Santorum to jump into Texas abortion ban battle
July 9th, 2013
08:18 AM ET
1 year ago

Santorum to jump into Texas abortion ban battle

(CNN) – Rick Santorum's heading to Texas to put his support behind a controversial bill that would ban most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

According to a press release obtained by CNN that will be sent later Tuesday, Santorum will hold a news conference Thursday morning at the Texas state capitol in Austin.

Abortion has long been an important issue for the former senator from Pennsylvania and 2012 Republican presidential candidate. While in the Senate, Santorum was a leader in the efforts to pass anti-abortion legislation, including the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

"Rick is going to Austin this week to join those in giving a voice to the unborn," Republican strategist and senior Santorum adviser John Branbender told CNN.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry called state lawmakers into a special session to try to once again pass a controversial bill that would ban most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The measure was sidetracked by a filibuster two weeks ago by Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis that grabbed national headlines.

The push in Texas comes after other states have passed such bans in recent years, including Nebraska, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Indiana and Alabama. Arkansas has a ban in place for pregnancies beyond 18 weeks, and North Dakota has the tightest restriction in the country at six weeks, when a fetal heartbeat can be detected.

The press release regarding Santorum's event comes from Patriot Voices, his grassroots conservative non-profit organization. According to Patriot Voices, the group recently launched a petition "that has garnered thousands of signatures asking Americans to stand with life."

The press release also states that Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, as well as state anti-abortion leaders, will join Santorum at his event in Austin.

Santorum, who battled eventual GOP 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney deep into last year's Republican primary season, is considering a 2016 bid for the White House.

Politico was first to report Santorum's event in Texas.

– CNN's Ashley Killough contributed to this report.


Filed under: Abortion • Rick Santorum • Texas
soundoff (120 Responses)
  1. Rudy NYC

    just askin

    Rudy NYC
    I guess you do not believe in the 1st Amendment, which defines that The People shall have freedom OF religion and the government shall have freedom FROM religion.

    well rudy appears to have gone off the deep end.... just where in the constitution does it say the government shall have freedom from religion? it doesn't say it so please stop lying.
    ---------------–
    Learn how to read. I clearly stated that it is in the 1st Amendment. I also did not quote the Amendment, either, but I will now.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    July 9, 2013 12:36 pm at 12:36 pm |
  2. just sayin

    rs
    Murder is not a "belief". No human being has the right to murder another one, especially an innocent, helpless baby.
    If the baby is far enough along to survive outside of the womb, then it is murder. Women need to start accepting responsibility for their actions and stop murdering their babies under the false pretense of "healthcare".
    ________________________
    You need to grasp just how breathtakingly radical the notion is that grown women need to be have their rights held hostage by their uterus- and your somewhat sick desire to legislate what happens there.
    --

    you need to grasp just how breathtakingly radical the notion is that an innocent little baby needs to be have their right to survive held hostage by their mother – and your somewhat sick desire to murder that baby under false pretense.

    July 9, 2013 12:39 pm at 12:39 pm |
  3. Rudy NYC

    Fair is Fair wrote:

    ..... Yes, there are rare instances where the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother, and I doubt you'll find very many of us on the pro-life side that would object to the procedure in such instances.
    --------------------
    You don't seem to understand that the Texas law, like so many others, seeks to ban ALL abortions after a set time frame. That exception for when the mother's life is at risk that you're talking about is not permitted.

    July 9, 2013 12:41 pm at 12:41 pm |
  4. Thomas

    Rick Santorum has how many children ?

    In this day and age , why ?

    We need to talk more about education , family planing , responsibility .
    I'm so tired of men like him telling others how to live there lives .

    Nobody wants to abort a baby , it's very emotional , a very hard decision .
    Rick Santorum is not God !

    July 9, 2013 12:41 pm at 12:41 pm |
  5. Faithful Catholic

    Hmmm and what happens when one of these "innocents" ends up on Death Row? Profetus are then dying to execute them.

