Santorum: Who Will Protect You From Crazed Euthanizing Dutch Doctors?

We previously listened to Rick Santorum as he suggested to religious college students that a vote for him might keep them from being devoured. Now it appears it may also protect you from being snatched up by crazed euthanizing Dutch doctors who will send you to the Nether Regions unless you are wearing a bracelet. He also appears to relish the good old days when abortions in America were regulated to “the shadows.”

Santorum told voters that (1) ten percent of all deaths in the Netherlands were by euthanasia, (2) people have to wear bracelets now to be sure not to be euthanized at hospitals, and (3) 50 percent of euthanasia is performed “involuntarily.”

Before any of our statisticians demand to be euthanized, let’s correct a few of these facts.

The bling-bling of death is hard to figure out. Clearly people can wear bracelets with their blood type or other instructions like do not resuscitate — as they do in this country. However, such bracelets are not needed in the Netherlands and Santorum’s comments appear to come as a surprise to people in that country.

The ten percent figure is a bit bizarre. While growing, the number of people choosing euthanasia remains small and less than 3%. In 2010, 136058 people died in the Netherlands and only 3136 did so through euthanasia. That is roughly 2.3% of the total deaths.

In 2009, the annual report on euthanasia showed 2,636 cases of euthanasia — or 2 percent of all Dutch deaths. Over 80 percent were cancer patients and more than 80 percent of the deaths occurred in the patient’s home — not in those bureaucratic hospitals dispatching everyone who comes in with a slight fever without their bracelet.

As for those 50% of cases dispatched against their will, the Dutch law is extremely strict. It now only requires consent but a waiting period. If a doctor dispatches someone without their consent or satisfying the tight controls, he is charged with murder.

The doctor must document that he or she confirmed that the patient requesting euthanasia or assisted suicide is making a voluntary and informed request. The record must also show that the patient was suffering unbearably and was fully informed about the prospects. Then a second doctor must examine the patient and supply a second written opinion on the satisfaction of the criteria. The government found only nine cases in 2009 of a doctor failing to complying with the strict criteria. There was no mention of a bracelet.

As for the claim that abortions were once forced to occur “in the shadows,” the part is entirely correct. It is just unclear why that is a positive image even for those who oppose the right to choose.

Putting aside these tiny factual disagreements, it is good to finally see a politician willing to take on our greatest threat: the Dutch. Dutch propagandists like Rembrandt, Vermeer and Van Gogh have already infiltrated our schools and museums. Our leaders (except Santorum) are deaf to the growing sound of their wooden-shoe stomping, marzipan-eating hordes. I for one will be on the ramparts with Rick wearing my do not euthanize bracelet before I eat a single herring from the hands of our Dutch overlords.

84 thoughts on “Santorum: Who Will Protect You From Crazed Euthanizing Dutch Doctors?

  1. can we euthanize anyone wearing braceletts that have the initials…. wwjd….. most of the bearers are worthy….

  2. The hordes of jack booted clog wearing Dutch culture imperialists are soon to hit our shores passing out Dutch chocolates and tulips, so beware patriots. Beware of the oppressive Dutch economics of shared sacrifice descending on us in the form of Dutch Treat with a monetary system pegged to tulip bulbs. I heard Santorum’s speech in Ohio this past weekend. He had the audience on edge, frightened at the prospects of an invasion of windmills. Scary stuff coming out of the mouth of an adult. It confirmed for me that Obama is the only sane Republican.

  3. With Don Rickxote and Sanchorum on the prowl, no windmill will be safe.

    Unless Santorum is elected, pregnant women will have to wear special bracelets to avoid militant Dutch Islamists from Cuba ( & paid out of church collections) performing involuntary abortions on them when they go for pre-natal.

  4. Please permit a comment not following the blog’s subject.

    It is about criminal justice; particularly the NC law called Racial Justice Act.
    The act is being used for the first time to challenge, not conviction, but a death sentence, as a result of statistically proven racial bias.

    My post, in particular, concerns the common method of jury selection which statistics show are utilized to the disadvantage of defendants of color.

    Read the article, see link below, read as your search capabilities permit, and perhaps we can return to the subject: my particular concern, and that the law addresses.

    My post in the News and Observer today.

    I would even like to have investigated the method used to assign persons places on eventual jury service lists, seeking to expose eventual racial or economic bias.

    I would then prefer a simple tombola function of mechanical sort to determine the order of consideration.
    Then I would eliminate permemptory challenges, leaving “for cause” as the only means of excusing someone.

    Then we would have a system of jury selection not racially biased, but representative as the Constitution and its amendments prescribe.

    Racism, with all its Republican code words, since the time of Reagan, has raised its ugly head behind the shield of “states rights” all too long.

    A healthy society awaits us when we can say: “My friend Sam” instead of “My (black, poor, jewish, arab, muslim, atheist, catholic, immigrant) friend Sam”.
    If they are friends, then we trust them and any other qualifiers (if not pertinent just for the moment) are irrelevant.

    It’s at least 150 years since we eliminated one such qualifier: SLAVE.
    Isn’t it time for the white underdog in this society to realize who is kicking him, and join forces with the other underdogs regardless of their qualifiers.

    Your fellow underdog suffers from the same or even more bias than you do.
    Join forces, the enemy is well-defined by his obscene wealth and political power, which hinders this from being a democracy.

    Thomas Jefferson believed in all of us——the common men, not the rich ones. Accept the responsibility of that trust.

    Any takers?

    Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/02/19/1863480/identifying-bias.html#storylink=cpy

  5. As is the case with all too many politicians, he’s either an ignorant fool, or a devious, lying sociopath. In either case…

  6. […] In 2009, the annual report on euthanasia showed 2,636 cases of euthanasia — or 2 percent of all Dutch deaths. Over 80 percent were cancer patients and more than 80 percent of the deaths occurred in the patient’s home — not in those bureaucratic hospitals dispatching everyone who comes in with a slight fever without their bracelet.” – Santorum: Who Will Protect You From Crazed Euthanizing Dutch Doctors? […]

  7. I’m Dutch and our queen says that in America people can trade kidneys for guns :)

    The stuff that we know about America:
    http://legal-forms-kit.com/legal-jokes/dumb-laws.html

    Now without all the stupidity but come on people, it saddens me that you’ll probably have to choose between a superchristian racist liar and a moron.. uuhu mormon whe says that America should never apoligize for anything.

    To be honest, I’m getting scared of the idiots going for the white house, sorry.

