GOP candidates blast Obama for birth control ruling

Updated at 10:15 p.m. ET

The Republican presidential candidates used a debate Wednesday night to blast President Obama for his recent decisions surrounding birth control coverage and lamented the breakdown of the family unit in American society.

"I don't think we've seen in the history of this country the kind of attack on religious conscience, religious freedom, religious tolerance that we've seen under Barack Obama," former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said.

He cited a unanimous Supreme Court decision that came down on the opposite side of the Obama administration on the issue of a "ministerial exception" to employment discrimination laws. "His position on religious tolerance, on religious conscience is clear, and it's one of the reasons the people in this country are saying we want to have a president who will stand up and fight for the rights under our Constitution, our first right, which is for freedom of religion," Romney said.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich excoriated the "elite media" for failing to question Mr. Obama in the 2008 campaign about voting "in favor of legalizing infanticide." He was referring to Mr. Obama's opposition as an Illinois state senator to legislation that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum was specifically asked about an interview he gave last year in which he talked about the "dangers" of contraception.

The social conservative said he was talking about the broader issue of family values, including the increasing number of children being born out of wedlock and sexually active teens.

"The bottom line is we have a problem in this country, and the family is fracturing," he said. "And someone has got to go out there -- I will -- and talk about the things."

Santorum stressed that "just because I'm talking about it doesn't mean I want a government program to fix it."

However, in last year's interview, Santorum suggested a public policy prescription for issues relating to birth control. "I'm not running for preacher. I'm not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues," he said.

On the debate stage, Santorum used the issue to criticize Romney for the health care reforms he implemented in Massachusetts, calling them a model for Mr. Obama's health reforms.

"The whole reason this issue is alive is because of the bill that you drafted in Massachusetts, Romneycare, which was the model for Obamacare and the government takeover of health care," he said.

Romney retorted that Mr. Obama's reforms only passed because former Sen. Arlen Specter -- whom Santorum backed over his more conservative opponent Pat Toomey -- voted in favor of them.

"If you had not supported him, if we had said no to Arlen Specter, we would not have Obamacare," Romney said to Santorum. "So don't look at me. Take a look in the mirror."

More from the debate:

Santorum fights charges he's a "fake" conservative
Republican candidates spar over congressional spending
Republican candidates condemn auto bailout

[nancy_naive]

Republican men have so little else to bolster their conceived notions of manhood, that a woman with a purse full of pills can so easily emasculate them.

Abortions would be reduced by 100-fold if contraceptives were as freely available here as they are in 3rd World nations.

Republican men have fixed that too. Now that the Bush Administration has taken us to 3rd world status with two unnecessary, and unfunded, 10-year wars, there's no need for our pride to stand between us and free contraceptives any longer.

[KPeters_from_UK]

I wrote this in a previous post. Some Right wing nut cases didn't bother to address the issue that 58% of women take contraceptions for other medical needs. Instead they attacked me for bringing to light new information, accused me of being a wannaba OB/GYN. They are so damn sure that women who take contraceptions are ******, silly airhead ******. SO, I'm going to **** them off again and repost. Come on I want a rebuttal not some bully crap and insults that don't address the issues.

You people can't even defend yourselves against my argument that 58% of women who take contraceptions NEED IT FOR OTHER MEDICAL NEEDS even for saving their lives. Couldn't even address that could you? No, all you can see through your haze is the need to control women's health under the disguise of religious freedom. To you is is more important to limit women's choices than prevent serious medical conditions that are only helped by contraceptions. You also wrote that I am a wannabe OB/GYN. Tell what the hell is wrong with learning????? What is wrong if understanding the need for certain medications? What is wrong with that? Then as American myself you're going to tell me where I am allowed to live? What the hell are you people but bully fascists? We going to have tests about who is more religious? Whose God is better and who is more Patriotic? Sick.

So I'll make the earlier post reasier for you go through:

To all GOP males who don't understand contraception. There are more reasons why women NEED contraceptions. In some cases it is NECESSARY TO SAVE A WOMAN'S LIFE or protect her from infertility.

And NO IT IS NOT CHEAP.

Examples why 58% of women take contraceptions:

Pill perk #1: Lower cancer risk
I guess the GOP does not want to save women's lives especially if it requires them to take contraceptions.

Pill perk #2: Clearer skin
Why not?

Pill perk #3: Lighter, less painful periods
Have you guys have had painful heavy periods? No? Then shut the f*k up.

Pill perk #5: Endometriosis relief
Ironically the religious right want babies and more babies but they can't understand that sometimes a woman needs contraception IN ORDER TO HAVE BABIES. Go figure

For those who believe information is the best weapon against ignorance read more: http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill

[rchrdsinnott]

"Boy,these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born,your on your own.
Pro-Life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that,they don't want to know about you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no headstart,no school lunch, no foodstamps, no welfare, no nothing.
If you're preborn, you fine, if your preschool, your f@#*#&d."

George Carlin

[nfission]

Thanks, love this, Carlin was a genius and so right.

[sweetcakesmaria]

Why is it that Insurance Companies can pay for Viagra for men because impotence is categorized as a male health issue which affects the overall health of men in which Viagara pills can correct? By the same token, why is it that unwanted pregnancies and other female reproductive issues that can have a negative affect on the overall health of women should not be catergorized as female health issues that birth control pills can correct? This whole debate is not about religion. It's simply a debate about an inequality in health coverage for men/women that the Federal Government is trying to correct.

[KPeters_from_UK]

Because it is very man's right to have sex but not for women.

[reality_sanity]

by RobAla February 23, 2012 7:47 AM EST
... I am against an oppressive federal government forcing any private business to provide any product for "free", and I am against any President who attempts to interfere with missions of a religious group that do great good for Americans. ...

