Another sign that Rick Santorum is the new front-runner — he’s under attack from Ron Paul.
In a clever new ad, the libertarian-leaning Texas House member attacks the former Pennsylvania senator as a faux fiscal conservative.
There’s a shot at Santorum’s social conservative credentials, too — the ad claims he “even hooked Planned Parenthood up with a few million bucks.”
washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/new-ron-paul-ad-attacks-rick-santorum-is-this-dude-serious/2012/02/21/gIQAlUn8QR_blog.htmlIt’s true that Santorum voted for funding for contraception through Title X, and some of that money goes to Planned Parenthood (a group he wants to defund). But it’s hard to imagine the social conservative losing support to Paul on this issue
The campaign of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has launched a new campaign ad that attacks pro-life Republican hopeful Rick Santorum and falsely claims Santorum supports funding the Planned Parenthood abortion business.
The Santorum campaign was quick to respond, with national communications director Hogan Gidley telling CNN that “for all of Ron Paul’s blustering about conservatism, the bottom line is that he’s been in Congress for decades and has not had a single accomplishment to forward the cause of conservatism. Not one.”
On Monday, on the Sean Hannity program on Fox News, Santorum himself responded to the charge.
“Look, I’m not a big fan of Title X, that is Planned Parenthood. No, I want to defund Planned Parenthood,” he told Hannity.
Santorum also said in December that he strongly supopts the most recent efforts in Congress to eliminate taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood.
“[The abortion] is an inhumanity that should not occur in this country,” Santorum said, according to the Daily Iowan. “[Tax dollars] should not be used for things that are morally objectionable.”
In fact, the record shows Santorum has a long line of votes to deny taxpayer funding for abortion and Planned Parenthood and frequently compiled 100% pro-ife voting records from the National Right to Life Committee.
During his last year as a senator from Pennsylvania, Santorum opposed a an amendment to nullify the Mexico City Policy, which Presdient George W. Bush put in place to revoke funding to Planned Parenthood to promote and perform abortions in other nations. In 2001, President George W. Bush, by executive order, adopted a policy that U.S. funds for overseas “population assistance” programs could not go to private organizations that perform abortion or promote abortion (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape and incest) — for example, by working to repeal pro-life laws. Santorum, on April 5, 2005, voted against the Boxer amendment to nullify that.
Santorum also voted against funding abortions or Planned Parenthood in several other situations:
- July 2003 – Voted to support the Mexico City Policy de-funding Planned Parenthood.
- May 2003 – Voted against allowing abortions at tax-funded military base hospitals.
- June 2000 – Voted against allowing abortions at tax-funded military base hospitals.
- May 1999 – Voted against allowing abortions at tax-funded military base hospitals.
- June 1998 – Voted against allowing abortions at tax-funded military base hospitals.
- July 1997 – Voted against taxpayer fnuding of abortions in federal employee health insurance plans.
- July 1997 – Voted against allowing abortions at tax-funded military base hospitals.
- June 1997 – Voted against taxpayer funding of abrotions in the S-CHIP program
lifenews.com/2012/02/21/paul-ad-falsely-claims-santorum-supports-planned-parenthood/
- February 1997 – Voted against taxpayer fund of the pro-abortion UNFPA
It is the Democrat Party. Questionable if it’s democratic,It’s called the Democratic Party. If the GOP is superior to the Democratic Party, then what are they doing to help the poor and middle class? I don’t see them doing anything
They should just change their name to the Totalitarian Party. Their initials would be TP, which is about what it is good for.It is the Democrat Party. Questionable if it’s democratic,
Ron Paul’s ad is false. Santorum has never voted in support of funding Planned Parenthood. Santorum has 100% pro life National Right To Life voting record, which is more than the 50% Ron Paul has.I’d like to see a specific response to what the Paul ad is claiming, this doesnt look like its proving the claim false, just making other claims to defend a generic accusation.
That doesn’t make the GOP worse than the Democratic Party at least the GOP defends the life of the unborn child. Protecting life is more important than helping the middle class.It’s called the Democratic Party. If the GOP is superior to the Democratic Party, then what are they doing to help the poor and middle class? I don’t see them doing anything
He Voted For Title XPaul Ad Falsely Claims Santorum Supports Planned Parenthood
I’m not a big fan of Title X
lifenews.com/2012/02/21/paul-ad-falsely-claims-santorum-supports-planned-parenthood/
but don’t through out social justice and act like its a non important issue.That doesn’t make the GOP worse than the Democratic Party at least the GOP defends the life of the unborn child. Protecting life is more important than helping the middle class.
Where does the GOP differ with Church Teaching on “Social Justice”the GOPs stance on social justice is far from the views of the Catholic Church.
.
From the Catechism:Where does the GOP differ with Church Teaching on “Social Justice”
Unfortunately many on the left believe they can fulfill their obligation to care for the poor and needy by voting for someone who promises to take others money and do it for them.From the Catechism:
§ 1882 Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged “on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs.” This “socialization” also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.
§ 1883: Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”
Bold added for emphasis. Anyway, call me crazy, but it sounds a lot like the GOP’s talking points on the issue… certainly not the left’s top-down “bureaucra-philia.”