  8. Does the fact that Santorum apparently thought “Austin Powers in Goldmember” was a documentary make him dangerous? After all, although his errors in speech don’t stem from his being a native Dutch speaker but rather from the manure-rich content of his thought process, he himself speaks fluent Dunglish.

  9. Santorum is obviously an ignorant man. However, he believes the stuff he spouts because it comes to him from sources he absolutely trusts and therefore refuses to question. While he is not smart, he does viscerally comprehend that by strewing fear of the “other”, whatever shape that may take, he can rally his base of Right Wing Authoritarians to follow his bleats and react with the appropriate fear. This is little more than a fervent variant of what has been the the strategy of Ultra-Conservatives since the loss of Goldwater in 1964. How do you get an electorate that doesn’t benefit from your political policies to vote for you? You scare them. It is a strategy that has worked time and again. The problem is that the stakes are becoming more desperate, since the fear level must continually be raised and the defined “other” must be demonized to an ever greater extent.

    Idealist707,
    The issue you raise is important and quite complex, but to get into a discussion of it here would disrupt this thread considerably and this specific issue will no doubt be raised in the near future, as it has frequently in the past: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/11/26/the-incarceration-of-black-men-in-america/#comments

  10. Being Dutch, and having gone through the hell of what all a family needs to go through to stand by the choice of my grandmother wishing to be euthanized, I can simply say one thing and one thing alone..

    Please, please, please involuntarily euthanize this man with the biggest shotgun ever. Like so many Americans are involuntarily euthanized with other types of guns.

  11. sufferingsuccatash:
    “It confirmed for me that Obama is the only sane Republican.” I agree.

    that dutch guy:
    “To be honest, I’m getting scared of the idiots going for the white house, sorry.” Me, too.

  12. Santorum told voters that (1) ten percent of all deaths in the Netherlands were by euthanasia,..

    ***************************
    Crazy Santorum thinks “euthanasia” is an adolescent street gang from Beijing.

  13. Santorum is lying. The Netherlands murder at least 50% of their elders when they become to expensive for the health care system.

    Ok, seriously now, is there no law in the USA that would punish him for telling lies about other people, races and countries? In many other countries his campaign and maybe even his career would have already come to an end just because of this.

  14. Mike Spindell,
    I guess I should have expressed myself better.
    Like: Where is the suggestion box?
    Or: I feel like spouting, where can non-topic stuff be posted?
    I thougt I implied that it was something which we could come to someday.
    But whatever. No rush and certainly not posting a detour sign.

  15. Guns are dangerous. All the wrong people get shot. Better targets come to mind. Hint! Hint! (Crazy laugh).

    Actually some scare the you what out of us. And that’s what’s intended, as earlier mentioned.

  16. On the morally superior overly religious Rick Santorum:

    How Rick Santorum Ripped Off American Veterans
    A controversial land deal by the presidential candidate robbed a vets’ home of tens of millions of dollars.
    —By Andy Kroll
    | Wed Jan. 18, 2012
    http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/how-rick-santorum-ripped-off-american-military-veterans

    Excerpt:
    Like any good presidential candidate, Rick Santorum heaps praise on America’s soldiers and veterans. He’s pledged to “make veterans a high priority” if elected president, adding, “This is not a Republican issue, this is not a Democratic issue, it is an American issue.” But as a US senator, Santorum engineered a controversial land deal that robbed the military’s top veterans’ home of tens of millions of dollars and worsened the deteriorating conditions at the facility.

    The Armed Forces Retirement Home, which is run by the Department of Defense, bills itself as the “premier home for military retirees and veterans.” The facility sprawls across 272 acres high on a hill in northern Washington, DC, near the Petworth neighborhood. The nearly 600 veterans who now live there enjoy panoramic views of the city—the Washington monument and US Capitol to the south, the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception to the east. At its peak, more than 2,000 veterans of World Wars I and II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War lived at the Home.

    But with the rise of the smaller all-volunteer military, the Home began to run into serious financial problems. It was clear that one of its primary sources of revenue—a 50-cent deduction from the paychecks of active-duty servicemembers—wasn’t enough to keep the Home operating fully. In the 1990s, the Home scrambled to find ways to avoid insolvency, trimming its staff by 24 percent and reducing its vet population by 800. Still, the money problems began to show, with its older historic facilities slipping into disrepair and decay. To grapple with its worsening shortfall, officials running the Home eyed a valuable, 49-acre piece of land worth $49 million as a potential financial lifeline.

    Under one scenario, by leasing the parcel of land and letting it be developed, the Home could pocket $105 million in income over 35 years for its trust fund, David Lacy, then-chairman of the Home’s board of directors, told Congress in 1999. Lacy stressed that the Home wanted to keep the property, and not offload it to a buyer. “Once land is sold,” he said, “it is lost forever as an asset.”

    Enter Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.). At the behest of the Roman Catholic Church, and unbeknownst to the Home, Santorum slipped an amendment into the 1999 National Defense Authorization Act handcuffing how the home could cash in on those 49 acres. The amendment forced the Home to sell—and not lease—the land to its next-door neighbor, the Catholic University of America. Ultimately, the Catholic Church bought 46 acres of the tract for $22 million. The Home lost the land for good, and by its own estimates, pocketed $27 million less than the land’s value and $83 million less than what it could’ve made under the lease plan. Santorum’s amendment sparked an outcry from veterans’ groups and fellow US senators, who barraged his office with complaints.

    Laurence Branch, then the executive director of the Home’s board, says Santorum’s amendment was “a travesty” and the Church’s lobbying for the land a case of “coveting thy neighborhood’s goods.” To this day, Branch says he blames Santorum for the Home not receiving more money for the 49-acre parcel of land. “I’m convinced Sen. Santorum is no friend of veterans,” Branch says. (A spokesman for Catholic University did not respond to a request for comment.)

    At the time, Santorum said the amendment was the product of “a consensus agreement” and “was certainly not an attempt to shortchange the veterans.” (A spokesman for the Santorum campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)

    Santorum’s advocacy for Catholic University isn’t at all surprising. A practicing Catholic, Santorum embodies the church’s anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage positions as well as its support for charities and alleviating poverty. While in Congress, he was a fierce advocate for the Catholic Church. A former Santorum aide told New York Times Magazine in 2005 that the senator was “a Catholic missionary who happens to be in the Senate.” That same year, Time magazine named him one of America’s ”25 Most Influential Evangelicals.”

