Rod Dreher

Place, Economy, Spirit, Stability

Santorum’s Ill-Advised Contraception Talk

By Rod Dreher • February 15, 2012, 4:31 PM

Have you heard about an on-camera interview from last year with Rick Santorum, in which he talked about his opposition to contraception? An excerpt from the transcript:

One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.”

It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.

I respect Rick Santorum’s fidelity to Catholic teaching, and his courage in defending a position that is very unpopular. But this was a mistake. Americans don’t turn to their presidents for advice on how to conduct their sex lives, especially at this level of intimacy. Of course it’s not true at all that there are no public implications from private sexual conduct, but drawing the line on contraception is going to strike most Americans as simply a weird position for a presidential candidate to take.

Conor Friedersdorf wisely counsels him to shut up. Though I am more sympathetic to the anti-contraception position than I imagine Conor is, he is undoubtedly correct that if only as a prudential matter, this is not likely to be a fertile field of evangelization for candidate Santorum. It muddies the water on the HHS controversy as well. If it’s only about the licitness of contraception, then social and religious conservatives definitely lose. If it’s about religious liberty — as I believe it to be — then there’s a very good chance we can prevail.

73 Responses to Santorum’s Ill-Advised Contraception Talk

← Older Comments

Ivan K says:

February 16, 2012 at 12:14 am

Yes, Santorum’s views on contraception are outside of the mainstream, but so are Obama’s. In voting against the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act Obama was even more radical than NARAL’s, since NARAL did not oppose the bill. Obama’s radicalism on this social issue didn’t prevent him from winning the presidency.

THe difference between Santorum’s views on condoms and Obama’s radicalism on abortion is that Santorum isn’t proposing that the state restrict access to contraceptives. The issue is whether Catholics should be forced to pay for them.

I personally find it refreshing that Santorum is willing to talk about his views, even though they are politically incorrect. Would I care if some Jewish politician talked about the health benefits of circumcision? Why would I? I personally don’t believe that circumcision is a good thing, but I respect Jews for sticking to the practice in spite of the cultural opposition.
Charles Cosimano says:

February 16, 2012 at 12:25 am

The problem is not that Santorum’s views are not politically correct. The problem is that they make him sound like a member of the Flat Earth Society. If he gets nominated, the Democrats are to soundbite him to death on this.
Surly says:

February 16, 2012 at 12:31 am

Unfettered gun ownership has negative affects on families and on society too. How many people get killed every year because some moron leaves a loaded gun lying around and some kid or distraught person uses it to kill or maim?

Until Santorum gets serious about “respect for life” in all of its forms he can kiss my middle aged fat white…self.
Dave D. says:

February 16, 2012 at 1:08 am

Siarlys, it’s more that he shouldn’t be talking about sexuality in those “special” terms to begin with, and for me, he shouldn’t be either pigeonholed as or make his main platform contraception. Nothing says he can’t work to act on it, but he should run on the economy and make it his priority. If he can fix it, second term he can make arguments about social issues and shift gears, and maybe more might listen.

I think for conservatives Santorum wins socials just by not working to promote contraception. He doesn’t need to actively campaign against it or try to outlaw it, just don’t pass bills increasing its reach.
Sean Scallon says:

February 16, 2012 at 1:27 am

I think Santorum, and others too, would reply to your request in this way: “What’s the point of politics if one cannot use it as a means affecting cultural change? I am not running to be the leader of sinful people.”

Once upon a time there was once a movement of conservative persons of a religious nature who entered into the new realm (for them) of politics quite content to use it as a means to keep the wolves at bay i.e. electing politicians who promised to leave them alone on matters such as school prayer or regulating human behavior at the state and local level (sodomy laws, abortion laws, obscenity laws etc.) They organized and won elections for politicians who promised to do this and allowed them to fit their goals and objectives into a powerful national coalitions of likeminded persons who didn’t agree on everything but did agree on what was most important.

As time went on it became clear this was not enough. Politicians would promise things and never deliver. Despite winning elections the culture in which they lived became worse and worse for them and judges routinely interpreted the law in such a way which made their political victories seem moot. At first they tried to redouble their efforts, demanding the right kind of judges be nominated to Federal courts, demanding a “place at the table” when it came to public policy, Again they would win elections and again nothing happened. No great change took place.

