Santorum: Our Abortion Was Different

[G_j]

http://oursilverribbon.org/blog/?p=188

Santorum: Our Abortion Was Different
By Ellen On April 15, 2011

Rick Santorum is one dangerously confused denialist. The former Pennsylvania Senator and presidential aspirant is best known for his inability to associate his professed compassion for life at the level of the zygote, with the physical realities of human sexuality. He has equated loving same-sex relationships to bestiality. He is opposed to abortion under any circumstance. Almost.

In October, 1996, his wife Karen had a second trimester abortion. They don’t like to describe it that way. In his 2004 interview with Terry Gross, Santorum characterizes the fetus, who must be treated as an autonomous person, as a practically a gunslinging threat, whom the mother must murder in self-defense. Karen has had to justify her decision to save her own life by explaining that if she died her other children would have lost a mother.

Republican extremists in Congress and the statehouses propose to make abortion illegal even if it would save the mother’s life. Even the Santorums admit they would make that choice, while claiming that they didn’t.

Losing a pregnancy because of a fatal fetal anomaly is never cause for celebration. The pain of second-trimester abortions is compounded by the hateful hypocrites who vilify families facing sorrowful circumstances, and the resulting scarcity of abortion clinicians.

..more..(well done, worth a read)

[Trillo]

1. Timeline seems same as this story:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100293956

[G_j]

3. indeed

I missed that, thanks

[baldguy]

2. Why should we express compassion & sympathy for a person who GOES OUT OF HIS WAY to be cold-hearted

and callous?

[bvar22]

20. YES!

We should let them set the bar for our choices and behavior!





[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. Nice. Abortions are bad for this GOPer except when his GOP family needs one. nt

[hamsterjill]

47. Yes, and that is generally how the GOPer's think.

It's always "different" when it comes to them, personally. They are incredible hypocrites.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

51. We should give out awards to the most hypocritical GOPer of the year. They're kings in that nt

[sellitman]

5. This guy is the biggest piece of shit hypocrite in the whole world

I hope he wins the nomination. The contrast would be the greatest possible.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Standard GOP mind-set: It's wrong and should be illegal unless it directly affects me!

[KansDem]

7. "The Santorums were at a crossroads."

Last edited Thu Jan 5, 2012, 03:29 PM - Edit history (1)

We all come to a crossroads in life. For many: several times.

What we need to do is pick the right road for us, not have some f*cking hypocrite tell us which "road" we can and can't take...

[TwilightGardener]

8. It's a shame he can't extend sympathy to others in difficult situations and allow them

to do what's best for themselves and their families. But, that's what makes Republicans Republican.

[Ilsa]

9. Thank you for posting this.

I didn't know it was an abortion. I thought it was premature labor.

This should be shouted from the rooftops, not to belittle their pain, but to make an example of their hypocrisy.

[DirkGently]

28. Well said. (nt)

[Gold Metal Flake]

10. "In 1996, he had son born prematurely who lived for only two hours."

That is the story we have been told for several years now, coming to light during his Senate re-election bid I guess.

But now we find out it was actually an abortion?

Is this verified?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

35. Wikipedia supports the premature

birth story, and not the abortion story. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum ..

On the other hand, Ellen Shaffer is co-director of http://www.centerforpolicyanalysis.org , an outfit I'd never heard of before my google just now.

The original source for the link in the OP apparently was http://ellenshaffer.blogspot.com/2011/04/santorum-our-abortion-was-different.html .

[ProgressiveEconomist]

37. Sourcewatch gets no Google

hiits for http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Policy_Analysis .

Apparently, Ellen Shaffer is trying to promote confusion of her outfit with the Koch-funded NATIONAL Center for Policy Analysis, or the Koch outfit is trying to promote confusion of itself with Ellen's. See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis .

[ProgressiveEconomist]

39. Ellen Shaffer appears to be a respected

health researcher, who has worked with the late Sen Paul Wellstone (D-MN) and with Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA). On the other hand, I haven't seen her evidence for the Santorum 1996 abortion allegation.

From http://www.centerforpolicyanalysis.org/index.php/2010/08/about-us

"Posted on August 5, 2010 by ellenshaffer

The Center for Policy Analysis is a nonprofit organization, Tax ID No. 48-1282646.
EQUAL Health Network
Center for Policy Analysis
San Francisco Presidio
P.O. Box 29586 | San Francisco, CA 94129-0586
415-922-6204 | [e-mail]

Joe Brenner and Ellen R. Shaffer founded the Center for Policy Analysis to produce thoughtful, reliable information on policies that affect the public's health, and to network with colleagues, policy makers and advocates in the U.S. and around the globe in the interest of promoting health.