    July 9, 2013 12:43 pm at 12:43 pm |
  6. Eric Matthaei

    The body inside a woman's body is NOT her body. If it were HER body, there wouldn't be anyone trying to limit access to abortion.

    The fact that a baby is not part of his mother's body is not discerned by divine revelation. It is a matter of observation, which is to say, it is a matter of science. Those who portray the pro-life position as a purely religious point of view dishonor themselves.

    July 9, 2013 12:44 pm at 12:44 pm |
  7. truth hurts but reality bites

    Lynda/Minnesota
    -–
    "Women need to start accepting responsibility for their actions and stop murdering their babies under the false pretense of "healthcare"."
    -–
    Humanity needs to first accept responsibility for the unwanted children already born BEFORE humanity can accept responsibility for those in the womb. It would also be an appropriate first step for humanity to keep its collective nose out of their neighbors "business". Whether I agree or not with abortion as murdering little babies is not the issue. The issue is whether I have the right to point fingers and tell my neighbor what I think is "right" for them based on my religious morals. It is not for me to save the world. From my perspective, one who has a great deal more Authority and Power than I will ever have, has already taken care of the salvation of mankind.
    ---

    Well that is a very interesting point of view coming from a leftist that wants to regulate and control almost every other aspect of our lives. So it sounds like you want to keep your nose out of your neighbors business when he decides he wants to buy a firearm without having to go through a strip search, right?

    So what we have here is the far left telling everybody that they can do whatever they like but then turn around and regulate everybody else on every other topic they find offensive. Total dishonesty and hypocrisy from the left, as usual.

    July 9, 2013 12:45 pm at 12:45 pm |
  8. Fair is Fair

    Hey men – there's thsee inexpensive little things out there called condoms. They're known to prevent pregnamcy. USE ONE.

    Hey women – there's this inexpensive little thing out there called "the pill". They're known to prevent pregnancy. USE THEM. Or at the very least, tell your man "no glove, no love".

    That would go A LONG WAY to resolving this tragedy.

    July 9, 2013 12:46 pm at 12:46 pm |
  9. just askin

    Rudy NYC
    just askin
    Rudy NYC
    I guess you do not believe in the 1st Amendment, which defines that The People shall have freedom OF religion and the government shall have freedom FROM religion.

    well rudy appears to have gone off the deep end.... just where in the constitution does it say the government shall have freedom from religion? it doesn't say it so please stop lying.
    -----–
    Learn how to read. I clearly stated that it is in the 1st Amendment. I also did not quote the Amendment, either, but I will now.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
    -–

    ok, education time for rudy. the amendments are considered part of the constitution. now, just where are the words "and the government shall have freedom FROM religion" which you stated were there?

    the first amendment states the government shall not establish a state religion or interfere with the establishment of any religion or the practicing of that relgion. it is protection for the people and their relgion, not for the government. you really need to get educated.

    July 9, 2013 12:51 pm at 12:51 pm |
  10. Dallas

    Just what we need here in Texas, another whack job! Stay home Rick – we have enough loonies here without adding you to the mix. Your 18th century mentality is not welcome here in the Lone Star State.

    July 9, 2013 12:54 pm at 12:54 pm |
  11. rs

    just sayin

    rs
    Murder is not a "belief". No human being has the right to murder another one, especially an innocent, helpless baby.
    If the baby is far enough along to survive outside of the womb, then it is murder. Women need to start accepting responsibility for their actions and stop murdering their babies under the false pretense of "healthcare".
    ________________________
    You need to grasp just how breathtakingly radical the notion is that grown women need to be have their rights held hostage by their uterus- and your somewhat sick desire to legislate what happens there.

    you need to grasp just how breathtakingly radical the notion is that an innocent little baby needs to be have their right to survive held hostage by their mother – and your somewhat sick desire to murder that baby under false pretense.
    ________________________
    so, just to call you out- you feel women deserve lower rights status than men or zygotes,and should not rights over what happens in or to their own bodies, is that correct? Welcome to the 1800s. Next stop maybe the Inquisition.

