Santorum on his wife: “She’s my hero…”


One of the highlights of tonight’s GOP debate in Florida, on CNN, from Sen. Rick Santorum.  Each candidate was asked why his wife would be a good first lady.

WOLF BLITZER: Senator Santorum, your wife is not here tonight.

SANTORUM: Yeah, she’s not. She’s — she’s doing what she does incredibly well, which is to be a mother to our seven children. And she is — she’s my hero. She’s someone who has been, you know, well- educated. She was a neo-natal intensive care nurse for nine years at one of the most advanced nurseries in the — in the country.

She went on to, because she saw all these ethical challenges there, so she went on and got a law degree so she could — she could deal with those in the — in the legal world.

And then when she got married, she gave that up; she walked away and walked into something that she felt called to do, which was to be a mom and to be a wife. And we’ve — we’ve had eight children. We are blessed to be raising seven. We’ve been through a lot together, losing a child, having a child with a disability that we have now, our little Bella.

And the — the amount of love for these special kids is just palpable in her.

She wrote a book about our son that we lost called “Letters to Gabriel,” about that ordeal that we went through. That book, that little book has saved countless — I don’t — we know of at least hundreds of lives that were saved because people read that book and realized that the child they we’re carrying had the dignity to be love and nurtured irrespective of what malady may have — may have befallen that baby in the womb. And so many children were born and are alive today because of that book.

She’s also written a book on manners. That’s something that I — I — we have seven children, so we know that kids are not born good. And…

(LAUGHTER)

… and so manners is very important in our house. And she wrote a storybook because there were all sorts of how-to books on manners but there was no storybook, teaching manners through, well, how Christ taught us, through stories. And — and that’s what she did. And that book has hopefully somewhat civilized some children around this country.

  • Mark

    Santorum best moment in the entire campaign. Also his best overall debate. I think he truly exposed Romney for what he is and that is a big government liberal. Of course he would look like an ultra conservative next to Obama, but he is much more RINO.

    Also the Romney attack on Newt and his Reagan connections are falling apart. New video showing nancy Reagan touting that the Reagan conservative torch which Goldwater passed to Reagan and which Reagan had now passed on to Newt Gingrich is going to put that to rest to anyone paying attention. Anyone who knows Nancy Reagan is well aware of how much she protected Ronald Reagans back from any attack, inside or out. Also Michael Reagan has come out strongly denying that there was zero truth to any of this garbage. Finally is the video being released showing a younger and liberal Romney saying in debate he does not advocate or support any thought of a Reagan type of solution to problems.

  • Mark LaVergne

    Deacon, thanks for sharing this. It’s a beautiful, heartfelt tribute by a would-be President towards their spouse. Very sincere. Imagine how delighted his wife and all her relatives must be feeling tonight.

    Didn’t get to see the debate (though I taped it), but most online commentary I saw pegged Santorum as the overall winner with Romney a close second. Will Santorum become President? Not likely if the pundits are to be believed. If so, there must be some role for him — some way for him to continue to be an advocate — after this election cycle is over. Agree with the man’s politics or not, he seems decent.

  • Commander Craig

    Naming the last child Bella references the best pro-life film ever made.

  • Kevin

    And he did without a teleprompter.

  • Mary

    Wow! Rick Santorum’s comment about his wife being his hero was the highlight of the evening for me. Santorum is real and decent. He is unlikely to get the Republican nomination because of his position on gay “marriage” which would not be popular with independents. But who knows? He could be the come-from-behind winner. I know that I am fed up with Gingrich’s and Romney’s attacks on one another; maybe others will feel the same.

  • Klaire

    I’ve posted here before that many of the journalists have been commenting on exaclty this issue: what a truly decent man Santorum is, with a disclaimer that they don’t support his policies one iota. I think that says a lot. I’m not quite sure what did at the Citadel in SC the night before the SC election, but it showed his true colors of integrity and character.