Now, presented with record which, over a period of 30 years, a great deal was sacrificed for politics for very little gain, did they realize perhaps political participation wasn’t the answer they were looking for? No! Instead in they went from trying to influence the process for more power itself, promoting candidates who had clear agendas that mirrored theirs and ran with their official seal of approval and support of their institutions and leaders. From Pat Robertson’s small beginnings in 1988 to Gary Bauer to Mike Huckabee to Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann too. Voters and political campaigns go hand in hand. There were many evangelicals who supported George Bush I in 1988 over their brother Robertson because they thought Robertson too vulgar in quest for power (there were class issues involved as well but that’s another story). Now, such a taboo is long gone to where you have Santorum saying, basically as President, he’s going to get rid of the pill.

You can’t continuously ask people for their votes and money and political labor and not have them at some point expect something for it. Power is the ultimate endpoint of their efforts. But it is this quest for power which has spawned a backlash which has tore apart the “movement” and it’s why there hasn’t been a consolidation around Santorum (indeed it’s Santorum’s religiosity which is basically the reason behind Sheldon Adelson’s continued support of Newt Gingrich) to defeat Romney. It has also spawned a backlash which I believe is one reason why you see more non-religious voters and more open atheists in the country than ever before.

It’s also a contradiction which lays hollow whole ideology itself. You can’t be for limited government and then demand that same government who you want to be “limited” do something about smut on TV or ban contraceptives. If Obama is one extreme (We will make you to provide The Pill) Santorum is the other (We will take the Pill away from you). A Ron Paul says “Hey, why is this a question for a Presidential election? Let’s the states and localities decide contraception.” and not realize the basis of our politics in this day and age, sadly, requires mass mobilization of mass groups over mass communications in order to achieve success. The problem is, what defines success is determined by what is acceptable within the mass culture and society and unfortunately Santorum’s supports still believe if you can just win the White House you can become the nation’s Preacher-in-Chief along with being its Commander-in-Chief. They’re still like rabbits chasing the dangling carrot they’re never going to reach.

Why do they continue this way? Because it’s easier and faster to organize politically to bring about change than to write a book, a sermon, a screenplay or such to change people’s hearts.
Sean Scallon says:

February 16, 2012 at 1:38 am

“There is no way President Santorum is going to do a blooming thing legislatively to prohibit contraception. Griswold vs. Connecticut settled that question. Besides, it would be extremely unpopular.”

Maybe so but if were true Griswold “settled” the question (in the same way Plessy vs. Ferguson “settled” the question of segregation) then there would not be a religious Right. The religious Right exists because they know, as the old New Dealers once knew the old saying “the Supreme Court follows the election returns.”
JonF says:

February 16, 2012 at 5:52 am

Re: I agree that to the American mind, Santorum is on the lunatic fringe on this issue. Of course, that only speaks to how diseased the American mind is.

There is nothing “diseased” about the opinion (iterated here by Rod as well) that the Presidenrt is not a sex advisor and the government has no role in making people’s most intimate choices. I would say the opposite notion is far more pernicious, and counter to the spirit of “limited government”, is any such ideals still exist as something other than a worn shibboleth.
An Anachronistic Apostle says:

February 16, 2012 at 6:52 am

Michelle Obama is simply exercising her right to free speech to offer advice on healthy eating and exercising habits for children. She is not proposing, passing, or mandating behavior. — Frank

One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. — Mr. Santorum

Based on the evidence presented so far, the First Lady is defended for exercising her right of talking; a candidate for political nomination speaks of talking, and is promptly labeled a “lunatic,” by the defender of the First Lady.

Ill-thought out proposals, which touch on behavior or e.g., the placement of BMI calculations on children’s report cards, are not evidence of a crime … or even lunacy. The Secretary of HHS is not wearing an orange jump-suit, or four-point restraints.

Neither, we trust, is Frank.
dcs says:

February 16, 2012 at 8:57 am

There is nothing “diseased” about the opinion (iterated here by Rod as well) that the Presidenrt is not a sex advisor and the government has no role in making people’s most intimate choices. I would say the opposite notion is far more pernicious, and counter to the spirit of “limited government”, is any such ideals still exist as something other than a worn shibboleth.

I was responding to this:

Opposing contraception, for any reason whatsoever, places Santorum firmly in the lunatic fringe.

And Rod said only that:

drawing the line on contraception is going to strike most Americans as simply a weird position for a presidential candidate to take.