    Meanwhile, the $22 million from the land sale hardly stanched the flow of red ink at Armed Forces Retirement Home. Financial records, court documents, and government reports from the 2000s show how the Home cut back on the services it provided veterans as it grappled with funding problems. The slashing of services got so bad that in 2003 veterans living at the Home filed a class-action suit against the Home and its director, Timothy Cox, alleging shoddy health care and less access to that care. As a result of cutbacks and declining quality in care, the suit claimed, the suicide rate at the Home spiked from 59 in 2000 to 131 in 2003.

    In 2007, an investigation by the Government Accountability Office came to similarly troubling conclusions. The watchdog’s head, David Walker, reported that one Home resident had been admitted to the hospital with maggots in a wound. Other vets were admitted with bad pressure sores, suggesting they’d been left unattended for dangerously long stretches of time by the Home’s health care employees. In the aftermath of the GAO’s investigation, Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) demanded an independent investigation into the quality of health care at the Home.

  17. I guess the “home folks” know the real deal:

    John Baer: Santorum? Really? He’s atop the GOP heap. Are they nuts?

    John Baer, Daily News Political Columnist
    Philadelphia Daily News:

    “HERE’S A THOUGHT for Presidents Day: President Santorum.

    Did you just shiver?

    How in the name of all that’s holy is Rick Santorum atop national polls for the Republican nomination?

    Get it? All that’s holy? Maybe that’s the answer. You know, the Tebow factor; the Jeremy Lin effect? Well, I have another theory”

    http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120220_John_Baer__HED_ALL_ACROSS_KL.html

  18. I think I got Mr Santorums qoute right:

    “Freedom is not doing what you want to do,freedom is doing what you ought to do”

    WHAT???

  19. Eniobob,
    A quote from the Philly article. Note last sentence.
    Something for a T-shirt motto?

    He says that contraception is “harmful to women” and society, and that “radical feminism” ruined society by encouraging women to work outside the home, which is one reason an Inky reviewer of his 2005 book, It Takes a Family, called Rick “one of the finest minds of the 13th Century.”

    As for working outside the home, guess the depression and WWII had nothing to do with it. But factual rebuttal means nothing. It’s just buttons he’s pushing.

  20. id707,

    I’m not Mike, but I’m going to answer anyway.

    “I guess I should have expressed myself better.
    Like: Where is the suggestion box?”

    The generally accepted practice around here is if you want to suggest an article to use the Corrections thread. If JT doesn’t pick up on and run with it, one of the guest bloggers might.

    “Or: I feel like spouting, where can non-topic stuff be posted?”

    Anywhere. Free speech is king around these parts. Some of the best threads on this blog are filled with off-thread ramblings, however – that being said, generally staying near the topic if not on the topic is appreciated. “Threadjacking” (especially when done persistently) is widely considered bad form and is often used by trolls simply wishing to create a distraction from a topic they don’t want discussed in a meaningful manner. But there is a big difference between “meandering” and “purposeful distraction”. Meandering is cool. The other? Not so much.

    I hope that helps.

  21. Had to post:

    “newamericanliberal
    Facts don’t stop being true by your disbelief
    699 Fans
    14 minutes ago ( 4:16 PM)
    If only Ricky’s mom had used the aspirin between her knees.”

  22. Onlooker ; he’s either an ignorant fool, or a devious, lying sociopath.

    this is America, the greatest country in the world…he can be both

  23. Just read a blog from former Rep. Alan Grayson, the man who condemned the Republican health plan from the floor.
    He observes Presidents’ Day by referring to Abraham Lincoln who pardoned many a soldier from death.
    I quote Alan:
    And why did Lincoln show this mercy? Because over 600,000 people died during the Civil War, more than one out of every 50 Americans. And Lincoln thought that that was more than enough death. As journalist David Locke said: “No man on earth hated blood as Lincoln did.”

    I can’t bring myself to embroider on that.

  24. Rick Santorum’s Mortal Sin in the Terri Schiavo Case
    By Charles P. Pierce
    http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/rick-santorum-terri-schiavo-6633360

    Excerpt;
    The invaluable Will Bunch at the Philadelphia Daily News has produced a compendium of the many ways Rick Santorum, Papist nutter and presidential candidate of the Single Entendre Party, has been (and is) both crazy and a big fat hypocrite, and these are in addition to the ways he demonstrated it last night at the nursing home. Read it all, as the kidz say on the Intertoobz.

    But I call your attention to this little item contained therein:

    In 2005, Santorum made headlines — not all positive — for visiting the deathbed of Terri Schiavo, the woman at the center of a national right-to-die controversy. What my Philadelphia Daily News colleague John Baer later exposed was that the real reason he was in the Tampa, Fla., area was to collect money at a $250,000 fundraiser organized by executives of Outback Steakhouses, a company that shared Santorum’s passion for a low minimum wage for waitresses and other rank-and-file workers. Santorum’s efforts were also aided by his unusual mode of travel: Wal-Mart’s corporate jet. And he canceled a public meeting on Social Security reform “out of respect for the Schiavo family” even as the closed fundraisers went on.

    As it happens, in a book which, by the way, ahem, er, ah, makes a swell Valentine’s Day gift, I included a chapter on the Schiavo case from the perspective of the good people who worked at the Woodside Hospice and lived through the completely unnecessary political donkeyshow brought down on the place by opportunistic Pecksniff assholes like Rick Santorum. There was the elementary school down the block that had to be closed because of bomb threats. There was the Haitian cook who got called a “Nazi” and a “murderer” on her way to work. There was the volunteer — a woman whom both George H.W. Bush and his son, Jeb, had commended for her work at the hospice — who had to stop coming because of the whackaloons who had laid siege to the place. There was the brave and strong Annie Santa Maria, who had to try and keep that good place running through all the foul madness that had been visited upon it and the people who do such great work there, every fking day, and who once was unable to break up a near fistfight between priests in her lobby because she had to stay by a fax machine to wait for a congressional subpoena for Terri Schiavo that was being faxed from Washington by opportunistic Pecksniff yahoos very similar to Rick Santorum. These people wanted Terri to testify, despite the fact that she pretty much had no brain left to speak of.

