Rand-hater Santorum heavily considering 2016 presidential run

[Christian Liberty]

Obama supports ALL of these things, he just doesn't particularly advertise it, and the Media never asked him hard questions about abortion. But that's beside the point. This is Rand Paul's forum after all, and his position on abortion is out of touch with the overwhelming majority of voters. I'm glad that at least one person on this board understands that.

He's probably more pro-life than the average, but I don't think the voters will pick based on that one issue. If Rand convinces them he can fix the economy, most will let that go, IMO.

As someone from Missouri. That comment that Akin made instantly lost him the race, from young to old the outrage of that comment propelled McCaskill
to win.

-Virgil

Honestly, to me that just shows the stupidity of voters. Akin probably wasn't a good choice in general but I seriously would not discount him for a stupid comment.

 

[erowe1]

He's probably more pro-life than the average

I think the word "probably" is pretty important there too, since I'm not entirely sure it's the case. I think he's in a position where he can appeal to pro-life purists in the primary and the softer more generic pro-life majority of the country in the general without actually changing his position.

 

[Christian Liberty]

IIRC I saw a poll once that said over 70% of Americans would outlaw abortion in the second trimester but over 70% of Americans thought it should be legal in the 1st. Pure pro-lifers and radical pro-choicers are both less common than the media portrays it, if I understand correctly.

 

[Brett85]

Every pro-life person who believes people who were conceived in tragic circumstances DON'T deserve to die for the sin of their biological "father" need to have a prepared response in their their back pocket AND written on the palm of their hand they've rehearsed OVER and OVER.

I think the response should simply be that women could still use the Morning After Pill if they get raped. That can be used up to 72 hours after the rape occurs and almost always prevents the pregnancy from occuring. There's really no excuse at all for abortion to be legal in cases of rape when rape victims can now buy the Morning After Pill over the counter.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Does the Morning After Pill ever actually cause abortion?

 

[FriedChicken]

Does the Morning After Pill ever actually cause abortion?

If you consider a pregnancy to begin at conception than yes. I believe that life begins at conception but I think it more enforceable for laws to be written that define life at 3 weeks after conception - because that would result in outlawing the abortion surgical procedure but still leave chemical alternatives available like the morning after pill.

From an idealistic stand point I still consider the morning after pill to be an abortion but it is impossible to regulate it because, chemically speaking, its the same thing as a birth control pill and contraception will always be legal. I'm pretty sure that all effective contraception drugs, on occasion, cause unknown miscarriages - so a morning after pill is basically just a stronger dose of a contraception pill.

Ron actually pointed that out during a debate - I remember cringing at the time because pointing out to women that contraception can cause an 'abortion' didn't seems like a good way to win votes. My wife has several friends who know this fact but choose to ignore it because they'd rather be ignorant ... woe to the person who brings it to their attention. lol.

I agree with TradCon that would have been a good answer for Mourdock. Its not hard finding a better answer than he gave.

 

[Brett85]

If you consider a pregnancy to begin at conception than yes. I believe that life begins at conception but I think it more enforceable for laws to be written that define life at 3 weeks after conception - because that would result in outlawing the abortion surgical procedure but still leave chemical alternatives available like the morning after pill.

Do you mean 3 days after conception? That's basically my position. My position is basically that there should be legal protections for the unborn from the time that the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus. That would make it to where the Morning After Pill wouldn't be illegal. The Morning After Pill basically just makes it to where the fertilized egg doesn't attach to the uterus. Some people may technically consider this to be an "abortion," but it simply works the same way that a lot of other forms of birth control works, and I would rather allow a woman to use the Morning After Pill than to have her get an abortion when she's three months pregnant.

 

[Brett85]

Does the Morning After Pill ever actually cause abortion?

I guess it depends on whether you think life begins right when the egg is fertilized or when the egg actually attaches to the uterus. I think Ron has basically said that he believes conception occurs when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus.

 

[FriedChicken]

I guess it depends on whether you think life begins right when the egg is fertilized or when the egg actually attaches to the uterus. I think Ron has basically said that he believes conception occurs when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus.

... I'm thinking I heard Ron say that he believed life began at conception (fertilized egg) but I can't directly point to a source. But he basically conceded that it should be legal for a woman to take chemical actions to "end the pregnancy" because you can't prove whether an abortion actually occurred so it wouldn't be prosecutable.

I remember him saying that "if one of his granddaughters were raped" (an analogy put to him by the interviewer) and she didn't want a pregnancy that he would recommend her going to the hospital for a shot of estrogen.
She would never know if she was ever impregnated or not.

 

[Brett85]

... I'm thinking I heard Ron say that he believed life began at conception (fertilized egg) but I can't directly point to a source. But he basically conceded that it should be legal for a woman to take chemical actions to "end the pregnancy" because you can't prove whether an abortion actually occurred so it wouldn't be prosecutable.

I remember him saying that "if one of his granddaughters were raped" (an analogy put to him by the interviewer) and she didn't want a pregnancy that he would recommend her going to the hospital for a shot of estrogen.
She would never know if she was ever impregnated or not.