Well, a hyper-regressive tax system that some GOP politicians support, with no capital gains tax, in a world where starvation and poverty are widespread, certainly doesn’t “jive” well with Catholic social teaching. But I admit, I don’t know what the “official” party tenet is on the matter, or if it has one. Parties are psychological crutches for the wek-willed and feeble-minded (notice the pun I’m taking from Freud, nly he used it to describe religion; I think mine’s better).Where does the GOP differ with Church Teaching on “Social Justice”
The Church has no postion on the proper tax structure nor the rate of tax that should be charged. If you can reference a Church document supporting what you say above please do so.Well, a hyper-regressive tax system that some GOP politicians support, with no capital gains tax, in a world where starvation and poverty are widespread, certainly doesn’t “jive” well with Catholic social teaching. But I admit, I don’t know what the “official” party tenet is on the matter, or if it has one. Parties are psychological crutches for the wek-willed and feeble-minded (notice the pun I’m taking from Freud, nly he used it to describe religion; I think mine’s better).
What specificallu our views Newt gingrich holds that are contrary to Chirch teaching?So, in that particular example, that is a policy view a GOP presidential candidate, new Gingrich, holds. Newt Gingrich holds views that are inconsistent with Church teaching. I’ve no doubt about that.
Again the church has no position on the proper capital gains rate.If the GOP actually lists its ‘official positions’ on every matter, I don’t know what the website is. Enough seem to oppose the existence of a capital gains tax to make it "Republican thing.’
What specifically does the GOP promote about the enviroment that is contrary to church teaching? A link would be helpful. Usually the answer we get is some nonsense answer along the lines “The Pope says we whould care for the enviroment and the GOP wants to destroy the world as we know it”. The truth is the church neither endorses eithe party’s stance on taxes, the enviroment or to how best care for the poor and needy. OTH the Church specifially condemns the Democrat party stances on abortion, Homosexual behavior, fetal stem cell research, homosexual marriage, homosexaul adoption, and forced coverage of contraception and abortion pills.Also, the general Republican stance on the environment, pollution, etc. is also inconsistent with Catholic teaching, simply put. Again, I don’t know what the official position is "on paper. "
How is encouraging investment (no/low capital gains tax) inconsistent with Church teaching? I’m scratching my head right now…Well, a hyper-regressive tax system that some GOP politicians support, with no capital gains tax, in a world where starvation and poverty are widespread, certainly doesn’t “jive” well with Catholic social teaching. But I admit, I don’t know what the “official” party tenet is on the matter, or if it has one. Parties are psychological crutches for the wek-willed and feeble-minded (notice the pun I’m taking from Freud, nly he used it to describe religion; I think mine’s better).
So, in that particular example, that is a policy view a GOP presidential candidate, new Gingrich, holds. Newt Gingrich holds views that are inconsistent with Church teaching. I’ve no doubt about that.
If the GOP actually lists its ‘official positions’ on every matter, I don’t know what the website is. Enough seem to oppose the existence of a capital gains tax to make it "Republican thing.’
Also, the general Republican stance on the environment, pollution, etc. is also inconsistent with Catholic teaching, simply put. Again, I don’t know what the official position is "on paper. "
Technically, if I work and earn money, that money is MINE, not the states. Catholic social teaching does not require massive government bureaucracies and oppressive confiscatory tax policies to satisfy its call for “social justice”. I agree with you about the "parties are crutches for the feedble-minded however.Well, a hyper-regressive tax system that some GOP politicians support, with no capital gains tax, in a world where starvation and poverty are widespread, certainly doesn’t “jive” well with Catholic social teaching. But I admit, I don’t know what the “official” party tenet is on the matter, or if it has one. Parties are psychological crutches for the wek-willed and feeble-minded (notice the pun I’m taking from Freud, nly he used it to describe religion; I think mine’s better).
Can you prove this?So, in that particular example, that is a policy view a GOP presidential candidate, new Gingrich, holds. Newt Gingrich holds views that are inconsistent with Church teaching. I’ve no doubt about that.
gop.com/index.php/issues/issues/If the GOP actually lists its ‘official positions’ on every matter, I don’t know what the website is. Enough seem to oppose the existence of a capital gains tax to make it "Republican thing.’
Can you point to the actual GOP position, the corresponding Catholic teaching, and demonstrate where the GOP strays from the official teaching on environment, pollution, etc… I mean, you know how silly it sounds to say “Well, I don’t know what the official GOP position on it is, but I know its wrong…”Also, the general Republican stance on the environment, pollution, etc. is also inconsistent with Catholic teaching, simply put. Again, I don’t know what the official position is "on paper. "
please someone comment on this I’ll talk about social justice but please I want to discuss this issue.they merged my thread now this issue will be lost in a debate on all the candidates
but anyway santorum supporters why did he vote yes on Title X?
it doesn’t say no intervention by the state you are saying excessive intervention. I can definitely see where it is a little excessive sometimes by the dems, but some of their stuff could actually help the poor.From the Catechism:
§ 1882 Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged “on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs.” This “socialization” also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.
§ 1883: Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”
Bold added for emphasis. Anyway, call me crazy, but it sounds a lot like the GOP’s talking points on the issue… certainly not the left’s top-down “bureaucra-philia.”