Rick and Karen Santorum: Strangers to the Truth, Promoters of Theocracy


 

Rick Santorum’s parental family lives in Italy.  They are not the strong capitalists that Santorum makes himself out to be. Santorum’s family members in Italy are dedicated communists.  As the Italian weekly magazine, Oggi points out: 

“In Riva del Garda [a community of ultraliberals that support gay rights, abortion, birth control, and liberal causes; the family frequently had "high ranking" communists into their home] his grandfather Pietro and uncles were ‘red communists’ to the core,” Oggi: No. 36. “Chi è Santorum, il candidato americano che sfida Obama” di [by] Giuseppe Fumagalli.

 Karen Santorum (née Garver) proclaims herself pro-life and eschews women who live with men “out-of-wedlock,” an injunction Rick claims is Biblical. But as a nursing student at Duquesne University, Karen Santorum lived with Tom Allen, an obstetrician-gynecologist (ob-gyn) who was 40 years her senior (she was 20 and the doctor 60 years of age). Allen had in fact delivered Karen as a baby. He was also a co-founder of Pittsburgh’s first abortion clinic.  At the time that she had the sexual affair with Allen, Karen Garver (Santorum) was pro-choice.  When she met Rick Santorum, she was eager and delighted to tell Dr. Allen that Rick Santorum was pro-choice.  As Dr. Allen told a Pennsylvania newspaper in 2005 (see Philadelphia Citypaper):

“When she moved out to go be with Rick, she told me I’d like him, that he was pro-choice and a humanist,” said Allen, an elderly but vibrant man, during a brief conversation on the porch of his Pittsburgh row home. “But I don’t think there’s a humanist bone in that man’s body.”

The Santorums condemn Hillary Clinton’s book It Takes A Village as being “anti-family.”  In response to Clinton’s book, Rick wrote It Takes A Family: Conservatism and the Common Good (449 pages). On page 138 Santorum wrote:

“The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong.”

Or page 386:

“It’s amazing that so many kids turn out to be fairly normal, considering the weird socialization they get in public schools.” At one point, he accuses feminists of hating women, yet in speeches he claims that feminists are lesbians. 

The Santorums argue that the parents must protect their children from any dissettlements that could jeopardize the childrens mental health. However, the Santorums took home a 20-week-old dead fetus for their children to play with and kiss, before they buried Gabriel the next day.

Rick promises to repeal all federal funding for contraceptives. He is against all forms of birth control, and has added to the world’s burgeoning population an addition four boys and three girls (Karen was one of 12). At the same time he refuses to allow the federal government to assist the poor and diminishing middle class which cannot afford contraceptives and have numerous children who depend on federal funding for food, shelter, energy, and education.

Objecting to secular (state-operated) education, he and his wife began home schooling–and took  $70,000 from the State of Pennsylvania and the Penn Hills School District as required by local and state law. The School District requested most of the money be returned after Rick reported while electioneering that he spent only approximately 30 days in his district and had bought a house in Virginia, Santorum objected.  When the Pittsburgh Gazette-Post protested this abuse of state money, Santorum declared, without substantiation, that he had attempted to have his home owners exemption nullified. 

While there is no proof that Santorum is a member of the nefarious far-right organization Opus Dei, he did bring then-U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) to an Opus Dei priest for conversion from Protestant evangelicalism to Roman Catholicism, the religion of Josemaria Escrivá who endorsed the terrorism and bloodshed of Spain’s dictator Francisco Franco, as seen in his May 28, 1953, letter that reads:

Although alien to any political activity, I cannot help but rejoice as a priest and Spaniard that the Chief of State’s authoritative voice should proclaim that, ‘The Spanish nation considers it a badge of  honor to accept the law of God according to the one and true doctrine of the Holy Catholic Church, inseparable faith of the national conscience which will inspire its legislation. 

Santorum argues against any separation of church and state, claiming that the USA was founded as a Christian nation–even though only five of the original Congress declared themselves as Christians.  Following Gingrich, who proclaims himself an historian, Santorum seeks to win the Jewish vote by claiming, on November 11, 2011, that “All the people that [sic: who] live in the West Bank are Israelis.  They are not Palestinians. There is no Palestinian. This is Israeli land.” (Watch here and read here The Jewish Week.)  

Many Israeli Jews and Jews of other nationalities support the two State solution based on a UN resolution. Santorum’s statement mirrors the views of the Christian Zionists who as Hank Hanegraaff said “defend ethnic cleansing as a divine command” and are “bent on ensuring that the horrors of Armageddon become a self-fulfilling prophecy” (Hanegraaff, Hank (2007). The Apocalypse Code: Find out what the Bible really says about the end-times and why it matters today. Nashville, TN, USA: Thomas Nelson, p. 167; a Spanish edition was published by Thomas Nelson in 2008). 