    The Schiavo case was a Moment, and the conservative movement in this country was revealed for the deceitful, arrogant, anti-humanity enterprise that it always has been. (I remember Barney Frank once telling me, with some amazement, that Democrats were telling their Republican colleagues that the party was going over a cliff on this case. It didn’t help.) I don’t even care that Santorum went down there on the Wal-Mart corporate jet to raise money from a bunch of steakhouse fatcats. I don’t even care that, just as Barney warned the Republicans, his involvement in the Schiavo circus may have been the first real factor contributing to his eventual loss to the spectral Bob Casey, Jr.

    (To be thorough, we should note here that Michael Schiavo, Terri’s husband, and someone who was getting serious death threats while Santorum was out grandstanding, also blasted Casey for using the case against Santorum in their campaign.)

    Now, though, Santorum claims that all he wanted was for judges to look at the case “fairly.”

    “What I cared about with Terri Schiavo was that a judge looked at the case fairly and they did. And they made their decision,” Santorum said.

    The senator is, unsurprisingly, as full of shit on this as the Christmas goose.

    *****
    The Rick Santorum that America doesn’t know
    By Will Bunch
    http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/The-Santorum-that-America-doesnt-know.html

    Excerpt:
    You’ve probably heard all the good ones about GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum by now. The one about his “Google problem.” The one about the “man-on-dog sex” (prompting the greatest journalistic response ever, when the reporter told Santorum that he was “sort of freaking me out.”) The one about how the Catholic Church’s priest sex abuse scandal was caused by Boston liberalism, or the one about how President Obama should be anti-abortion because he’s black and abortion is like slavery. And so on and so forth.

    That’s the Rick Santorum that America has come to know over the last 15 years or so – an unapologetic and almost goofy culture warrior whose obsessions – like thinking that gay sex is a gateway drug to bestiality – make him a hero to social conservatives and often a laughing stock to most everyone else. Santorum’s rise in the 2012 presidential race has people talking about whether his views on social issues – talk of annulling gay marriages, seemingly questioning the right to even birth control — make him too extreme to be president – and that’s an important topic to discuss.

    But I also think Santorum’s weird sexual bluster can obscure who he really is, and what truly matters about his suddenly surging campaign. As a Philadelphia-based political reporter, I arrived in town just seven months after Santorum became my state’s junior senator. I followed his 12 years on the Washington political stage closely, and I think people obsessing on the “man-on-dog” stuff are missing the bigger picture. For one thing, the self-styled “family values” expert has a surprisingly ambiguous record with his own personal ethics. Also, Santorum’s legislative record shows that his real workaday agenda was not so much waging culture wars as protecting the interests of the 1 Percent, the millionaires and billionaires who funded the modern Republican Party. You could say that Rick Santorum is just another politician. But that would be giving him too much credit.

    Here’s a Pennsylvanian’s brief guide to the Rick Santorum you don’t know:

    1. This compassionate Christian conservative founded a charity that was actually a bit of a scam. In 2001, following up on a faith-based urban charity initiative around the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia, Santorum launched a charitable foundation called the Operation Good Neighbor Foundation. While in its first few years the charity cut checks to community groups for $474,000, Operation Good Neighbor Foundation had actually raised more than $1 million, from donors who overlapped with Santorum’s political fund raising. Where did the majority of the charity’s money go? In salary and consulting fees to a network of politically connected lobbyists, aides and fundraisers, including rent and office payments to Santorum’s finance director Rob Bickhart, later finance chair of the Republican National Committee. When I reported on Santorum’s charity for The American Prospect in 2006, experts told me a responsible charity doles out at least 75 percent of its income in grants, and they were shocked to learn the figure for Operation Good Neighbor Fund was less than 36 percent. The charity – which didn’t register with the state of Pennsylvania as required under the law — was finally disbanded in 2007.

    2. Likewise, a so-called “leadership PAC” created by Santorum that was supposed to fund other Republicans instead seemed to mostly pay for the lifestyle of Santorum and those around him. My investigation of the America’s Foundation PAC showed that only 18 percent of its money went to fund political candidates, less — and typically far less — than any other “leadership PACs.” What America’s Foundation did spend a lot on with what looked like everyday expenses, including 66 trips to the Starbucks in Santorum’s then hometown of Leesburg, Va., multiple fast-food outings and expenditures at Wal-Mart, Target and Giant supermarkets. Campaign finance experts said the PAC’s expenses – paid for by donations from wealthy businessmen and lobbyists – were “unconventional,” at best and arguably not legal. Santorum also funded his large Leesburg “McMansion” with a $500,000 mortgage from a private bank run by a major campaign donor, in a program that was only supposed to be open to high-wealth investment clients in the trust, which Santorum was not, and closed to the general public.

    3. Santorum was never above mingling his cultural crusades with the everyday work of raising political cash. In 2005, Santorum made headlines – not all positive – for visiting the deathbed of Terri Schiavo, the woman at the center of a national right-to-die controversy.What my Philadelphia Daily News colleague John Baer later exposed was that the real reason he was in the Tampa, Fla., area was to collect money at a $250,000 fundraiser organized by executives of Outback Steakhouses, a company that shared Santorum’s passion for a low minimum wage for waitresses and other rank-and-file workers. Santorum’s efforts were also aided by his unusual mode of travel: Wal-Mart’s corporate jet. And he canceled a public meeting on Social Security reform “out of respect for the Schiavo family” even as the closed fundraisers went on.

    4. Santorum didn’t seem to be against government waste when it came to his family. During his years in the Senate, Santorum raised his family in northern Virginia and rarely if ever seemed to use the small house that he claimed as his legal residence, in a blue-collar Pittsburgh suburb called Penn Hills. So Pennsylvania voters were shocked when they found out the Penn Hills School District had paid out $72,000 for the home cyberschooling of five of Santorum’s kids, hundreds of miles away in a different state. The cash=strapped district was unsuccessful in its efforts to get any of its money back from Santorum.

    5. Washington’s lobbyist culture — Santorum was soaking in it. The ex-Pennsylvania senator spent much of his final years in government trying to downplay and defend his involvement in the so-called “K Street Project,” an effort created by GOP uber-lobbyist and tax-cutting fanatic Grover Norquist and future felon and House majority whip Tom DeLay. By all accounts, Santorum was the Senate’s “point man” on the K Street Project and he met with Norquist — at least occasionally and perhaps frequently — to discuss the effort to sure that Republicans were landing well-paying jobs in lobbying firms that were seeking to then access and influence other Republicans.