My view is basically that the Morning After Pill should be legal since it simply prevents the egg from attaching to the uterus, but I think that other chemicals that are more controversial like RU486 should be banned. RU486 is an actual abortion pill that kills the baby after it has attached to the uterus and has begun growing. I think this chemical and other similar chemicals should be outlawed. That's also Rand's position, that the Morning After Pill should be legal but RU 486 should be illegal.

 

[Christian Liberty]

If you consider a pregnancy to begin at conception than yes. I believe that life begins at conception but I think it more enforceable for laws to be written that define life at 3 weeks after conception - because that would result in outlawing the abortion surgical procedure but still leave chemical alternatives available like the morning after pill.

From an idealistic stand point I still consider the morning after pill to be an abortion but it is impossible to regulate it because, chemically speaking, its the same thing as a birth control pill and contraception will always be legal. I'm pretty sure that all effective contraception drugs, on occasion, cause unknown miscarriages - so a morning after pill is basically just a stronger dose of a contraception pill.

Ron actually pointed that out during a debate - I remember cringing at the time because pointing out to women that contraception can cause an 'abortion' didn't seems like a good way to win votes. My wife has several friends who know this fact but choose to ignore it because they'd rather be ignorant ... woe to the person who brings it to their attention. lol.

I agree with TradCon that would have been a good answer for Mourdock. Its not hard finding a better answer than he gave.

I definitely see a difference between the occasional, accidental mistake and deliberately having an abortion...

 

[JCDenton0451]

He's probably more pro-life than the average, but I don't think the voters will pick based on that one issue. If Rand convinces them he can fix the economy, most will let that go, IMO.

How come social conservatives always demand Republican politicians take extreme positions on abortion, then expect them campaign on the economy and national security in the general election? If no-abortion-for-rape-victims position is such a winner, why not run on it?

 

[JCDenton0451]

But he was never the overwhelming favorite. And he was definitely down in the polls before that debate.

That's some revisionist history right there: Mourdock was running in a red state, he had the backing of the Club for Growth, and he demolished Lugar in the primary. The polls before the debate were close with Mourdock slightly ahead. His rape comments caused almost a 10 point swing.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/in/indiana_senate_mourdock_vs_donnelly-3166.html

 

[Aratus]

mitt romney looked like wanted to buy a muzzle for all the GOP contenders for our lesser offices after that lil ole political faux pas

 

[Aratus]

people... "J.D-451" is correct about the mass media focus on the comment and the way the public at large reacted

 

[erowe1]

That's some revisionist history right there: Mourdock was running in a red state, he had the backing of the Club for Growth, and he demolished Lugar in the primary. The polls before the debate were close with Mourdock slightly ahead. His rape comments caused almost a 10 point swing.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/in/indiana_senate_mourdock_vs_donnelly-3166.html

That site doesn't show all the polls. It also doesn't show which ones included Horning. The ones that put Mourdock ahead generally didn't include him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Indiana,_2012

Look at the two Howey Politics polls, one before the debate, the other after it. They included Horning and had the same methodology, as well as the largest sample sizes of any pols of the race, so it's comparing like with like. Mourdock was already down and then went down 2 more points. The margin of error was 3.5.

It's not revisionist history. I was here living through it as it went on and paying attention to those things.

 

[libertygrl]

Well, I knew he said the stupid anti-freedom comment... His problem, fundamentally, is that he doesn't see the difference between cultural conservatism and coerced conservatism. While certainly a libertarian can oppose all kinds of conservatism, its also completely possible for a libertarian to be a cultural conservative. Ron Paul and most of the guys on LRC are cultural conservatives. There's also this weird perception that libertarians must be pro-choice. Libertarians can break either way on abortion.

I was asking if Santorum really told someone to vote for Ron Paul... I guess so?

Yes, if you watch the video there's a scene where he's campaigning. Some guy in the crowd calls him on on some stuff he voted for. Santorum got annoyed and figured he was a Ron Paul supporter so (I believe he meant it sarcastically) he told him to go vote for Ron Paul.

 

[supermario21]

Santorum is a guy who said that voting for Obama would be better than Romney...if he made that comment about Mitt, could you imagine what he'd say about Rand? He'd endorse HRC and help out in blue collar regions of the country...

 

[Warlord]

That site doesn't show all the polls. It also doesn't show which ones included Horning. The ones that put Mourdock ahead generally didn't include him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Indiana,_2012

Look at the two Howey Politics polls, one before the debate, the other after it. They included Horning and had the same methodology, as well as the largest sample sizes of any pols of the race, so it's comparing like with like. Mourdock was already down and then went down 2 more points. The margin of error was 3.5.

It's not revisionist history. I was here living through it as it went on and paying attention to those things.

Including the LP in a poll is irrelevant. He still should have won and would have won.

Just accept it will you?

Mourdock was one of the biggest let downs of 2012 because he threw away a sure fire Senate seat and that's why we're still talking about him and mad at him.

 

[Aratus]

I think mourdock's quip cost gentleman mitt about 5% of the vote in the fall general election
when he looked and sounded less educated than general dwight david eisenhower did in 1952!
the voters want people to have passed biology class rather than to have flunked it rather badly.