    July 9, 2013 12:58 pm at 12:58 pm |
  12. PaulCat

    What about guns? They kill the ones that are already born. Are we going to take them away? I DON'T THINK SO! So what's the different?

    July 9, 2013 12:58 pm at 12:58 pm |
  13. Lynda/Minnesota

    "Well that is a very interesting point of view coming from a leftist that wants to regulate and control almost every other aspect of our lives. So it sounds like you want to keep your nose out of your neighbors business when he decides he wants to buy a firearm without having to go through a strip search, right?"

    Well, this is very humorous coming from someone who hasn't quite gotten the talking points mantra down. Strip searches? Nah. I would never support strip searches for firearm purchases. There is simply no need. As a gun owner myself, I am ONLY interested in gun safety. For those who own guns and for those who purchase guns.

    July 9, 2013 12:59 pm at 12:59 pm |
  14. Fair is Fair

    Rudy NYC

    Fair is Fair wrote:

    ..... Yes, there are rare instances where the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother, and I doubt you'll find very many of us on the pro-life side that would object to the procedure in such instances.
    ------–
    You don't seem to understand that the Texas law, like so many others, seeks to ban ALL abortions after a set time frame. That exception for when the mother's life is at risk that you're talking about is not permitted.
    -------
    YOU LIE (again), Rudy. Directly from the Huffington Post (hardly a conservative website) -

    "Additionally, this bill does permit a woman to have an abortion up to the fifth month of her pregnancy, allows an abortion when the mother’s life is at risk or substantial physical impairment is possible, and does not stop a mother from aborting her child on the prejudice of severe fetal abnormalities".

    July 9, 2013 01:00 pm at 1:00 pm |
  15. The Elephant In The Room

    Let's stop pretyending . . . both MEN and women like to get busy, otherwise it wouldn't happen. It isn't intellectually honest for Wisconsin, Virginia, etc., to try to demonize women for taking the undesrable step to have an abortion in the case of an unwanted orbunplanned pregnancy.

    If men carried the baby and where societally expected to care for them for 20 years, these largely male legislatures & governors would have a different agenda. For those "Christian pro-lifers" who decry destroying something God created, I point this out. When women masturbate, their eggs [according to them, God created instruments of "life"] are not destroyed. When men masturbate, MILLIONS of sperm [the other half of life initiating matterials] are destroyed. So, why wouldn't Christian evangelics lock up all the males that, well, you know.

    July 9, 2013 01:03 pm at 1:03 pm |
  16. Rudy NYC

    truth hurts ..... wrote:

    Well that is a very interesting point of view coming from a leftist that wants to regulate and control almost every other aspect of our lives. So it sounds like you want to keep your nose out of your neighbors business when he decides he wants to buy a firearm without having to go through a strip search, right?
    ---------------------–
    Strip search for a firearm?

    "The worst enemies of enduring freedom for all may be certain folk who demand incessantly more liberty for themselves." –historian Russell Kirk (1918-1994)

    Sounds like he's talking about the slippery slope wing of the pro-gun crowd that says there are no limits on the 2nd Amendment.

    July 9, 2013 01:05 pm at 1:05 pm |
  17. diane

    Then STOP CLOSING planned parenthoods clinics were we can purchase our birth control!!!