    6. Santorum had no problem with big government if it was supporting his campaign contributors in Big Pharma.It’s little wonder that Santorum ultimately supported Medicare Part D, a prescription drug plan for the elderly that has added hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal deficit and was drafted in such a way to best help pharmaceutical companies maximize profits from all the unbridled spending. When Santorum was defeated for a third term in 2006, an internal memo at the drug giant GlaxoSmithKline said his departure from Washington “creates a big hole that we need to fill.

    7. The defender of family values was also slavish in his devotion to a large American corporate behemoth, Wal-Mart: In the wake of the report about Santorum’s travel in the Wal-Mart corporate jet, I counted the many ways that Santorum had done the bidding of the world’s largest retailer in the Senate, including battling to limit any increases in the minimum wage and seeking to make changes in overtime rules that woulld benefit the company and hurt its blue-collar workforce, tort reform to limit lawsuits against what is said to be the world’s most-sued company, and changes in charitable giving laws and of course eliminating the estate tax that would benefit the billionaire heirs of Sam Walton.

  25. Is Rick Santorum A Hypocrite On Medical Malpractice?
    by Judy Molland
    February 20, 2012
    http://www.care2.com/causes/is-rick-santorum-a-hypocrite-on-medical-malpractice.html

    Excerpt:
    As former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum continues to surge in the race for Republican presidential nominee, it has emerged that his call for a $250,000 cap on medical malpractice suits isn’t a policy that his family actually follows.

    Care2′s Kristina Chew suggested here that Santorum just might be a phony, and now here’s more proof.

    Karen Santorum Sues Chiropractor For $500,000

    Back in 1999, his wife Karen sued her chiropractor for $500,000 for allegedly injuring her back. Santorum testified in the case, telling the jury that the injury caused his wife pain and impaired her ability to campaign for him.

    From ABC news:

    The problem started when Karen Santorum visited chiropractor Dr. David Dolberg to treat her sore back shortly after she lost her newborn son Gabriel. According to the lawsuit, Dr. Dolberg made the problem worse by causing a herniated disk. Eventually Santorum had surgery to fix the problem.

    The jury awarded Mrs. Santorum $350,000 (although the award was later reduced to $175,000) .

    At the time, Democrat James Carville called Santorum “a world class hypocrite” because while his wife sued for $500,000, he had co-sponsored a bill limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 in non-economic damages.

    As Wife Sues For $500,000, Santorum Pushes For $250,000 Limit

    By the time of the lawsuit, then-Senator Santorum had taken up the cause of tort reform, twice sponsoring or co-sponsoring bills limiting the non-economic awards for pain and suffering that a plaintiff could seek to $250,000.

    When asked about the apparent contradiction after the verdict, Santorum told the Pittsburgh Post Gazette on December 11, 1999, “The court proceedings are a personal family matter. I will not be offering any further public comments, other than that I am not a party to the suit. But I am fully supportive of my wife.”

    Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/is-rick-santorum-a-hypocrite-on-medical-malpractice.html#ixzz1mxnaCqg6

  26. Santorum has estabished his brand. He’s taken the money. And he’s not alone.
    Words fail me. I’ve lost touch since many years. No clichés left to exploit.
    God bless America. And us others too.

  27. As a Dutch-American living in the US but holding citizenship in both countries – THANK YOU for posting this and for your commentary. I have been furious with Mr. Santorum ever since I saw this video for the first time last week. It’s one thing if Santorum wants to disagree with the practice of tightly controlled euthanasia in The Netherlands, but he has NO RIGHT to spread outright lies about an entire nation. It would be funny (because really? 10 PERCENT of all deaths?) if it weren’t so terrifying to have someone running for the US presidency say such idiotic stuff, and influencing people along the way.

  28. Actually these statistics do not seem completely made up.

    The ‘10%’ figure, for example appears to come from our own Central Bureau of Statistics, in particular studies like http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/bevolking/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2007/2007-2217-wm.htm . This is a pretty reliable source (raw numbers linked on the bottom of that page).

    The Netherlands use a pretty strict definition of ‘euthenasia’, which accounted for 2297 deaths in 2005 (1,6%). However, it does not seem entirely unreasonable to also count the data points for “no treatment or stopping treatment with death as an explicit purpose” (10261), “intentionally assisting with suicide on the patients request” (113) and “life-terminated actions without request” (551), which does add up to 9,6% of deaths in 2005 – based on official, government-provided statistics.

    So do I agree with Santorum’s claims? Most certainly not. He seems correct that, strictly speaking, relatively many doctors take decisions that shorten the lives of patients. However, in more than half of the cases, these decisions do not have any effect – the patient does not actually die sooner than he/she would naturally have. And even in the cases where the death did come sooner, it’s a matter of hours or days rather than weeks.

    And is this such a terrible thing? Is it more humane to let someone suffer through his last few days, even if he’s said his goodbyes, is ready to go and would appreciate this last, albeit fatal, dose of pain killers? I guess I’m brainwashed by the pro-euthenasia lobby, because I really don’t find this a clear-cut outrage.

  29. idealist:

    “As journalist David Locke said: “No man on earth hated blood as Lincoln did.”

    *******************

    He did indeed as most men who came through that war did. But like Jefferson, he also understood the need for it too. Following the disaster at Fredricksburg in 1863, Lincoln exonerated Gen. Burnside who led the fatal assault against Longstreet at the stonewall, but is said by historian Shelby Foote to have lamented his inability to find a field general who “could face the arithmetic.” Chilling words, indeed.

  30. buckeye, Gave up a long time ago. The same people around here that were voting for Obama a year ago are still voting for him. I just state my opinion. It seems to pretty much an anti-Obama crowd around here. Some are Paul supporters. Some are for other republicans. Others are still waiting for the third party messiah. The rest I guess will vote for a 1 or 2 percenter even if Santorum is the nominee. We had the ” Is Ron Paul a true progressive” argument a while back. How are you?

  31. Swarthmore mom

    I’m doing well, just getting older than dirt. I found a true moderate site that I like a lot. Plenty of ideas from all sides of the political spectrum but almost every post is on politics which gets boring after a while.

    I moved back to Michigan and was pleasantly surprised at how much better the economy is here compared to what I thought it was. If Michigan can pull it out, the rest of us can, too.

    Keep up the good fight. buckeye

  32. Idealist707 made a request above to have a topic concerning the rights to a fair trial by a jury not composed of racists. Although he did not put it in such stark terms, that is the way the innocent may be convicted in state or federal trials in this country. As one who has represented minorities in criminal cases in rural counties of all white jury panels in a former slave state, allow me to chip in as to how this topic might be framed. Just a few days ago there was a discussion as to whether the accused football coach in Pennsylvania would seek or oppose a transfer of his crimnal trial for pedophilia to a county outside of the county of the offense. Too many friends of his live in his home county some commenters said.