Why does it strike Americans as weird? It is not because they are interested in limited government or because they don’t want the government to make choices for them. We see everyday how little Americans are interested in making government smaller. No, it strikes Americans as weird because Americans think that people who don’t use contraception are weird.
Susan says:

February 16, 2012 at 9:07 am

Good morning, Rod. When I read your post, I thought of the post by Patrick Deneen wrote this morning. I think you will appreciate it and hope you will comment on it. I’m still taking it in:

http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2012/02/religious-liberty/
sdb says:

February 16, 2012 at 9:18 am

While the notion that we shouldn’t legislate morality sounds nice, it just isn’t true in practice. If you assault someone, it is a crime and you will be punished if you are convicted. If you assault someone because you don’t like their race, it is also a crime and you will be punished. But the punishment will be more severe because of your immoral (in this case racist) perspective. In many places gambling is a crime. Prostitution is illegal in most places because it is largely seen as immoral (curiously enough soliciting hardcore porn “actors” isn’t). Perhaps some will argue that these laws are different from other morals legislation because they have dire social consequences for other people that the various other bedroom-morals legislation does not. Perhaps. But I think a rational, principled distinction between protecting the right to be a sexual libertine and criminalizing prostitution is a hard one to draw.

But maybe we can consider morals legislation that doesn’t involve people – animal cruelty laws are certainly the legislation of morality. Cockfighting doesn’t hurt anybody. If I extend the logic of those who oppose morals based legislation, what business is it of the government what I do in the privacy of my own home? Maybe it is because we think cruelty to animals is wrong and should be outlawed even if no one gets hurt.

I support the legality of contraception and I am generally opposed to values legislation, but just because I think certain behavior should not be criminalized doesn’t mean that I think it is wise to engage in that behavior. For this to work though, we have to be willing to speak up against “bad things” and show social disapproval.

I have no problem with a president who makes the case that various activities are wrong and should be avoided even if s/he doesn’t think it prudent to pass a law prohibiting said behavior. So while I disagree with Santorum, I applaud his courage and welcome his voice to the marketplace of ideas. I would say the same thing about the First Lady’s moralizing about eating or exercise. More power to her. I may disagree with her advice, but as long as she doesn’t try to legislate her advice, I’m happy for her to make her push. In voting for a president, I don’t care what idiosyncratic views s/he may advocate unless s/he is working to turn those views into law (and more particularly laws that have a chance of being enacted).
TWylite says:

February 16, 2012 at 9:25 am

Santorum is a theocrat at heart, and he just can’t help himself sometimes. I would vote a thousand times for Obama over him. Complaining rightly about too much government intrusion in our economic lives, and then suggesting that we need a president to tell us the right way to have sex is an astonishing bit of cognitive dissonance.
Polichinello says:

February 16, 2012 at 9:34 am

I think Santorum, and others too, would reply to your request in this way: “What’s the point of politics if one cannot use it as a means affecting cultural change? I am not running to be the leader of sinful people.”

If he wants to reform the nation’s morals, then he should stick with preaching from a private position. I would defend his right to do so. The idea that he should concern himself with birth control being used by private citizens as the President is just weird, and it is a bit creepy. I don’t like it when lefties use their political positions to go a moral crusading, and it’s no better for righties to do it either.

And, yes, legislatively, there’s nothing he could do, but that’s not how it will run in the ads. That I can guarantee you.
JLF says:

February 16, 2012 at 10:59 am

I’ve read the entire thread, and I don’t recall anyone pointing out what seems to me so self-evident. Laws respecting contraception and even abortion allow all citizens to exercise their conscience with respect to both. No law mandates the use contraception or abortion. If you find either contraceptive use or abortion to be morally offensive, don’t avail yourself of either. Your neighbor might not be similarly constrained in her moral beliefs, and she is free to use contraceptives or obtain abortion services at her discretion.

The real conflict between the Catholic bishops and the Obama administration concerns the intersection of the bishops’ right to express their faith in the secular world and the government’s power to enforce the law as it pertains to the civil rights of all citizens. Almost all agree that the First Amendment protects belief. The law, however, does not protect the exercise of those beliefs when they interfere with the rights of others. The initial complaint of the bishops was directed at providing contraceptives to employees of their secular enterprises. That objection was mooted by the administration requiring the insurance companies to make contraceptives available upon request by the employee and at no charge to the sectarian employer. And as others have pointed out, the law is rather clear that employees of religious enterprises – those that offer goods and services of a secular nature to the general public, as opposed to those that promulgate religious doctrine to the faithful and solicit membership in the church – are to be treated just as any other secular employee.

Raised a Southern Baptist, I had to memorize the Great Commission. As I recall, Jesus commanded his followers to create disciples, teaching them all things he had commanded. He never once mentioned taking over a government and imposing his commandments on the unwilling. The pro-life movement would be well-advised to spend its energy converting the unbelieving and not trying to use the expedient of government to do that which they cannot do by persuasion.
Hector_St_Clare says:

February 16, 2012 at 11:09 am

I don’t agree with Santorum about contraception, obviously (though I’m critical/uncomfortable about some forms of contraception myself, and I think cultural liberals have gone a bit too far to the other extreme). But I’m certainly glad he has the courage and integrity to sincerely defend an unpopular position. What a refreshing contrast to the typical politician.
Franklin Evans says:

February 16, 2012 at 11:14 am

sdb at 9:18am above puts it very well. My previous posts were inadequate in making the point.