    July 9, 2013 01:08 pm at 1:08 pm |
  18. NameScott

    Nothing will touch her she's our next president

    July 9, 2013 01:10 pm at 1:10 pm |
  19. rs

    Fair is Fair

    Rudy NYC

    Fair is Fair wrote:

    ..... Yes, there are rare instances where the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother, and I doubt you'll find very many of us on the pro-life side that would object to the procedure in such instances.
    --–
    You don't seem to understand that the Texas law, like so many others, seeks to ban ALL abortions after a set time frame. That exception for when the mother's life is at risk that you're talking about is not permitted.
    ---
    YOU LIE (again), Rudy. Directly from the Huffington Post (hardly a conservative website) -

    "Additionally, this bill does permit a woman to have an abortion up to the fifth month of her pregnancy, allows an abortion when the mother’s life is at risk or substantial physical impairment is possible, and does not stop a mother from aborting her child on the prejudice of severe fetal abnormalities".
    ______________________________
    Too bad the law also closes 85% of women's clinics in Texas, essentially making that case of abortion unobtaiable to many female citizens in Texas. Face it, this is the very radical establishment of authority by the government over women, their rights, and their relationship with their docytor/health provider in the name of quasi-religious beliefs and values. Please be honest about this.

    July 9, 2013 01:10 pm at 1:10 pm |
  20. rs

    If the so-called "Christian" Right wish to preserve all of God's creation with their intrusive and radical laws, why are they so hell-fire happy to destroy our own environment?

    July 9, 2013 01:12 pm at 1:12 pm |
  21. Rudy NYC

    just askin wrote:

    ok, education time for rudy. the amendments are considered part of the constitution. now, just where are the words "and the government shall have freedom FROM religion" which you stated were there?

    the first amendment states the government shall not establish a state religion or interfere with the establishment of any religion or the practicing of that relgion. it is protection for the people and their relgion, not for the government. you really need to get educated.
    --------------------
    I see, so like Rick Santorum, you do not believe in the separation of church and state. Because that is where the Constitution defines the government shall not make any law respecting an establishment of religion. It is both. It defines freedom of religion for the people, and freedom from religion for the government.

    I cannot believe that I'm having an argument about whether or not the Constitution establishes separation of church and state.

    July 9, 2013 01:16 pm at 1:16 pm |
  22. rs

    Fair is Fair

    Hey men – there's thsee inexpensive little things out there called condoms. They're known to prevent pregnamcy. USE ONE.

    Hey women – there's this inexpensive little thing out there called "the pill". They're known to prevent pregnancy. USE THEM. Or at the very least, tell your man "no glove, no love".

    That would go A LONG WAY to resolving this tragedy.
    ___________________
    IF you believed that, you would not support a bill that closes 85% of the women's clinics in Texas where poorer mena and women get their contraceptives, and medical advice, nor would you support a bill that call for ending any sex education in the public schools, nor would you support a bill that let's employers skate on providing contraceptive health care covererage because of their "religious" beliefs.

    July 9, 2013 01:17 pm at 1:17 pm |
  23. Rudy NYC

    ""Additionally, this bill does permit a woman to have an abortion up to the fifth month of her pregnancy, allows an abortion when the mother’s life is at risk or substantial physical impairment is possible, and does not stop a mother from aborting her child on the prejudice of severe fetal abnormalities".""

    If that is the case, then I stand corrected. Some states are trying to ban all abortions. I think Arkansas is one of them.

    July 9, 2013 01:21 pm at 1:21 pm |
  24. just sayin

    what is all this hogwash about closing planned parenthood clinics and closing other clinics? all they need to do is comply with the law, just like all other businesses that government regulates. if lefties were truly interested in the life and health of the mother, they should have no problem with this. but it appears their deceit becomes obvious when they oppose it. their primary, actually only concern, is with the destruction of that very little innocent human baby. so what if the mother bleeds and dies in the process. it is a small price to pay for "healthcare choice".

    July 9, 2013 01:28 pm at 1:28 pm |
  25. Fair is Fair

    rs

    "Too bad the law also closes 85% of women's clinics in Texas."
    ------
    Not germane to the post, rs. Rudy explicitly stated that the Texas law, and I quote, "seeks to ban ALL abortions after a set time frame. That exception for when the mother's life is at risk that you're talking about is not permitted."

    That is a blatant, outright, LIE... just like most of the dung he peddles on this site.

    July 9, 2013 01:35 pm at 1:35 pm |
1 2 3 4 5