http://www.npr.org/...
It's easy to take a cynical view of whatever comes out of a person's mouth when that person happens to be a politician. For example, one would be hard pressed to believe anything Mitt Romney says, given his pathological penchant for reversing his positions to suit the moment and audience.
But Rick Santorum is different, we are repeatedly assured. He's a "true believer," we are told, whose beliefs are "genuine." The "genuine" quality of Santorum's "beliefs" is touted and packaged as a virtue for his candidacy:
Rick Santorum's message resonates with voters' hearts and minds (this week at least), because he is a true believer. He believes in his message, and his message is consistent with core Republican values. What gave Mr. Santorum the edge in Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri can give him an edge in the general election against President Barack Obama.
Mr. Santorum speaks directly to issues that are most relevant to core Republicans...
If the genuineness of his beliefs is to be considered as one of his virtues, then it makes sense to examine those beliefs in context of their consequences, because presumably his genuine "beliefs" are held for a genuine reason, and not as window-dressing. He has, after all, made the integrity of his beliefs the core message of his candidacy. One has to assume he would act to move the country in accordance with his beliefs, from the Judges he appoints, to the foreign policy he espouses, to the bills he will sign into law. Otherwise he would have no business running for President.
Santorum has confirmed his personal opposition to all forms of "artificial" birth control:
I am not a believer in birth control and artificial birth control. I think it goes down the line of being able to do whatever you want to do without having the responsibility that comes with that.
His view of birth control is that it permits people to "do whatever [they] want to do without the
responsibility that comes with it." His objection, therefore, is rooted in moral censure: people in his view should not be permitted, and indeed
prevented, from behaving "irresponsibly" by engaging in non-procreative sex. Because that's what the deprivation of birth control entails. Santorum doesn't qualify or limit his core beliefs to Americans. He's too broad-minded for that. His beliefs apply to everyone. They apply to the world. As a practical matter, then, Santorum's "genuine beliefs" taken to their logical conclusion leave the entirety of humanity with two choices: either not have sex at all, or have sex only to produce babies.
Santorum uses the word "responsible" in censuring others. "Responsible" is defined as follows:
re·spon·si·ble/riˈspänsəbəl/
Adjective:
1) Having an obligation to do something as part of a job or role.
2) Being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.
Fair enough. If our focus is on responsibility, we have to ask what would be the consequences not only to our country but to the entire world if Rick Santorum's genuine beliefs were put into practice--if birth control were made unavailable? Turns out, we don't have to wait. We can already predict the consequences of even a small reduction in the availability of birth control worldwide. The consequences are roughly a billion more people in 2100:
This week, the United Nations Population Division made a radical shift in its population projections. Previously, the organization had estimated that the number of people living on the planet would reach around 9 billion by 2050 and then level off. Now everything has changed: Rather than leveling off, the population size will continue to grow, reaching 10 billion or more at century's end.
Why is this happening? Put simply, fertility rates. Across much of the world, women are having fewer children, but in African countries, the decline is far slower than expected. Part of this shift was supposed to come from preferences about family size and better access to family planning to make that possible. Sadly, however, that access hasn't come.
"That access hasn't come" because of people like Rick Santorum:
The term "family planning" was replaced by the broader phrase "reproductive health." In the United States, in particular, passions over abortion eroded support for contraceptives assistance overseas.
That lack of attention may well prove to be one the worst foreign-policy mistakes of recent decades. Budgets for family planning have collapsed despite the fact that they were yielding real results.
In the last few days, Santorum has been forced politically to point out to various instances in which he voted to support Title X programs, including those that would provide for family planning both in the U.S. and overseas. What he doesn't mention is how often he has pushed cuts in those same programs (USAID, UNPF) and applauded the efforts of the Republican House to eliminate these same programs. What Santorum (the lawyer) also doesn't mention is that he does not believe the issue of international family planning is one the Federal government has any right to decide, and that he has explicitly endorsed the rights of individual states to ban contraception, much as he endorses their right to ban abortion. Here is Rick Santorum's platform, from his
web page. These are the things he would do if elected President:
Executive Orders, Rulemaking and other Executive Branch Actions
Repeal Clinton-era Title X family planning regulations, and will direct HHS to restore the separation of Title X family planning from abortion practices and restore a ban on referrals for abortion
Reinstitute the Mexico City Policy to stop tax-payer funding or promotion of abortion overseas
Ban federal funding for embryonic stem cell research
Restore conscience clause protections for health care workers
Defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court
Ban military chaplains from performing same sex marriage ceremonies on military bases or other Federal properties
Repeal Obamacare mandate for contraceptive services in healthcare plans
Re-direct funds within HHS so it can create a public/private partnership with state &local communities, not-for-profit organizations, and faith-based organizations for the purpose of strengthening marriages, families, and fatherhood
Veto any bill or budget that funds abortion or funds any organization that performs abortions including Planned Parenthood
Congressional Directives
Call on Congress to abolish the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Advocate for a Personhood Amendment to the Constitution
Call on Congress to pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
Advocate for a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution
Call on Congress to reinstitute Don't Ask/Don't Tell
Call on Congress to pass the Workplace Religious Freedom Act
Call on Congress to reinstitute 2008-level funding for the Community Based Abstinence Education program
Advocate for a federal law permitting schools to allow prayer at graduations, football games and other school functions
With a few exceptions, every single one of Santorum's proposals (set forth above) deals with regulating sexual activity, and in particular, eliminating efforts to moderate childbirths. His personal "beliefs" about birth control are eminently clear. The question therefore becomes at what point does Santorum take
responsibility for the ultimate consequences of his beliefs?