Ellen R. Shaffer, PhD MPH

Ellen Shaffer writes and lectures extensively on access to health care, women's health, and globalization. She served as senior health policy advisor to U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone from 1992 to 1995, guiding staff work on national health care reform and managed care patients¡ rights. Her proposal for a state-based universal health service, under a grant from the California Health Care Options Project, extended her work with U.S. Representative Barbara Lee on H.R. 3000, the U.S. Universal Health Service Act. She co-authored the chapter on politics in the latest edition of Our Bodies Ourselves. She serves on the Executive Board of the American Public Health Association. She has a Masters in Public Health from the University of California at Berkeley, a Ph.D. from the School of Hygiene and Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, and is a Certified Employee Benefits Specialist.

[wildeyed]

38. I read some where that it was a spontaneous abortion

but that they were preparing for the "partial-birth" procedure to save Karen Santorum's life. Whatever really happened, the truth is, they were in a situation where they may have had to choose an abortion to save the mother's life, a decision they would need to make quickly. And yet Santorum continues to support super restrictive abortion policies that would interfere with the ability to make the quick and necessary decision.

I don't wish what their family experienced on anybody. The only thing that would have made it worse was needless government bureaucracy interfering with the individuals right to make life or death medical decisions and maybe causing them to lose both the child and the mother. But he supports laws that would do exactly that, even after being in the situation.

[Gold Metal Flake]

43. Excellent post. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. what a double-talking, conflating, rationalizing dumbass. I am sorry that they went through this -

Last edited Thu Jan 5, 2012, 02:29 PM - Edit history (1)

but, to take their experience and use it as justification to deny other people's right to choose is beyond insulting.

[MoonRiver]

12. This will do him in in S.C. and probably Florida.

Will be easy for Romney to knock him off if he chooses to go that low. In the fundies minds, Romney may be a hypocrite in word, but Santorum is one in deed. Big difference.

[KansDem]

13. "Santorum: Our Abortion Was Different"

Republicans are hypocrites!

Their abortions are "different"
Their extra-marital affairs are "different"
Their gay relationships are "different"
Their personal irresponsibilities are "different"
Their treasonous activities are "different"
Their criminal acts are "different"
Their frauds and swindles are "different"
Their dysfunctional familes are "different"
And so on, and so on...

F*ck them and the elephant they rode in on!

[Ohio Joe]

26. +1 - nt

[Arkansas Granny]

14. When a woman goes into labor after 20 weeks gestation, it is called preterm birth,

not an abortion. A baby born alive at 20 weeks gestation is considered a live birth, not a fetus.

A pregnancy that ends between 20 weeks and 37 weeks is considered preterm, and all preterm babies are at significant risk for health problems.

http://www.marchofdimes.com/pregnancy/preterm_indepth.html

Definition: Any baby at any gestational age who is born and has a heartbeat at one minute of age and/or tries to take a breath; this is a live birth.

http://www.misschildren.org/pro/articles/guidelines.html

I don't like Rick Santorum or his political views, but to claim that the premature birth of their child was an abortion is not truthful. Of course it is hypocritical for Mrs. Santorum to state that she would have induced labor to save her own life, but that still does not make the loss of this child an abortion.

[lapislzi]

16. This is not a winning issue for Democrats

Don't go after someone who's lost a baby/fetus/child. It's cruel and will backfire. There are plenty of good reasons to go after Santorum, but the tragedy of this preterm birth/miscarriage/abortion is not among them.

Would a Repub stoop to using it against a Democrat? Sure, but that doesn't make it right. Do I think Santorum's a hypocrite? I sure do, but I'm not going to use this incident as an example.

I am sure that the Santorums wanted this child, and they suffered a loss. Regardless of how you think it was handled before, during, and after, it isn't grist for the political mill.

[Arkansas Granny]

18. I agree with you on this completely. Although I didn't specifically state it in my post,

Santorum's views and politics give us enough material to use against him without bringing a dead baby into the discussion.

[FSogol]

22. Agreed. Well said. n/t

[FSogol]

21. +1 n/t

[CTyankee]

40. But I think you are splitting hairs here.

It seems to me that the Oxytocin was administered to speed the delivery of a pre-viable fetus in order to rid the woman's body of what was causing the infection that would kill her. The medical staff understood that the fetus would not survive outside of the womb. Is that not, in reality, a "death sentence," even if it is done to save the woman's life? So what if it is "termed" a "live birth"? The outcome of death of the fetus is certain. That is why I think it is more accurate to discuss this as a "pre-viable" delivery.