    The right to a jury of one’s peers is not set forth as such in our Constitutiion. It first significanly appears in Chapter 29 of the 1688 English Bill of Rights.
    A section from a history blog on that score will follow. But how does a minority defendant get a fair trial if he/she is charged with an offense in an all white redneck rural county win swampeast Missouri. By change of venue to a venue with a jury population of his peers. A mechanism for affording that right should be central to a discussion. The history blog section on jury of one’s peers follows.

    I did not see this topic today or Idealists request above until this late hour and I hope that my little contribution here can render some asssitance on this topic.

    Civics Library Of The Missouri Bar

    The Right to a Jury of One’s Peers

    The Sixth Amendment rights associated with trial proceedings — the right to a speedy trial, the right to a public trial and the right to be judged by a jury of one’s peers — are so bound together by circumstance and tradition that it is almost inconceivable to separate them. Still, each of these parallel rights has developed in its own manner through the centuries.

    The right of a person to be tried by a jury of one’s peers is traditionally founded on a provision contained in Chapter 29 of that great document of English law, the Magna Carta. That provision, written in 1225, states: “No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor (condemn him), but by lawful judgment of his own peers, or by the law of the land.”

    Subsequent generations — including the authors of the Bill of Rights — came to regard this provision as one of the principal legal guarantees of liberty under the common law. This belief came on the basis that the clause not only provided for a formal trial for any alleged wrongdoer instead of arbitrary judgment and summary execution, but also on the basis that it provided for trial by jury. They felt the phrase ” . . . but by lawful judgment of his peers” ensured a fair trial and provided a safeguard against unwarranted interference with the rights and liberties of the subject.

    Congress, in discussing policy regarding jury service, said: “It is the policy of the United States that all litigants in federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross-section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes. It is also the policy of the United States that all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for service on grand and petit juries in the district courts of the United States, and shall have an obligation to serve as jurors when called for that purpose.”

    That statement of policy was an attempt by Congress, in its own words, to “provide the best method for obtaining jury lists that represent a cross-section of the relevant community for establishing an effective bulwark against impermissible forms of discrimination and arbitrariness.”

    The reasons which prompted Congress to insist on random selection of jurors from a source of names which is representative of a fair cross-section of the local community appear no less compelling when viewed on the state level. The juror selection process of each state must result in a list of prospective jurors that represents a fair cross-section of the community.

    The federal courts have repeatedly ruled that the arbitrary exclusion of a cognizable group or class of persons from the list by which jurors — federal or state -­are to be selected is constitutionally wrong. The requirement that juries be selected from a fair cross-section of the community may be seen as the restatement, in the form of a positive command, of the prohibition against arbitrary exclusions. That is, absent such arbitrary exclusions, it can be expected that all the different groups which make up a community will be represented on the list of eligible jurors.

    The arbitrary exclusion of a particular class of people from the list of persons eligible for jury duty is impermissible precisely because such exclusion fails to provide a fair possibility that the jury will represent a cross-section of the community.

    It is, of course, impossible in a society as diverse as ours to provide representation for every group or every idea on each jury, or even on each panel of prospective jurors. Because of the small size of these bodies, the possibility of purely accidental exclusions under a completely fair juror selection process is very real. For this reason, the belief that juries should be truly representative of the community has been translated into the more practical requirement that the list from which jurors are selected must be representative of a fair cross-section of the community.

    This requirement is further justified by the effect such a provision has on the administration of justice. For most people, jury service is one of the few contacts which the citizen has with the judicial system. It provides the opportunity to dispel some of the mystery which sometimes surrounds courtrooms, judges and lawyers. Through jury service, members of the community can themselves see and participate in a trial and thereby assure themselves and everyone in the community who knows them of the fairness of the system in which they participated.

    It should also be noted that the possibility of accomplishing one of the primary functions of the criminal process — the rehabilitation of the convicted criminal may also be increased or decreased by the proper constitution of juries.

    A defendant convicted by a jury from which members of his particular class or group have been excluded has some cause to believe that the jury was stacked against him. To this defendant, his conviction does not represent the censure of his actions by the community; rather, it is merely another manifestation of the prejudice of society against his particular group. A jury that is really representative of the community reduces the probability the trial itself will discourage rehabilitation, and may cause the defendant to face the fact that all of society has condemned his actions.

    It is, of course, very clear that any exclusion of persons from the list of those eligible for jury duty on account of race is unconstitutional. Congress has specifically forbidden such exclusions and the practice has often been condemned by the courts. It has been recognized that similar constitutional issues of a serious nature are raised by the exclusion of young adults, women or ethnic groups.

    Random selection of citizens is called for in choosing jurors for federal juries, but Missouri is different. The state statute provides, “Every juror, grand or petit, shall be a citizen of the state, a resident of the county or of a city not within a county for which the jury may be impaneled; sober and intelligent, of good reputation, over twenty-one years of age and otherwise qualified.” The words ” . . . sober and intelligent, of good reputation . . . ” seem to allow for some discretion by those selecting jurors.

    “Variety” is the best way to describe the jury selection process in Missouri circuit courts. Some circuits use the “key man” method of selecting names. This is where key men of various occupations are chosen, and they select jury lists themselves. Other circuits use random selection, while personal knowledge and other subjective evaluations are used in other areas. In some circuits, the general population, such as voters, are considered eligible to serve as jurors, while in others up to 40 percent of the population has been found unqualified for some reason.

    Whatever the selection process — and the process is continually refined — the Sixth Amendment guarantees that it be done in a manner fair to the accused. Even in Missouri, with differing selection processes, the choosing of a jury is handled in a manner consistent with the Sixth Amendment’s goal: the obtaining of an impartial jury representing a cross-section of the community.

    Copyright © 2006 The Missouri Bar

    ——
    The Missouri Bar steps around the central issue here. How does a guy who gets off the bus in a town in southern Illinois at a town like Mt, Vernon, a town known then as a Sundown Town, get a jury of his peers from his own community when he is wrongully charged with an attempted murder? We know that this happened to Grover Thompson in 1981 and that he was wrongfully convicted and sent to prison for life and indeed died in prison. After his death some inmate confessed to having committed the crime. Google Grover Thompson for the story.
    Thank you Idealist for raising this topic and I hope that the topic gets a full comment page. As one who has represented minorities in all whiite rural counties in Missouri I know what its like to be up shit creek without a paddle.