    I posted late last night (not sure where the post went, but not here), that I predict Santorum will win the nomination, if for no other reasons that like Mary points out, Romney and Gingrich are going to grind each other to a pulp, with the only person being left to nominate, short of a brokered convention, will be Santorum. He should be looking pretty good right about then.

    Say what you want about him, but he’s the real deal, and we know what we will get; conservative socially and rock solid to his core, a true man of character.

    The Santorum Family in the White House would be just what America needs, a beautiful faith filled family, and a first lady who like her own family, will put the American Family first.

    If as I suspect Divine Intervention is on his side,

  • ron chandonia

    It was a wonderful answer to a question that was evidently intended to spotlight Newt Gingrich’s failings as a husband. But it also raised for me a nagging question about the connection–or the disconnect–between the personal character and the policy preferences of so many of our public figures. When it comes to marriage and family life, I believe Rick Santorum embodies our Catholic ideals. Many Catholics in the blogosphere not only seem to agree, but then leap to the conclusion that Santorum’s policy preferences must also be in line with our Catholic sensibilities. In the area of immigration, however, and in his generally hard-line approach to foreign policy, Santorum is clearly at odds with both the Vatican and the bishops of the United States. Last night he repeatedly made it clear that while he may be a child of God, he is hardly a peacemaker. I am left wondering why the compassion and solidarity so evident in his family life are so poorly reflected in the stands he takes in the public arena.

  • Deacon Greg Kandra

    While watching the debate last night, my wife made the following observation about Santorum: “He seems like a good guy, but man, he wants to get into a WAR with EVERYBODY!.”

    She’s partial to Paul.

    Dcn. G.

  • Henry Karlson

    Interestingly enough, people are ignoring this:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087812/Rick-Santorums-wife-Karen-love-affair-abortion-doctor.html

    Now, it is nice he has a close tie with his wife. However, if this news report was about President Obama’s wife’s relationship with an abortion doctor, don’t you think the report would be all over that on certain sites?

  • Will

    I am glad he loves and respects his wife.

    However, after reading the proposals at his website, I could only see about (roughly) 20% there that I could support.

  • kevin

    Henry, uh, no I don’t. Interesting that you would dig that up and post it here. Maybe you can search the net and find out who Obama’s drug dealer was when he was in college, the one who provided his cocaine.

  • Klaire

    Henry, you of all people should know that we were all young and stupid once. By God’s grace, we move forward in life, allowing the life we now live to be the indicator of who we are and have become by God’s grace.

    I don’t care if Karen Santorum was an abortion doc in her early years. The reality is now she is a devout Catholic women, mother, and great defender of human life and the Catholic Church.

    For your argument to have any merit, would mean to strip God of His mercy. Shame on you for that. Maybe even the lame MSM knows that much.

    And for the record, since you brought it up, Michelle Obama is an ardent supporter of abortion, often giving rally speeches at planned parenthood. Interestingly, the MSM doesn’t report that either.

  • Deacon Greg Kandra

    Is this what we have come to?

    Investigating and exploiting the dating history of candidate’s wives from 20 years ago?

    Really?

  • Mike K

    This is one of the reasons I decided to take my career in a different direction. Reacting to the latest scandals and newspaper/news magazine exclusives that dug into people’s lives (past and current) and had little to do with the person in question at the time you were actually covering them became tiring (plus, as a radio journalist, the money wasn’t the best, but I digress…).

    This thought just hit me: all this crap is selfishness, envy or pride – or a combination of the three (possibly all three). A candidate and/or their supporters are so intent on winning that they’ll destroy their opponents rather than accept that someone else might be better than them, and lose graciously. Or they’re so intent on pacifying certain groups that they’ll go against their own conscience and/or their constituents’ wishes/consciences.

    As Deacon Greg said, is this what we’ve come to?