A further indication of the weakness in Santorum’s education is his proclamation:

“The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American Left who hates Christendom. … ” 

He obviously has not read Robert the Monk’s transcription of Urban II’s speech at Claremont in 1095 calling for a holy war against Islam (the First Crusade).

Not only is Santorum against Palestinians and Muslims, he is also the sworn enemy of members of the LDS Mormons. He wrote for the Philadelphia Inquirer on December 20, 2007:

“Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?”

He argues that homosexuality is a sin, but that priests and bishops (especially Weakland) within the Roman Catholic Church were betrayed by “liberals”–especially in Massachusetts.  His knowledge of Jesus of the New Testament is elementary–lacking any study of Greek, Coptic, Latin or other language that details the story–he relies only on bad English translations.  To make matters worse, he condemns the LGBT community even though the word homosexual does not appear in the language (any) before the end of the nineteenth century and is not used anywhere in the Bible.

Rick and Karen Santorum seek a transmogrification of democracy in the USA in favor of a theocracy.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • progo35

    “The Santorums argue that the parents must protect their children from any dissettlements that could jeopardize the childrens mental health. However, the Santorums took home a 20-week-old dead fetus for their children to play with and kiss, before they buried Gabriel the next day.”

    How dare you. Do you have ANY sense of decency? At all? It’s one thing not to like the Santorum’s policies. It’s another to bring up the death of their child. It’s shameful.

  • person-0

    If they hadn’t publicized that story ad nauseum to attempt to boost their limited appeal. They exploit their own tragedy while desiring to remove the very choice they had from others. Frothy hypocrite deserves what he gets.

  • crowepps

    Considering that they wrote a book about it, gave newspaper interviews about it, talk about it incessantly when interviewed, and try to promote the idea that their hysterical over reaction means they’re extra specially sensitive, it seems unreasonable to try to shame other people for bringing it up.

  • colleen

    So it’s OK if folks in the ‘pro-life’ movement bring up the death of this (aborted) fetus, it’s OK is the Santorums use their dead fetus to score political points amoungst their sick following but it’s ‘undecent’ if someone here mentions it? You know what’s indecent? Passing a dead fetus around to children as young as two. Go sputter somewhere else.

  • jennifer-starr

    Seeing as they’re the ones who originally promoted this story, I don’t feel it’s indecent at all to bring it up.  Nor do I feel any shame in pointing out how very creepy this is.  Something like that would be enough to give me nightmares as an adult–I can’t even imagine what it would do to the kids.

  • progo35

    You’re right, how DARE Karen Santorum write a book about her loss aimed toward helping other bereaved parents: http://www.amazon.com/Letters-Gabriel-Karen-Garver-Santorum/dp/1568145284/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327542741&sr=8-1, or advocate for post-natal hospice care. Christie Brooks and several other women wrote an anthology about their abortions after the diagnosis of fetal anomaly.  http://www.amazon.com/Our-Heartbreaking-Choices-Interrupting-Much-Wanted/dp/0595530478/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327541119&sr=8-1 I guess if she or her husband ever runs for public office, we can bring up her abortion/loss of her daughter and criticize her choice to hold her daughter after delivery and then write about it: http://tfmrinthemedia.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2008-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2009-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=6. After reading the story provided at the aforementioned blog, we can criticize her for making “a dead fetus” part of her family by talking about “it” with her children and hanging a pencil portrait of “it” in her home for her other children to see. Then, we can belittle her theology, point to her work as the moderator of BabyCenter’s TFMR board/editor of the aforementioned anthology and accuse her of using her tragedy to advance her advocacy for the visibility/acceptability of termination based on fetal anomaly. RIGHT?? Oh, wait. That’s just mean. Sorry.

  • colleen

     Passing around a deat fetus to your two year old is not “making it part of the family”.

  • jennifer-starr

    I can understand holding the baby after birth, taking pictures, holding a  memorial service–all of that. When my Uncle’s full-term child died shortly after birth, he took some photos because he didn’t want to forget him–what he’d looked like. And I can understand that.  But bringing his corpse home after he’s already passed, introducing him to your children, sleeping with him, singing songs–all of this AFTER death–I’m sorry, but that’s more than a little creepy. And I think most people would hold that same opinion. 