The Santorums are cynically going out of their way to twist the narrative here. They would deny this choice to other women. It's disgusting.

[Arkansas Granny]

41. I understand the hypocrisy that's being pointed out.

However, labor apparently started spontaneously due to the infection. Even if the Oxytocin was administered later, it was not induced labor. According to one source I've read, her doctor refused to give her anything to stop labor, even though she requested it.

A baby who lives outside the womb for even a few minutes is considered a live birth, not a fetus. To call this delivery an abortion, as some are doing, is not correct.

I also think that trying to use the loss of a child as political ammunition against a Santorum will backfire. It's a pretty heartless strategy, regardless what you think of the personal politics, convictions or actions of the person concerned.

[CTyankee]

46. I think the Santorum's "fashioning" of the story is what is questionable here.

I also agree with you that it is not something that liberals should making an issue of. But can we not present the obvious twisting of the story, in and of itself showing a form of cynicism on the part of the Santorums? We don't have to make any editorial comments. Just present the story. Let people decide what they think about this.

That the Santorums experienced grief at the loss of a wanted child is not the issue. That they themselves seek to "rework" the narrative for political purposes is most certainly an issue, IMO.

What I think we liberals should do is to point out stories of women and their families in similar circumstances where they were denied the very outcome that Karen Santorum was given. That is unfair and most people would call it unfair. Talk about the sanctity of the family!

[AtheistCrusader]

48. It's actually not hypocritical.

For it to be so, Santorums sponsored bill would have to have no exception for the life of the mother. It does. No 'health' exception, so, future fertility and other health issues would still be in the lurch, but his bill did allow for abortions to save the life of the mother.

So, shitbag he may be, but he's not actually a hypocrite on this issue.

[Celebration]

15. the way it was described, it doesn't sound like an abortion

His wife's temp was 105, and they agreed to antibiotics, which started the labor. i don't call that abortion, even if they did agree to antibiotics that carried with it a likelihood of starting labor. Nothing else was given to accelerate labor, and the doctors would not agree to give her medication to stop the labor.

I am no Santorum fan but this characterization is a real stretch.

[druidqueen]

34. Oxytocin

I read that she asked for and was given oxytocin which is a drug that stimulates and/or accelerates labor. Sounds like an abortion to me.....

[Celebration]

36. well, according to the article linked

"The antibiotics brought Karen’s fever down. The doctor suggested a drug to accelerate her labor.

“The cramps were labor, and she was going to get into more active labor,” Santorum said. “Karen said, `We’re not inducing labor, that’s an abortion. No way. That isn’t going to happen. I don’t care what happens.’ ”

As her fever subsided, Karen – a former neonatal intensive-care nurse – asked for something to stop the labor. Her doctors refused, Santorum recalled, citing malpractice concerns.

Santorum said her labor proceeded without having to induce an abortion."

I obviously don't know what happened. I would feel uncomfortable even discussing it except for the fact that he wants to inject the state into the doctor/patient relationship, in a huge way.

But if the facts are as stated, I would NOT call this an abortion. If oxytocin was administered, yes, it would have been. I didn't see that in the article but maybe I missed it.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

42. This thread's headline is wrong, IMO.

The case that the 1996 Santorum pregnancy actually ended in abortion is, IMO, EXTREMELY weak.

But IMO there IS an important legitimate headline here, one for Newt Gingrich and Willard Romney to push, NOT Democrats. The headline should be,

'Santorum approved late-term abortion for his own wife in 1996 if necessary to save her life.'

But because Karen Santorum miscarried/spontaneously aborted her fatally deformed child without labor-inducing drugs, the abortion the Santorums had authorized did not need to be performed. The last REPLY in the link in the OP makes the POLITICALLY RELEVANT poiint perfectly:

"Reply 23. Susan says: October 14, 2011 at 7:44 am

The Santorums may have exhausted all alternatives, but, BY THEIR OWN ADMISSIONS, they WOULD have had an abortion if her life had been at stake. In other words, THE EXACT PROCEDURE THEY ARE TRYING TO DENY EVERYONE ELSE. They ARE hypocrites (even though HIS hypocrisy is the important one, he being the public figure), & no amount of equivocating about the medical differences can change that. Oh, & to the coward who pretending to shield his family, ½This is about conservatives who hate their betters."

