Further into the statement it states he has also said he would make exceptions for rape, incest and to protect the life of the mother. All that aside, this is just fodder for the conservative base because - as you say in your last sentence - he's not going to do anything about abortion without repealing Roe v Wade, and that's not going to happen any time soon.
So I read this -
He supports a blanket ban on abortion without exceptions for rape or incest
What does that mean if there is something different later on somewhere else?
what he supports or what he doesn't doesn't matter in the bigger scheme of things, it the voting public who is so ignorant in how the system works and believes that they can just overturn something without understanding the impact. The real problem here is that the candidate who talks about it needs to be honest and truthful about the issue and stand on the idea that he can't do a thing about it.
The other problem is that for much of the country, it is a non-issue, and there are two ways of moving the country forward on the subject, making it "illegal" is not one of them.
He's chasing the conservative vote which includes the religious vote. There's a lot of religious, semi-religious or Joe Six-Pack people out there that don't approve of gay marriage while at the same time go along with civil unions for homosexual couples. Contrary to what the MSM would have us believe, there's a lot of people that don't go along with the normalization of homosexuality.
Well guess what?
No one seems to care who he needs the votes to win, it is another thing that discourages many who see him running to the religious right to get their approval. Not only in the context of the marriage issue, there is your question -
Just curious, after looking at Santorum a little bit - what makes you think he advocates govt. intrusion?
Isn't this a form of government intrusion?
Sure looks like it to me, as does the Abortion issue. Both scream government intrusion, much more than Obama care is doing.
People talk about modifying how our system works all the time. If he chooses to CALL ON CONGRESS to abolish the 9th Circuit it sounds like he's talking about letting the system work like it's supposed to. Both Santorum and Gingrich have addressed this issue as they have every right to. If the Congress chooses not to go along with idea, then no harm done. However, it might not be a bad idea to wonder why the 9th Circuit is so much more liberal than the other appeals courts, not to mention their rate of reversals by SCOTUS being 88%.
Another ignorant position to take (not you, him), eliminating an entire court because some people don't like the opinions handed down, maybe impeaching the judges and replacing them would have a better effect on it or maybe when these guys retire, put others in place of them. Gingrich rules by demands, his skewed way of looking at things seems to be an issue for most and Santorum is following suit but it begs the question of government intrusion, how far are they willing to go to "correct" things to their liking and I am willing to bet they would go farther than both Wilson and FDR combined.
He's made it clear that he values freedom of religion, and recognizes that Islamic radicals shouldn't be mixed into the same recipe as mainstream peaceable Muslims.
Sorry but here again is the issue, if you are talking about government intrusion, he seems to make the case of it. I mean that ignoring the Christian Radicals, you know those who seem to like to kill over abortion and hate all other religions, there seems to be proof that he either doesn't understand he looks like someone else who ran in '33 or is siding with that "I hate them Muslims" type of voter which is really bad.
As previously mentioned, Santorum up until now hasn't appealed to me one way or another because he was a non-factor until recently. But with all the sudden squealing from liberals and others about his "radical views" and far right-wing positions I'm curious enough to take a closer look at him and his record - they doth protest too much.
Well that's all good and well, but I made my decision when he was debating among his "peers" and saw someone like Romney and the general republican party which we need to get away from. He won't win against Obama, and pretty much Romney won't either so it is rather useless to believe that someone who speaks of these issues like this has a chance unless like I said Obama screws up BIG time and the economy tanks.
What would be new?