  • crowepps

    The whole point of the anthology was to try to get the truth out there about late term abortions, and the women writing understood that people  would have opinions about what they did, and there were indeed lots of people who stated that their choices were ‘immoral’, that only continuing the pregnancy until natural delivery or dropping dead was correct, etc.  Geez, Progo, what do you think those people outside Planned Parenthood screaming ‘murderer’ and ‘don’t kill your baby’ are doing if not ‘criticizing the patients’ choices’?

    The problem with sharing the incredibly personal events in your life by writing books about them for political or religious propaganda purposes is that of course people will feel free to criticize.  Those who suffer such tragedies and feel criticism is more than they can handle quite rightly keep their identities and their personal tragedies private because they don’t welcome other people’s opinions.

    The difference between the two groups is that Christie Brooks’ point was ‘each woman has to deal with this together with her family as she best can; have some compassion’ and Santorum’s point was ‘even though I authorized a medically necessary abortion to save my wife’s life, I think the law should be changed so that nobody else can do the same.  God wants you to suffer.’

  • progo35

    http://www.salon.com/2012/01/06/karen_santorum_did_not_have_an_abortion/singleton/#comments

    Salon isn’t exactly a pro life news source. Saying Karen Santorum had an abortion might be a lovely piece of political propoganda for you, but it’s just not true.

  • crowepps

    “Karen said, `We’re not inducing labor, that’s an abortion. No way. That isn’t going to happen. I don’t care what happens.’ ”

    And yet they put her on Picotin, which induces labor.  I would note, the fetus had an anamoly which would mean it couldn’t survive, they attempted a risky fix which did not work, so they did do everything possible.

    The thing you are still missing is that the only reason anybody knows any of the details at all is that the Santorums VOLUNTEERED all of them in an attempt to use their own personal experience to publicize their ProLife religious views and Santorum’s push for an anti-abortion law, both in the book Mrs. Santorum wrote and also in this newspaper article:

    http://articles.philly.com/1997-05-04/news/25562508_1_fetal-abnormality-controversial-late-term-abortion-procedure-intact-dilation-and-extraction

  • progo35

    They DID NOT PUT HER ON PICOTIN. The Salon article SAYS SO.  She said NO to being put on Picodin. You people are just completely baked. You have no ability to appreciate facts beyond your own ideology. It’s disgusting.

  • colleen

    You have no ability to appreciate facts beyond your own ideology. It’s disgusting.

    What a a sterling example of unreflective projection.

  • person-0

    The Salon article referenced a doctor with no first hand knowledge of the case or access to the actual medical records. 

    Why not read her own words about the FACTS? 

  • progo35

    I did, PC. And, I suppose that you, having no firsthand knowledge yourself, are more qualified to make a judgement about what happened than a OBGYN with knowledge on the topic of pregnancy and abortion? Please.

  • progo35

    “The physician I spoke to strongly disputed that characterization of what was at stake. “She did not have an induction of labor,” the doctor said. “She was in spontaneous labor because of the severe infection. The use of antibiotics in no way augments labor nor does it initiate contractions in any way, shape or form.” In fact, sometimes the opposite is true, and antibiotics can help forestall labor.”-Irwin Cameron.

    Nowhere does the article mention her being given picotin, so you made that up, Crowepps. Please provide a reputable source that proves she was given picotin.

    And, as you say, we only have their account of the event to go on. This does not give you and yours the right to weave  your own assumptions into that story. THAT IS WHY SUCH TRAGEDIES SHOULD STAY OUT OF POLITICAL DEBATE.Rick Santorum’s mentioning of the issue in regard to intact dialation and extraction has very little relevance to anything he’s said recently. Moreover, the article establishes that she WENT INTO LABOR NATURALLY and that the Rick Santorum supports abortion exceptions to save the life of pregnant women who are facing emergencies like those faced by his wife. So, nothing the Santorums did in 1996 contradicts that position.  Karen Santorum wrote a book about her experiences. During his political campaign, Rick Santorum mentioned “losing a child.” That is the extent to which they have “used” their tragedy or talked about it from a political perspective. At no point during his presidential campaign has Rick Santorum made a political statement that is directly tied to Gabriel, so there is no basis for bringing up that tragedy other then sheer cruelty and political expediency.

  • person-0

     

    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.

  • progo35

    From ABC etc? Need an actual link, man. Otherwise it’s just your word.

  • progo35

    Moreover, what you just said STILL ESTABLISHES that she was IN LABOR ALREADY. That is not the same as willfully inducing birth when someone is NOT already in labor.

  • person-0

    Use it.