In an earlier rejoinder, the blog post author virtually admits she over-hyped her blog post title:

Reply 19. Ellen (Shaffer, author of the blog post in the OP) says: July 21, 2011 at 2:25 am

Sorry just catching up with all this. Others have said it better than I but to be as clear as possible: what the Santorums did was a technical distinction without a difference. Technically, an uninduced termination at 20 weeks is on the cusp between a miscarriage and prematurity; but there is no prospect for survival at that age, and there were other health complications in this case.

The pregnancy was not viable. Karen Santorum did not go to the hospital to deliver a child and did not. Her baby was, sadly, doomed. The pregnancy was close to a spontaneous abortion, but in this case it was terminated under close medical supervision; had surgical intervention been necessary to actually extract the fetus, and incidentally to save her life, she was prepared to authorize it. (For the sake of the children, of course.)

She forced awful suffering on herself and family to defend her husband¡s career and their beliefs. All of us who¡ve had the sad experience of a second trimester anomaly can only be horrified that this powerful couple would condemn many other women to likely if not certain death under similar circumstances, and curtail if not entirely eliminate better choices for all of us. The exquisite medical expertise they enjoyed is far more rare in Pennsylvania today, thanks in no small part to anti-choice bullying. 30% of U.S. women have an abortion at some time in their life; if all of them had the courage to be honest about their experiences, our policies would look a lot different, and so would the life chances of the truly vulnerable.

Both these snippets come from http://oursilverribbon.org/blog/?p=188 .

[Celebration]

45. Agreed n/t

[Marrah_G]

17. I cannot stand this man

[riderinthestorm]

19. The only answer is that the Santorums were able to make medical decisions about the pregnancy

without interference, and in private, with their doctor. Period. It's what EVERYONE wants.

The Santorum decision about the end of Karen's pregnancy IS different because everyone is different - I would never dismiss or trivialize their decision. It was clearly very painful for them as it is for most women/families. But it's also exactly the same in that they had a CHOICE on what to do. Our laws still allow a woman and her family to make that choice and have a consultation with their doctor about what to do, honestly and with all options on the table.

This is the only acceptable answer when/if this comes up. The Santorums wanted that child and trying to score political points by trying to "catch" the Santorums in some kind of hypocritical moment with this traumatic event is sure to backfire. It certainly can be spun as a hypocritical act. But anyone who is pro-choice is going down the wrong path there by emphasizing that.

Do not buy into the right wing framing on abortion! A far better reaction to this story is to avoid the term "abortion", empathize with the Santorums' terrible situation, and then point out the FACT that the Santorums were able to make CHOICES themselves with their doctor about Karen's health and the outcome for that fetus. A right that everyone woman deserves, just the same as Karen Santorum and her family.

[appal_jack]

24. k&r for this reply. Thanks, riderinthestorm.

I agree with your framing of the issue - medical privacy between a woman (and/or family if she chooses) and a doctor, with the freedom to make decisions without state interference. That's what the Santorums wanted (and had) for themselves, that's what we pro-choicers want for all.

-app

[moriah]

29. What's hypocritical is him saying that "health of the mother" exceptions are "phony".

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/santorum-abortion-health-exception-phony

After knowing what it's like to lose a wanted child, and knowing how dangerous a septic miscarriage can be, and ADMITTING that he and his wife would have chosen life for his wife rather than death for both wife and child....

How on EARTH can he call those exceptions phony?

[riderinthestorm]

30. Oh personally, I agree with you. But the more effective point imo, is that the Santorums had choices

They were able to make a private medical decision about Karen and this pregnancy with their doctor and do what they felt was best. Their CHOICE. Their PRIVATE CHOICE. Those are the optimum phrases here.

The Santorums genuinely grieved over this loss. We won't be able to score any points with anyone by belittling their pain and trying to paint them as hypocritical. Of course they were! But they (and others) can say oh well, they were irrational with grief. Or NOW they've come to a different understanding blah, blah, blah. they'll find to rationalize their actions.

Instead, I just think it's smarter to focus in on the fact that they had choices. They made a choice that worked for their family and Karen's health in private, with their doctor. Hammering that point home is a better strategy than trying to discuss the pros and cons of that decision.

[moriah]

32. Agreed, it just makes me furious.

If they'd gone to certain Catholic hospitals, they wouldn't have been able to make that decision.

And I'm willing to bet money that he supports the right of Catholic hospitals to refuse to undertake lifesaving treatment when there is a heartbeat -- even if the baby will die, they expect the mom to make the same decisions Karen did. What's worse is they won't even tell women like Karen their options.

Why shouldn't every woman in the same situation Karen was in have the right to make those decisions?