  • Henry Karlson

    People didn’t get my point — however, let’s make it simple. I’ve seen such “guilt by association” in the past — “Oh, look at what his wife did, and he thinks highly of her?” You will see quite a bit of that happened against President Clinton with his wife. However, when it is pointed out that the shoe is on the other foot, all these complaints come up. It demonstrates the double-standard. I know full well if Michelle had been shacked up with an abortionist for years before meeting President Obama, that would have been a big story in many circles. But if it is a GOPer the question becomes, “How dare you?” Yet, if you look further into the story, there are legs here. This is the woman he looks up to. Good, he looks up to his wife. But read the full story and what it details about her character and his. Yes, people change, however, again, this story has legs once you look into it. So once again, I point out the hypocritical double-standard. That’s all.

  • http://themightyambivalentcatholic.blogspot.com/ Steve

    Kevin, I’m guessing the point of Henry’s comment was not that Mrs. Santorum is now (or was at another time) an awful person. Rather, he asked whether people wouldn’t be foaming at the mouth if those facts were part of the Obama family history rather than Santorum’s. Many people on the right — including some people who like to call themselves Christians — love to demonize Barack Obama. They stop just ten feet shy of calling him Hitler reincarnated, Stalin in a good suit, the antichrist. Yet those same folks are often very forgiving when the folks involved are conservatives. Those folks (even Newt) are given free reign to speak to the rest of the country about what good family values look like. (Newt recently told gay couples — yeah, including those folks who have been together longer than all three of his marriages combined — that they are terribly immoral people, pagans. Seriously. Newt said that. And other flawed conservatives also see nothing wrong with lecturing Americans on how immoral some of those Americans are.) The right-wing should stop spreading hatred toward the president. And those of us who are on liberals or moderates should not take delight in digging up very old dirt on folks on the right.

  • Deacon Greg Kandra

    I’d appreciate some concrete examples, please.

    Other examples, perhaps, of private behavior by Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama from 20 or 30 years ago — before they met their husbands — and how that behavior attracted subsequent attention or criticism.

  • Henry Karlson

    Look to the media and how the report on Mrs Clinton’s studies. There were all kinds of discussions about Hillary during the elections and used to show how President Clinton is all kinds of evil. Are you seriously saying this didn’t happen; that there had not been constant criticism of Mrs Clinton’s youth when President Clinton was running into office?

    How about “The Lady Macbeth of Little Rock; Hillary Clinton’s hard-left past and present” by Daniel Wattenberg in the American Spectator, August 1992?

    http://www.unz.org/Publication/AmSpectator-1992aug-00025

  • Henry Karlson

    Exactly right.

  • Kevin

    Henry, any luck tracking down the One’s drug dealer?

  • Deacon Greg Kandra

    The criticism involved Hillary’s very public leftist leanings, beginning with her college commencement address.

    I’m not aware of people criticizing her, decades later, for people she dated before she got married, or for actions involving her private life.

  • daisy

    Sentimental slop won’t win the election. The sooner Mr. Santorum goes home to his wife and kids the better.

  • Klaire

    FWIW, I loathe Obama politics. But if the day ever comes, that either Michelle or Barrack “walk the walk” and it “matches with the talk”, well at least the earlier talk, I would among the first to point it out and acknowledge them.

    That’s what it’s all about Henry, praying and witnessing the transformation.

    One more thing. It’s rather persumptious to assume Karen S “shaked up” prior to marriage, especially considering both her age and her faith. Also, she was a nurse, and nurses are always around doctors. I have more doctor friends than you can shake a stick at (albeit I’m not a nurse), and some of them now do research on embryos. So does that now make me evil?

  • Mark

    No Henry, it seems from posts from Deacon he certainly got your point. Clinton was questioned because she did things like make 100K in one day and did not have a good answer for it. There was all kinds of dealings down in Arkansas with the Clintons and paperword seemed to disappear. When there are questions about how a governor acted while in office and now is asking to become president, these type of questions make sense. What a potential first lady did before she even met the one running a couple decades ago is not relevent.

