Fella’s Favorite Feminist Flubs Federalism, Feeds Family Fallacious Foolishness
This week PunditMom explains the contraception debate to her 12-year-old daughter, who asks, “Mom, why don’t you and dad like Rick Santorum?”
And the answer is – because Rick Santorum wants to ban birth control.
Which of course is completely false. And in spreading this falsehood, PunditMom does her daughter a grave disservice. (Digression – even the idea of discussing birth control with a 12-year-old seems out of line to me, that’s way too young for a child to be contemplating sexual activity. At that age the only reasonable assertion from a parent is “just say ‘no.'”)
Let’s go to Mr. Santorum’s actual statement.
In October, Santorum told a blogger this: “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. . . . Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
Those remarks have been misinterpreted, he said. “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.”
See? Nuance. Something sorely lacking from PunditMom’s worldview.
Feeding your child Jay Carney’s talking points may make the ya-ya sisterhood stand up and applaud, but it’s disingenuous of her to completely ignore the lessons of federalism inherent in Mr. Santorum’s principles.
The former Pennsylvania senator recently told ABC’s Jake Tapper that, yes, he disagrees with Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court decision that struck down a ban on contraception.
He said Friday evening that it’s the idea that states don’t have a right to pass such a law that he opposes, because he does not see the right to privacy as a constitutional right envisioned by its signers. This is hardly a new argument.
“It could have been a law against buying shoestrings; that it was contraception has nothing to do with it. States have the right to pass even dumb laws.”
Federalism, the idea that states have a right to pass laws, “even dumb laws.” It’s embodied in the Tenth Amendment. Yes, I realize the Tenth Amendment is anathema to liberals. Usually. When states enact gay “marriage”, or legalize “medical” marijuana, or eviscerate the Second Amendment via odious gun control regulations, then liberals love them some federalism, baby!
It’s just when Conservatives talk about Federalism that liberals get the willies. Because we might use it to counter the Progressive agenda.
Now here’s where it gets interesting. If a state did attempt to pass a law banning birth control, PunditMom would have an ally in … Rick Santorum.
To be clear, he does think that laws banning birth control would be dumb “for a number of reasons. Birth control should be legal in the United States. The states should not ban it, and I would oppose any effort to ban it.”
There you have it. Rick Santorum’s own words directly contradict PunditMom’s feminist shibboleth. It took me less than 5 minutes with Google to find that out. Does her daughter know how to use Google? I sure hope so, maybe PunditGrrl will learn something.
Gawker’s Misogynistic Smear of O’Donnell So Vile, Left Shamed Into Condemning It. But, Did They Really?
FacebookTwitterEmail Gawker, that pit of disgusting, published an anonymous hit piece on Christine O’Donnell the other day. I refuse to
FacebookTwitterEmail Margot Magowan a blogger for the San Francisco Chronicle must have gone to college. I say that not because
FacebookTwitterEmail Originally posted at NewsReal: Last week, before the airing of an episode of Friday Night Lights on NBC, feminist