The UN report notes that the population figures from 2050 onward are critical:
That 2050 figure is vital in determining how large the population will grow by 2100 either as high as 15.8 billion or as low as 6.2 billion. With so many people reproducing, very small differences in family size have a dramatic impact over time. The difference between a world of 6.2 billion and 15.8 billion will depend on a change in the average number of children that women have a change that is so small that demographers are reduced to using the odd image of "half a child" to describe it. Over the coming 40 years, however, if the average woman bears half a child more, on average, it will have an almost unimaginably profound effect on virtually everything else that happens in the 21st century
* *
This matters beyond any one country or region. If we want to live in an ecologically sustainable world, we'll have to meet the needs of the present without compromising the natural resources and services our children and grandchildren will need. Given time, and a great deal of scientific ingenuity, we might still be able to reduce our consumption and pull a world of 8 billion people back to a biologically sustainable economy by the end of the century. But a world of 10 billion more in 2050 could do irreversible damage to the planet. It's just too many people.
This is the road the "genuine beliefs" of the Rick Santorums of the world are already leading us to--one of misery, death and disease for uncounted millions.
Cornell University Professor of Ecology and Agricultural Sciences David Pimentel and a group of graduate students from Cornell University evaluated data from over 120 published papers dealing with the effects of population growth, disease and malnutrition. One of their findings was that 57% of the current world population of 6.5 billion is malnourished, compared with 20% of the world population of 2.5 Billion in 1950.
That's a 150% increase in 60 years, even in light of mind-boggling technological improvements in agricultural production and distribution, transportation and communication. The only conceivable conclusion is that the world's population is outstripping its ability to feed itself.
Water, air and soil pollution are responsible (there's that word again) for 40% of all human fatalities every year. Malnutrition kills 6 million children per year. Just imagine what these figures will be in the coming decades.
Quite simply, lack of adequate birth control means not enough clean water to go around. It means not enough living space or arable land to go around. It means species extinction. It means death, disease and starvation to entire populations:
This is what the lack of birth control is responsible for:
With 1.2 billion people lacking clean water, waterborne infections account for 80 percent of all infectious diseases. Increased water pollution creates breeding grounds for malaria-carrying mosquitoes, which kill 1.2 million to 2.7 million people every year. Air pollution kills about 3 million people annually. Unsanitary living conditions account for more than 5 million deaths each year, and more than half of those are children.
It also means more abortions.
Many, many more abortions:
Persistently high fertility yields some striking statistics, according to Babatunde Osotimehin, the executive director of the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA). Last month he called for urgent action to meet the needs of "some 215 million women in developing countries, who want to plan and space their births, [but] do not have access to modern contraception." He added that "neglect of sexual and reproductive health results in an estimated 80 million unintended pregnancies; 22 million unsafe abortions; and 358,000 deaths from maternal causes including 47,000 deaths from unsafe abortion."
Obviously some forms of birth control also act to prevent sexually-transmitted diseases. According to the United Nations Population fund, approximately 10.4 Billion male condoms were used worldwide in 2005. Roughly
half were used for family planning and the remainder for HIV prevention. Santorum's "genuine beliefs" would outlaw condom use. Again, at what point does he take
responsibility for the consequences of his beliefs?
A recent CBS news poll revealed that nearly all sexually active women in this country have used some form of birth control over the course of their lifetimes. Nevertheless, Rick Santorum has publically stated that states should have the right to outlaw all forms of birth control. This was done in the Philippines. Here is what happened:
In 2000, Manila mayor Jose "Lito" Atienza issued an executive order that, in practice, banned city health centers and hospitals from providing contraception. Essential family planning information, services, and supplies, including condoms and birth control pills, have disappeared from city health facilities...
* *
We interviewed women affected by the ban, government and health officials, and nongovernmental organizations and found that the policy has harmed women...[.]
For example, women who are barely able to provide their families with even the most basic necessities are becoming pregnant for the seventh or eighth time. One woman with eight children wanted to have a tubal ligation (a form of female sterilization) after her fourth pregnancy, but was unable to because the local hospital couldn't offer the service as a result of the ban. Her family's daily income of 150 pesos (3.28 USD/2.40 EUR) means that meals often consist of soy sauce or salt when they can't afford vegetables or fish. Her children are malnourished, often having to miss meals, and not all of her children are able to attend school.
Women who have been advised by their doctors that further pregnancies would threaten their health or lives have also not been able to get a tubal ligation. And when some women tried to refuse sex with their partners, their partners became abusive and violent, abandoning them in some cases.
Thus far the media have largely given Santorum a pass in simply attributing his beliefs to a religious sensibility. For many that's where the analysis ends, and Santorum himself is trying to wriggle away from his prior positions by claiming his beliefs are personal only, and would not affect the method of his governance, a tactic that effectively forestalls an inquiry into the essential "morality" of his positions. No one has yet come forward to analyze the practical implications of his "beliefs," whether they relate to the horrendous social realities of overpopulation or the implicit and drastic derogation of the role of women in society that such beliefs entail.
That is unacceptable. Anyone who aspires to the highest office in the land and advocates extreme and far-reaching positions such as this deserves to have the very basis of his "morality" questioned.
Once again:
Rick Santorum's message resonates with voters' hearts and minds (this week at least), because he is a true believer. He believes in his message, and his message is consistent with core Republican values.
Those who hold out their beliefs as "virtues" demonstrative of their character are responsible for the consequences of their beliefs. At some point in this campaign should Santorum progress to the nomination then he and the people who put him there should be called to account for the consequences of their so-called "core values."
You can donate to President Obama's re-election campaign here.