED in the constitution. That's why we have Supreme court justices--whom know a lot more about the constitution than you do. And in a RARE 7-2 decision tells me that they saw something with the Connecticut statute--that prohibited our LIBERTY and FREEDOM to make personal--private choices--in the manner in which we choose or use birth control contraceptives.

 

[jillian]

what? so having birth control is now a basic human right?

It's not a basic human right, but a state has absolutely NO right to step all over my individual rights to tell me that I can't use contraceptives, none what-so-ever.

the basic human right is the right to exercise dominion over your own body and the right to privacy from the government interfering with that dominion.

 

[theliq]

I found this very interesting explanation of the U.S. Constitution--along with the 4th amendment that says Santorum is WRONG on this issue.

No STATE can interfere with the intimate relationship between a Husband & Wife--or between Man & woman on their personal decision as to how many children they want--as it is considered a matter of privacy.

Surging Republican Santorum thinks condoms should be outlawed? - YouTube

Santo Panto is a complete DINOSAUR.....whom ever would vote for some cretin with views like that.....I'm and so is the majority of folk in the modern world,methinks he suffers from TALIBANITIS.......crazy man.tl

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I found this very interesting explanation of the U.S. Constitution--along with the 4th amendment that says Santorum is WRONG on this issue.

No STATE can interfere with the intimate relationship between a Husband & Wife--or between Man & woman on their personal decision as to how many children they want--as it is considered a matter of privacy.

Surging Republican Santorum thinks condoms should be outlawed? - YouTube

Its total bullshit Oreo....

This is what Santorum said about it on Jan 6th

“I was asked if I believed in it, and I said, ‘No, I’m a Catholic, and I don’t.’ I don’t want the government to fund it through Planned Parenthood, but that’s different than wanting to ban it; the idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case. I don’t think the government should be involved in that. People are free to make their own decisions.’’

Someone didn't WATCH the above video--he most certainly did say it--it's right there. He states that STATES have the right to BAN birth control devices.

Its not that it Will happen. Its that Republican/teebaggers would make it happen if they could. Same with what the Morm church would like to have the power to do.

The GObP/Repubs/teebaggers are all about taking rights and freedoms away from Americans. We hear it in their screwy speeches every day.

Elect one of the Repub clowns and we're that much closer to them being able to make it a reality.