  33. Piet,

    Your figures are perhaps correct. Thanks for them.

    The point is you have not made a COMPARISON with American hospital practices, including hospices. Most of the categories you gave, particularly the first one, are found as causes routinely in America (and Europe) in terminal cases.

    There are terminal conditions where death is inevitable, the body and the sedated mind is suffering as organs stop working, and the humane thing to do is not euthanasia—-rather just stop support systems, ie not prolonging the agony.

    In medical shorthand these are given as the categories you listed.
    There is no callousness there, nor euthanesia. There is only the detachment which allows dealing with death intimately and stlll be effective under such conditions.

    I have as a patient, non-terminal, watched the terminal process for two and half months, of cancer patients from practically being in the same room.
    And the care they were given as well.

    Let us use facts factually. Which is what most politicians do NOT.

  34. Piet,

    Not using you as a whipping boy, but allow me to clarify……

    You say; “—-count the data points for “no treatment or stopping treatment with death as an explicit purpose” (10261), —–”

    That is a major item quantity-wise. And that is just what it is meant to be.
    In effective care systems, much palliative care can be done in the home.
    My wife was there until her last two days, enjoying being not treated as medical “package”, resting in her own home, surrounded by things she loved.
    When the doctor said it was time, she agreed to be moved to the hospice.
    The doctor there said simply that it would only be a continuation of the previous care, ie palliative care. Ease the process but no attempts at resuscitation.

    Now that is only how one case was handled, but some generalizations can be gained, with reservation as to what qualifies as palliative.

    So most are far gone when they arrive at the hospice or acute hospital.
    Thus no alternative other than the choice mentioned above is possible medically speaking. So while explicit, it is NOT euthanasia.

    But you were willing to let Santorum to interpret the figures that way.
    You were supporting facts, he doesn’t give a damn about them.

  35. I dont know if anyone has mentioned this but I think he got those “stats” from Robert Bork’s book “Slouching Toward Gomorrah”. In it he has a section on a handicapped man being bullied by his wife and a doctor to drink the hemlock. I also think it aired on a TV news show. The man was from the Netherlands.

  36. Caught bits and pieces of this on my new medium the radio,last night;

    February 16, 2012, 9:00 PM
    The Electoral Wasteland
    By TIMOTHY EGAN

    Timothy Egan on American politics and life, as seen from the West.
    TAGS:

    ELECTIONS, PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 2012, REPUBLICAN PARTY, VOTER REGISTRATION AND REQUIREMENTS, VOTING AND VOTERS
    In barely a century’s time, the population of the United States has more than tripled, to 313 million. We are a clattering, opinionated cluster of nearly all the world’s races and religions, and many of its languages, under one flag.

    You would not know any of this looking at who is voting in one of the strangest presidential primary campaigns in history. There is no other way to put this without resorting to demographic bluntness: the small fraction of Americans who are trying to pick the Republican nominee are old, white, uniformly Christian and unrepresentative of the nation at large

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/the-electoral-wasteland/#more-121283

  37. As someone who within the last two years has been on the verge of death let me insert a point from my own personal experience and from those who had similar experiences though from different maladies. The experience of being in a hospital for months, in and of itself is a form of torture. This is not a comment on a particular hospital’s quality of care, but the hospital experience itself. I’ve had extensive stays in a variety of hospitals ranging from municipal to elite and the nature of normal hospital procedures is such that as a patient infantilization, humiliation and sheer degradation are the rule. In saying this I am far from expressing bitterness because my life was saved time and again. My point merely is that to organize such a large, labor intensive operation, while assuring quality of care is a daunting task, that perforce makes it difficult to individualize service needs to a particular patient.

    Even as I write this I shudder with the remembrance of my various experiences, life saving as they were and won’t belabor you with the details, save to say they have left me in a state where experiencing personal, physical humiliation is no longer difficult for me, been there and felt that. This is a preamble to stating that were I in the position of having a terminal illness, as we all will be one day, I would prefer to be left to live out my remaining time away from the emergency ministrations of a hospital, trying to add days to what would be at that point an excruciating life. Stopping aggressive medical care, at the patient or family’s behest, is hardly the same as euthanasia.

  38. Rick Santorum’s ‘Involuntary Euthanasia’ Claim Outrages Dutch [VIDEO]
    By Melaine Jones
    2/20/12
    http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/301702/20120220/rick-santorum-euthanasia-netherlands-dutch-backlash.htm

    Excerpts:
    Rick Santorum’s claim that the Netherlands advocates mass murder through involuntary euthanasia has prompted a furious backlash from the Western European country, with local news sources calling the Republican a “crazy extreme” candidate making up facts to stir up his political base.

    “Rick Santorum Thinks He Knows the Netherlands: Murder of the Elderly on a Grand Scale” fumed the headline of the newspaper NRC Handelsblad on Saturday.

    The article references an interview, barely played up by the American press, in which Santorum claims that euthanasia makes up “10 percent of all deaths” in the Netherlands,” and that many of those people were essentially murdered by the state.

    “Half of those people are euthanized involuntarily, because they are old or sick,” Santorum told social conservative leader James Dobson earlier this month in an American Heartland Forum.

    *****
    Statistics Tell a Different Story

    In reality, public statistics, which have been recorded since the practice was legalized in the Netherlands in 2002, report that roughly 2 percent of all deaths in the country are due to euthanasia. The idea of “involuntary euthanasia,” meanwhile, is baffling to residents of the liberal state, implying as it does patients wheeled off to die the moment their vitals drop.

    But after incredulity came anger, and plenty of it.

    “Rick Santorum is an archconservative,” the piece, translated by Dutch blogger Bertine Moenaff, begins. “The most conservative of all the candidates in the Republican primary race. He loathes abortion and euthanasia.”

    “So now, he loathes the Netherlands,” the article continues with an acid wit. “Because in the Netherlands, we kill the elderly like there’s no tomorrow.”

    The author, credited as Niels Posthumus, accused Santorum of shoveling on “baseless ‘facts'” to support his erroneous conclusions.

    “This man is really imaginative,” Posthumus concludes. “It would be a laughing matter, if he weren’t in the race for the Republican nomination to take on Barack Obama in the race for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.”