[riderinthestorm]

33. 110% agreed and a kick for your post! nt

[AtheistCrusader]

49. Because 'health' is not 'life'.

Health includes things like future fertility, to try again. Life is life only.

Santorum's own sponsored bill has a single, solitary exception: to protect the life of the mother.

"A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

We need to be accurate about this issue, or the right will easily dismiss it in the court of public opinion.

[moriah]

50. So what would he do about a bipolar woman on Lithium who became pregnant?

It's contraindicated during pregnancy, as are most other mood stabilizers.

Coming off of medication can cause relapse, which enhances suicide risk.

Since bipolar disorder is a biochemical disorder of the brain, is it considered a physical disorder? What about schizophrenia? Most medications to treat schizophrenia are also contraindicated during pregnancy. And suicide is the number one cause of death for schizophrenics who go off of their medication.

[MountainLaurel]

52. Frothy probably doesn't think mental illness exists

So he'd tell her to go pray harder and not have sex.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. I think a doctor could make a good case for that before the medical board.

I agree, these issues get pretty snarled up, pretty quick. It really should have a HEALTH exception, in fact, I'm not comfortable regulating it much at all. A doctor that hasn't engaged in malpractice shouldn't have to justify anything to anyone, but that's a different fight.

My only point is, the Santorum family's direct experience is, to them, acceptable, and legal within the confines of Santorum's own sponsored ban. He is not a hypocrite as a direct result of this singular instance.

As much as that would be really convenient if he were.

[AlbertCat]

44. The only answer is that the Santorums were able to make medical decisions about the pregnancy

Bingo!

With an important side note of their worries when the Dr. made a decision counter to what the mother wanted. They were apprehensive about someone else making their decisions about their pregnancy.... even a doctor.

[backscatter712]

23. The latest off the Republican short bus.

To think that there's even a slim probability that he'll become President is scary - he'd make George W. Bush look like a Rhodes Scholar...

[Ilsa]

25. I haven't been able to post all day.

The Santorums didn't have an abortion. They had a miscarriage.

The point is that they were allowed to choose the medical treatment that they wanted and needed.
The second point is that they placed value on the mother's life, and they chose to save her life. Far too often, the mother's life is treated as less important than the fetus' life, even when it is clear that the fetus may not be viable.

[rocktivity]

54. DING DING DING! Ilsa, you're our grand prize winner!

The point is that they were allowed to choose the medical treatment that they wanted and needed. The second point is that they placed value on the mother's life, and they chose to save her life...

If the baby was born alive, it wasn't an abortion.

But whether you have an abortion, spontaneous abortion, pregnancy termination, or miscarriage, what matters is being FREE to make your own reproductive choices the way the Santorums did -- up to and including deciding that your religion PREVENTS you from making reproductive choices. While the Santorums have my condolences about Gabriel, I will fight their efforts to take the freedom of reproductive choice away from anyone else to the death -- if you'll pardon the expression.


rocktivity

[Ineeda]

27. Santorum's quote on the matter:

“The doctors said they were talking about a matter of hours or a day or two before risking sepsis and both of them might die,” Santorum said. “Obviously, if it was a choice of whether both Karen and the child are going to die or just the child is going to die, I mean it’s a pretty easy call.”

So they chose their path. Others have, and should continue to have, choice as well.

[rocktivity]

55. Unless the source of the infection, the fetus, was removed from Karen...she would likely die.

Last edited Sat Mar 22, 2014, 01:45 PM - Edit history (2)

...Karen felt cramping from early labor...Santorum agreed to start his wife on intravenous antibiotics “to buy her some time"...The antibiotics brought Karen’s fever down. The doctor suggested a drug to accelerate her labor...Santorum said(,) “Karen said, `We’re not inducing labor, that’s an abortion. No way. That isn’t going to happen. I don’t care what happens.’ ”

Karen – a former neonatal intensive-care nurse – asked for something to stop the labor. Her doctors refused, Santorum recalled, citing malpractice concerns...

I can understand Karen being confused between deliberately aborting a fetus and deliberately removing the source of a lethal infection, even if she hadn't been a neonatal intensive care nurse. But what the heck was Rick thinking? The embryo wasn't going to survive no matter what, and it HAD to be removed to save his wife's life no matter what!


rocktivity

[Sirveri]

31. All abortions are different.

Until people figure that out we'll have to deal with this stupid BS.

[2ndAmForComputers]

56. He is a hypocrite, like each and every so-called "pro-lifer."

Each. And. Every. One.