Legislation of morality is based on the assumption that the society qua society is incapable of exerting social pressures against that which is targeted in the legislation.

The line that we draw, under the Bill of Rights, is for those people who are unwilling to bow to the societal pressures on an issue for which one (or more) of those statutes provide protection. We are focused here on the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty.

Briefly, and perhaps too simplistically, put: Religiously/morally motivated legislation crosses the line(s) clearly defined in the Bill of Rights. The rest is commentary and using the court system — right up to SCOTUS — to implement the protections where they are legally warranted.
Polichinello says:

February 16, 2012 at 11:32 am

That objection was mooted by the administration requiring the insurance companies to make contraceptives available upon request by the employee and at no charge to the sectarian employer.

That’s a shell game, a laundering, and no one seriously buys into it as anything other than a face-saving dodge.
JLF says:

February 16, 2012 at 12:05 pm

Polichinello, either the Obama compromise is a shell game – in which case he’s done a masterful job of conning the Republicans into choosing the shell without the pea – or it is a face-saving dodge – in which case he’s stepped into the cow patty and now calls it fertilizer for his Rose Garden. It really can’t be both.

I’m pretty sure it’s the former. Notice how the onus is now on the Republicans for backing a restriction on the availability of contraceptives. Most polled now say there is nothing to be excited about when the contraceptives are provided at no cost to the employer. Republicans who want to fight the contraceptive battles of the 1950s and 1960s can do so, but they’ll only lose again.
Polichinello says:

February 16, 2012 at 1:25 pm

Statement 1:
It really can’t be both.

It gives liberal Catholics a means of claiming victory even though they haven’t won a thing beyond becoming party to a lie.

Most polled now say there is nothing to be excited about when the contraceptives are provided at no cost to the employer.

They are provided at a cost to the employer. The insurers will roll the cost into their premiums. It just won’t appear on the statement now. THAT’s the shell game, and the public has fallen for it, “‘Cause, hey, it’s, like, free, man.”
JLF says:

February 16, 2012 at 2:06 pm

I understand your argument, Polichinello, and if you want to consider the compromise a “shell game” and a means of “claiming victory” by some, you’re welcome to it. But on the other hand, it does not necessarily follow that the costs of contraceptives to the insurers will be covered by higher premiums. (They could as easily come from profits if the elasticity of demand is sufficiently high.) The actual cost of contraceptives – far from being a shell game – will be nothing more than other costs of production, like marketing, labor, other overhead: just another cost of doing business.
GingerMan says:

February 16, 2012 at 3:44 pm

This is just awesome.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/16/10427429-chief-santorum-backers-eyebrow-raising-comment-on-contraception

I hope Santorum does get the nomination, if just for the increased entertainment factor.
cermak_rd says:

February 16, 2012 at 4:08 pm

Polichinello,

Actually, I’d be surprised if there’s an increase in the cost of the premiums caused by contraception. I would imagine that it is cheaper to provide 200 women contraception, even with related exams, than it is to pay for 1 healthy birth, and let’s not even get into 1 complicated birth. Most employers, even Catholic ones, are probably going to prefer that their women employees not be out for maternity leave every 3 years, as well.
Caroline says:

March 9, 2012 at 3:02 pm

Mr. Santorum lacks a grasp of objective reality. Most Catholics rejected Pope Paul VI’s teaching on birth control: Humane Vitae in 1968 and have been using birth control for about fifty years. Only 25% of Catholics go to Church regularly and a self-identified Catholic can have political views that range from ultra-conservative to extremely liberal.

Catholics don’t vote in a bloc and never have. Santorum should consider another career: lay evangelist. He can go on the speaker circuit and tell everyone how wonderful it is to be open to life (ignoring the fact that you have to be wealthy to do that responsibly) and talk about the joys of being a godly man who has had cushy jobs for most of his life.

He is not only unelectable; he is grossly unqualified and I believe, mentally unbalanced. I agree with Pat Buchanan, the man opened his mouth way too wide and a bunch of crap came out (my words, not Buchanan’s). If he wants to talk about Satan and spiritual decay and all that, that’s fine but it is not the job of the President of the United States to address those concerns.

Tell it Rick! Go on EWTN and tell a very small audience what they want to hear. (However, I don’t think they pay well)