Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Not the Best Way to Clean up Santorum

(Posted by Jocelyn)

I'm sure many of you have read this post about Rick Santorum and his wife, Karen's, abortion. It reads like so:
Karen was going to die if her pregnancy was not ended, if the fetus was not removed from her body. So, at 20 weeks, one month before what doctors consider ‘viability’, labor was artificially induced and the infected fetus was delivered. It died shortly thereafter.
This is, indeed, a huge act of hypocrisy on the part of the Santorums. To claim that having an abortion for medical reasons is a "phony exception" while knowing full well that your wife did that very thing fifteen years ago is nothing short of disgusting. Or, you know, it would be if it had actually happened.

There is, however, no evidence (that I can find) to suggest that the labor was induced, a requirement in making this tragedy an abortion rather than a miscarriage. Karen Santorum HAS said that she would have considered inducing labor if there were no way she could have survived otherwise, but she didn't actually have to make that decision.

Why does a blog that compares Rick Santorum to anal discharge care? Because comparing a bigot to anal discharge is a much more reasonable act than accusing a man who believes that life begins at conception of something he views as infanticide when there is no credible evidence to support that claim. It's not anywhere near as bad as taking a family's personal tragedy and altering the facts in order to make a point about one member's politics.

Rick Santorum is a terrible, terrible person, and he deserves all the fecal Google-bombing the thinking public can muster, but he doesn't deserve this. Nobody does. For shame.

9 comments:

  1. This is especially ironic, as Rick appears to be a Roman Catholic. Now, a lot of people know that Roman Catholics are supposed to really hate abortion - that abortion incurs automatic excommunication unless for limited approved medical purposes. What most people don't know, though, is that Roman Catholic Canon Law only calls voluntary fetal removal "abortion" until viability, after which it's simply called "murder" (in Roman Catholic law.) So, if this was not a miscarriage... he and his wife are excommunicate, although they would not have been if they had waited another week.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, it's true.

    " The childbirth in 1996 was a source of terrible heartbreak -- the couple were told by doctors early in the pregnancy that the baby Karen was carrying had a fatal defect and would survive only for a short time outside the womb. According to Karen "Santorum's book, ''Letters to Gabriel: The True Story of Gabriel Michael Santorum,'' she later developed a life-threatening intrauterine infection and a fever that reached nearly 105 degrees. She went into labor when she was 20 weeks pregnant. After resisting at first, she allowed doctors to give her the drug Pitocin to speed the birth. Gabriel lived just two hours." "

    NY Times http://tinyurl.com/3s8nq7v

    ReplyDelete
  3. Speeding up labor and inducing labor are two very, very different things.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree, Santorum deserves whatever comes his way concerning fecal matter. Such comments against a defenseless community in the united states is despicable. Homosexuals just want to live like the rest of us in their own way, there is no choice, it is who they are.

    animalideology.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am the author of the article in question and declare for you and everyone to see that it is a work of satire. The facts of whether or not this was an abortion are NOT settled. You can point me to a website that says it wasn't an abortion and I can point you to one that says it was. Karen's quote in the article is factual however (Steve Goldstein, Philadelphia Inquirer, May 4, 1997) and clearly shows that she understood what was happening as an abortion. Again, the facts of whether or not this was an abortion are not established. The author of this post believes it wasn't an abortion, but many, many people do. Personally, I don't know what to think and simply set about creating a viscious piece of satirical comedy (that, it turns out, is very effective). Responses that I have received to the article are pretty evenly divided, with about half picking up on its satire and half not. If you don't get it, I can't (and won't) help you. I do not write to the lowest common denominator. Sincerely, Michael Kindt.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Michael-

    I've heard you defend this piece as a work of 'satire' a few times now, and every time I am more convinced that you don't know what satire is and is not. It is NOT an excuse to present theories as facts.

    The paragraph at the end of your piece with the false quote is the only part of it that actually resembles 'satire' or 'comedy.' The rest is just malicious lies. It's also not particularly funny.

    Sincerely, Jocelyn

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think it is interesting this whole debate about 'abortion' or 'miscarriage'. Truth is, a miscarriage is a layman's term for abortion. I guess a lot of people use the term 'abortion' when they mean 'removal of products of conception' and 'miscarriage' when they mean 'complete/incomplete/threatened/septic loss of a pregnancy before 20 weeks' gestation (viability is generally agreed at 24 weeks but is disputed worldwide).
    In all likelihood, if she was 20 weeks' gestation and did have an intrauterine infection, she would most likely have had an expectant (induced medically with misoprostol/mifepristone) instead of a surgical one due to premature labour; either way it would have been artificially augmented or induced (if she did not go into labour) in the same way as women who have termination of pregnancies. Or in the same way people with second stage failure to progress have their labours augmented. The lines as to whether it is an 'artificial' abortion (miscarriage) or not is fairly irrelevant given the methods/drugs used are similar to many used in live birth labours.
    You are right in saying labour induction and labour augmentation (speeding it up) are different, but not very different entities. A lot of the drugs we use in labour induction is also used in labour augmentation e.g. Syntocin (oxytocin) IV infusions.
    Having said that though, if the Catholic church believes that life begins at conception then shouldn't they also condemn anyone throwing away placental tissue? After all, it comes from the same entity- the zygote. Don't get me wrong, there *is* life, just as your cells in hair follicles that shed everyday are alive (ie. have life). But, a whole human a single cell (or even multiple tissues) does not make.
    Politicians that demagogue for their own political gain with the use of religion as a weapon against minority groups are not only vile but perverse. This one is especially nefarious considering his infamy around the world- we all recoil in disgust (all the way in Australia!). Well suited name: provokes the same reaction.

    ReplyDelete
  8. OK...you people are talking about things you have no knowledge of. First of all, his wife did NOT have an abortion. They did not kill the baby. The tried to keep it alive, but it was too young to make it. They tried to save the mother by birthing early. But they tried to keep the baby alive, too. Secondly, the Catholic Church NEVER allows abortion under any circumstance. There is never a situation where killing the innocent is ok. Thirdly, you are not excommunicated for having one. You are, by default, excommunicated if you support abortion. So like Guliani, and some of those other Dems that call themselves "Catholic". Fourthly, how dare you say an abortion is the same as a miscarriage. My mom has had three miscarriages and you're an idiot to say there in any way related.

    ReplyDelete