-----

The First Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits the US Government from ENFORCING any religious teaching under the guise of law. Law is intended to protect the public welfare and safety. Religious groups are empowered to CONVINCE their followers to observe their religious teachings they are not empowered to DENY legal services to anyone under force of law or by force of contract (which also is upheld by law).

[sandy 1027]

This whole contraception issue is very disingenuous on the part of the GOP and others.The president resolved the point of contention by making sure that religious agencies don't have to cover contraceptives;which was what the dispute was about.Nothing else was mentioned.Once the president took that issue off of the table,his political opponents started trying to morph it into something else.

[RobAla]

I am not sure how some readers think I expressed a desire to have no contraceptives in my post. I have no problem with women taking contraceptives, as millions do legally every day for whatever reason required (health, birth control...etc). I am against an oppressive federal government forcing any private business to provide any product for "free", and I am against any President who attempts to interfere with missions of a religious group that do great good for Americans. By the way, I am not a Catholic. What I posted is as follows:

"President Obama should be blasted over two things regarding contraceptives:
1) President Obama should be blasted for stomping on the US Constitution by forcing private business (insurance companies) to offer a "free" product. Government has no legal authority to do this. As a side note, this "free" product will be paid for by insurance providers raising the cost of premiums for Americans who have purchased policies - so it is not "free".

2) President Obama should be blasted for stomping all over the First Amendment by forcing a church run mission (hospitals run by the Catholic church) to practice medicine against religious beliefs.

This President does not want to be limited by the US Constitution. He knows how slow the courts work, so he is abusing the power of the Presidency and he knows it will take time for the courts to catch up to him. Look how long it has taken the Supreme Court to address the idiotic health care law, even with 27 states suing the federal government over it.

President Obama wishes to be king."

President Obama is not satisfied with the constitutionally limited powers of the Presidency, he arrogantly wanted to brush the US Constitution aside and elevate himself above it. For those of you who support this man, remember that it is the US Constitution that guarantees and recognizes each of us to have God given rights (the framers of the US Constitution were smart enough not state that rights not given by the government, because the government can take any right away that it grants - these are God given rights). Any President who stomps on the US Constitution in any manner threatens the rights of all Americans. I am SO ready for a new President.

[nancy_naive]

What bothers you is that if your woman has a purse full of pills then the ONLY thing you can do better than her is pee farther up the wall.

Contraceptives eliminate your manhood.

[nancy_naive]

1) Catholic Hospitals are not "missions". They are hospitals, businesses that serve the community that surrounds them. They are not Catholic schools or churches or missions. Those are indeed exempt.

2) The First Amendment does not stand alone on religion. It guarantees the free exercise thereof, and that NO LAW can be passed regarding the establishment thereof.

Regarding the establishment works in both directions; laws cannot be passed that favor, nor disfavor, the establishment of a religion. Catholics make up only 25% of Christians in this country, the remaing Xians have no such papal decrees on birth control. Any law that contradicts the secular purpose of contraceptives while favoring the view of the Catholic Church is in violation of the 1st.

What you seek is the "secular purpose and establishment test". This is a criterion that the SCOTUS uses to determine if a law is one that does not violate the 1st. The right to contrception is stare decisis dating from the overturn of the Comstock Act.

What we are arguing about now is how to prevent the Church from denying that right.

[nancy_naive]

You Christians needn't look any futher than Genesis for your answer to the contraception and abortion issues.

God never intended that we earn our righteousness by forbidding sin, but rather by avoiding sin.

God didn't ask Adam where to plant the tree. He didn't put the tree outside the Garden and tell Adam, "If you leave, you cannot return." He put the tree smack in the middle of the Garden and just said, "Don't".

Don't partake of it, don't cut it down, just leave it alone.

If the religious pro-life had spent just 1/2 of the energy they have spent on trying to forbid abortion and contraception on trying to persuade their flocks to walk around the trees instead, they'd have succeeded 10-fold.

Alas, they keep trying to save souls by removing temptation and leaving the desire, rather than removing the desire and leaving the temptation.

[tvwatcher5345]

i don't get it, santorum and gingrich are liberals, i mean they already belong to homsexual oriented churches?? what is their problem??

[KPeters_from_UK]

So RobAla,
What if 58% of women take birth control not for contraception but for other medical reasons? Rachel K. Jones of the Guttmacher Institute, also found that more than half (58%) of all pill users rely on the method, at least in part, for purposes other than pregnancy prevention—meaning that only 42% use the pill exclusively for contraceptive reasons.

Taking oral contraceptives (OCs) can slash your risk for both endometrial and ovarian cancer by more than 70 percent after 12 years; even just one to five years may lower your risk by 40 percent. They work by reducing the number of times you ovulate in your lifetime: Ovulation may trigger cell changes in the ovaries that can lead to cancer. If you're worried about using the Pill for too long, relax. "You can safely take the Pill for 20 years or more," says Stephanie Teal, M.D., director of family planning at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver. Barring health issues, the only reason to stop is if you want to get pregnant.

[RobAla]

I absolutely have no problem with women taking contraceptives, as millions do legally everyday. I am against an oppressive federal government forcing a private business to give them out for "free" (which in a sense forces increases in the costs of insurance premiums on all Americans who own a policy), and I am against an oppressive federal government (through a President who has no respect for the US Constitution) stomping all over the First Amendment by forcing religious based missions (Catholic run hospitals) to practice medicine in a manner that goes against the beliefs of that religious group.

I have NEVER said I was against contraceptives, for whatever reason. ???????

[KPeters_from_UK]

So why do most Americans have to pay for Viagra for old men can get their rocks off?

But let me ask you a question if you had to work for me and I was the only or largest employer in town and I happen to be a Jehovah Witness would you be fine with the fact that I refuse my Insurance policy to cover blood transfusions?