  39. This is “The Big Lie” as is most of the numbers thrown around by GOP candidates in the past few cycles. Our media is so infected with dyscalcula, that they never really challenge this.

  40. What Mike said! The family and the doctor should be the ones making these decisions. Not idiots like Rick Santorum. Isn’t he the anti-abortion guy whose wife had an abortion to save her life?

  41. Mike S.

    I’m as my earlier post shows, and my deceased wife Kerstin, are on the same page as you. She had been operated four times, had both chem and rad therapies, etc.
    Mine has been long (cancer and heart) but not terminal, although her process was shared intimately by us two, not in words but in understanding anyway.

    I’ve met both understanding and worse as you have. We have a saying which I’m sure is common there: you have to be a damn strong sick person to survive the medical system.

    Just wanted you to know, we understand. No reply necessary.

  42. I have decided that Mr. Santorum’s comments on a broad variety of issues share two characteristics. First, he is very sloppy with facts. Second, he has no understanding of the notion of causality.

  43. AWOOOGAH!!! Conservatives Start To Sound The Alarm Over Rick Santorum’s Extremism
    BENJY SARLIN & EVAN MCMORRIS-SANTORO FEBRUARY 21, 2012
    http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/aooogah-conservatives-start-to-sound-the-alarm-over-rick-santorums-extremism.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

    Excerpt:
    Republicans are staring down the increasingly real possibility that Rick Santorum could snatch the presidential nomination away from Mitt Romney and with it any idea that they could mount serious opposition to President Obama in the fall.

    As a result, many have started to hit the panic button, and they’re doing so in a way you probably wouldn’t have expected from the GOP, which still counts evangelicals among its strongest and most reliable base vote. Nevertheless, the freakout is evident from the Romney-allied Drudge Report homepage right through to radio host Laura Ingraham’s national airwaves.

    Rick Santorum, conservatives and his opponents started to say Tuesday, is just too dang extreme.

    The key bullets from Tuesday, when the story really started to emerge:

    • The Drudge Report’s powerful homepage banner spent a full day blasting out a 2008 Santorum speech at Ave Maria University in Florida in which the former Pennsylvania Senator told the crowd that Satan is trying to destroy the US. Drudge sold the story as “developing”, but Right Wing Watch had pretty much the whole thing reported last week.

    Drudge is generally seen as a friendly outlet for Romney, and the timing of the less-than-flattering story — coming just a week before the primaries in Arizona and Michigan — was dead-on for someone hoping to derail Santorum’s momentum.

    Ed Kilgore noted that Drudge wasn’t the only generally pro-Romney conservative to call out Santorum for extremism Tuesday. Jennifer Rubin took Santorum to task for his comments about women in combat, women working outside the home and this weekend’s meltdown over Obama’s “theology”:

    “In short, Santorum on social issues is not a conservative but a reactionary, seeking to obliterate the national consensus on a range of issues beyond gay marriage and abortion.”
    • But it wasn’t just people with generally nice things to say about Romney who were raising the concern that Santorum may just be too far out there for the modern GOP. Conservative radio talker Laura Ingraham hosted Newt Gingrich on her show Tuesday, and spent much of the eight minute interview berating Santorum for causing the conversation to veer away from economic issues in favor of discussions of pre-natal testing.

  44. Thanks, Rick Santorum! No, really
    Your backward views are alerting American voters about GOP extremism on issues of health and privacy
    BY JOAN WALSH
    http://www.salon.com/2012/02/22/thanks_rick_santorum_no_really/singleton/

    Excerpt:
    OK, it’s true: Rick Santorum didn’t sponsor Virginia legislation to require that women seeking abortion undergo an ultrasound – and in cases of very early pregnancy, when a fetus is hard to see, a creepy and intrusive transvaginal ultrasound. But seven states have already passed ultrasound requirements for women seeking abortion. The Virginia bill is galvanizing opposition nationally at least partly due to the climate of crazy that’s been fomented by Santorum’s backward candidacy.

    The man who calls contraception “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be” went from being a failed Pennsylvania senator, Mr. “Man on Dog,” to GOP presidential frontrunner over the last month. Now he’s crusading against prenatal testing because he claims it encourages abortion (when in fact most prenatal testing helps women help babies who develop in utero health issues) and claiming President Obama’s policies will ultimately send Christians to the guillotine. (By the way, I apologize for harping on the way Protestants have persecuted Catholics in the U.S., because Santorum reminded me of some of the reason why, with his charge that mainline Protestant churches are a Satan-sponsored “shambles” that are “gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”) He and Mitt Romney, who’s trying to match him outrage for outrage, having been chasing women voters away from the GOP in droves over the last couple of months.

    Into that polarizing political climate came the news that Virginia Republicans want to go where no politician of any stripe belongs: up the vaginal canal and into the uteruses of pregnant women who are seeking an abortion. The bill already passed the state Senate, and clearing the House of Delegates seemed a mere formality, especially given that Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas already have ultrasound requirements. A mere formality, that is, until people began paying attention.

    Now, for two days straight, the Virginia House of Delegates has postponed its vote on the bill. More than a thousand protesters lined walkways to the state Capitol to silently protest the bill on Monday, and their powerful statement seemed to still resonate on Tuesday. The bill is expected to pass eventually, but with every day, the national backlash against the measure helps its opponents’ chances. On MSNBC’s “Politics Nation” Tuesday Virginia Delegate Kaye Kory urged the media to keep paying attention. Gov. Bob McDonnell, who supports the bill, is often mentioned as a GOP vice presidential nominee, and his office has emitted a few warning signs of alarm over the last couple of days. As far right as Republicans have lurched, it can’t be helpful for McDonnell to find his Virginia GOP accused of supporting state-sanctioned rape for forcing unwilling women to submit to vaginal penetration in order to exercise their legal right to an abortion.

  45. Interestingly, there is a group of people in the Netherlands who wear ‘do not resuscitate’ bracelets, quite the opposite of what Santorum said. Coincidently, just before he made his remark, there was a elderly woman in the news who had those words tattooed those on here chest.

  46. Santorum and Bachmann suffer from the same fatal flaw — neither does their homework before making public comments regarding important science-related issues, societal topics, and historical events.

    Lord knows we certainly don’t want our national leaders to be eloquent, scientifically literate, and generally well-informed about the world in which we live. Much better to derive scientific theories based on the teachings of the Bible, and to form national public policy based on the rumors, gossip, and unverified anecdotal accounts described in supermarket rags and online blogs.

Comments are closed.