  • crowepps

    You’re ignoring the newpaper interview, which was given by Santorum to support his ProLife credentials and get out the sympathy vote during his previous campaign.  They are the ones who dragged this whole issue into politics, just as they are the ones who talk about their disabled child to explain their political position on the health care laws.  Santorum has indeed brought this up, during discussions of how other women in the same circumstances should be required to wait until they were suffering a massive infection before being ‘allowed’ to get appropriate medical care for their nonviable fetus.

    My opinion is that all of these personal circumstances are indeed irrelevant, except insofar as ANY person running for office shouldn’t be able to use their own personal or family experience with rape, miscarriage, abortion, a disabled child or anything else as the basis for why they think the laws should REQUIRE everybody else to do the same thing, because at that point, at the ‘this is what the law should FORCE on everyone else’, basing a legal template on a personal tragedy means it is not and should not be immunize from criticism.  If people want to keep their personal life private, the first step is to stop blabbing about it in interviews on television.

  • ack

    My opinion is that all of these personal circumstances are indeed irrelevant, except insofar as ANY person running for office shouldn’t be able to use their own personal or family experience with rape, miscarriage, abortion, a disabled child or anything else as the basis for why they think the laws should REQUIRE everybody else to do the same thing, because at that point, at the ‘this is what the law should FORCE on everyone else’, basing a legal template on a personal tragedy means it is not and should not be immunize from criticism

     

    I think this point bears repeating, and also a widening of the lens. I don’t think that people who made a choice in the context of their own experience should be in a position to outlaw that choice for others because they regretted theirs. (I’m sure crowepps would agree, but I had to say it.) Removing abortion from the discussion, legislators who are also rape survivors shouldn’t feel entitled to require a police report for a forensic exam, even if they regretted not filing a report.

     

    People who undergo trauma like rape and intimate partner violence sometimes become judgemental of the choices of other victims. It makes a lot of sense; everyone wants to think that they dealt with it “right,” even though there isn’t any “right” way to deal with it. “Right” is absence of the crime. But just as there’s no right way to deal with it, there’s no wrong way, either. There are certainly unhealthy ways, but they’re not wrong.

     

    Regarding legislation, the people I listen to are the ones who say the equivalent of, “I made this choice. It was right for me. You make the choice for you.”

    or

    “I made this choice. I regret it. But I can’t make that choice for you.”

  • crowepps

    You make a good point, but mine was much narrower.  I think it’s pretty normal for someone to ASSUME that everybody else who shares their experience probably had the same KIND of experience, however untrue that assumption may be.

    The thing I find problematic is for somebody to say ‘I was raped and therefore I think the law should be XX’, and then when someone else responds, ‘your rape doesn’t define all rape and other people have different experiences and may need different solutions’, then people say ‘it’s outrageous that you’re disrespecting a rape victim!  You’re abusive!  You’re horrible!  The fact that the person was raped means that their statement is not open to discussion even by another rape victim.’  No cross talk may work in 12 Step groups, it doesn’t work making laws.

    Also, personally, I find it difficult to deal with people who say ‘Because of my personal experiences I am an advocate about XX’ and then when someone says, ‘I think you may be defining XX entirely by your own experience and leaving out YY’, they get all hysterical and say ‘how dare you disagree with me!  You hate me!  You hate all people that are/have experienced XX!  You’re a bigoted racist/sexist/ableist/baby killer/etc.!’

    I understand that people who have undergone traumatic or unique experiences have special insights that are very valuable to society in trying to eliminate/alleviate/compensate for those experiences.  Unfortunately, the contribution those special insights could make will be lost if the advocates can’t bear the stress of actually discussing what they mean, and instead present them as faith testimonies or nonnegotiable demands.

  • progo35

    My God, PC. Yes, totally: whenever I want to establish the veracity of something, I totally go by whatever comes up on a google search. Your response shows that you have no sources to back up your statments, so you want me to verify them for you. Sorry, not gonna do it.

  • person-0

    that offered an opinion from someone who had no firsthand knowledge of or involvement with the case? Hahaha – the irony burns!

    Hundreds of hits from national news outlets and articles written about the frothy fecal matter are all there for the taking. But there are none so blind as those who will not see.

    The NY Times mag 2005 article and ABC news are among the many valid sources indicating the use of pitocin. We’ll never know the whole truth because medical records are private, as they should be, but these people brought this publicity on themselves and should be vilified for wanting to deny others the choice they had. Hypocrisy in its purest form…

    Don’t lose too much sleep over it though. Santorum (google that too, while you’re at it) never had a chance and he’ll be gone soon enough.