  • cathyf

    I’m be a lot more concerned about whether Mrs. Santorum is still in Regnum Christi. After the revelations of the last three years, anyone who would choose to stay in RC needs cult deprogramming.

  • Mark

    lets see how Henry thinks here on what is equal.

    One person not even running, but married to a candidate, is supposed to have had an affair when she was 21 years old and it was before she even met her husband. Since she has been married and had kids, her views and moral charachter have vastly improved. There has been zero scandal with her or her husband. This is on one side. Henry and his buddy Steve however believe this is someone just as bad or equivalent to:

    A candidate himself who while in office in Illinois fight to allow babies who survive their first murder attempt to be legally attacked and killed outside the womb lying there as a fully born infant. he by the way said he still supports that position.

    Guys, one is trash and the other involves policy that the candidate themselves has as part of their voting record and still supports.

    It is because of Obama radical policies and positions and his outright distortions and lies that he is called out for people to see in the light of day.

    As to Hitler, one could certain make a point that the support of the holocaust of 54 million innocent babies by the Democratic Party is somehow comparible to the 6 million Jews “legally according to German Law” should at least be compared if not outright condemned. Obama has his name attached to the number one abortion mill planned parenthood site as their PARTNER along with the other democratic ALLIES in congress. It would be like the death camps having a website and listing Hitler as their Partner and the Nazi’s as allies. I did not put it on the planned parenthood abortion mill site. Its right there with their bashing of Republicans for fighting their moves to kill more babies.

    I note the leftist here never have tried to defend that PARTNER status and I have provided the link multiple times.

    So hope you are proud Henry and Steve of your find on a 21 year old girl mistakes. Not my site, but this is something that would certainly deserve thought about if I wanted this type of posting. My wife Greta was banned from here and I do not have an issue with that for it is Deacon’s site, but if I look back to a comparison to this trash, it raises questions. Personally, I find Deacon very fair and think a site is better when someone is not posting what Deacon thinks is right or fair.

  • Mark

    Cathyf, Pope Benedict saw something of value in Regnum Christi organization for he appointed Archbishop Velasio De Paolis as pontifical delegateto help guide the congregation of the Legionaries of Christ through a process of revision and renewal a couple years ago. Based on your post, would you suggest that because Thomas Jefferson had slaves that the United States should end and all citizens need cult deprogramming? My wife Greta knows a number of people in that organziation and was pleased to see them this past weekend in Washington marching for life while the president was busy attacking religious freedom. Archbishop De Paolis is doing a wonderful job with that organization which was 99% excellent in regard to Catholic teaching but had a flawed leader we now know was a sinner in many ways.

  • Mark

    Don’t know about that. Sentamental lying slop won the last electin with Change.

  • Mark

    Henry has lined up OJ to help him with that search for the real bad guys.

  • sjay

    You’re the one that’s interested — you do it.

  • http://themightyambivalentcatholic.blogspot.com/ Steve

    Mark, I’m not certain, but I suspect you did not read my post (or Henry’s) all the way through or carefully. Please at least read the last two sentences of my post, even if you do not wish to read the rest. I encouraged moderates and liberals (I’m in there somewhere) to NOT take delight in finding ancient faults in folks on the right.

    However, you choose in your response to confirm my suggestion that some on the right do indeed enjoy demonizing this president. You evidently see only evil in him. I suspect God is more generous in his view of us than in our view of each other. Most of us — myself included, certainly — sometimes like to cast those on the other side of the fence as operating from the worst possible motives. Barack Obama is the one person that some on the right cannot seem to fathom is also God’s beloved creation. They do not, or are not willing to believe, that God loves Barack Obama as much as God loves every other human being on this earth. The hatred that gets propogated by some on the right results in a serious distoriton of basic Christian doctrine. And that’s at least as sad as whatever might be Mr. Obama’s worst human flaw. (And yes, Mark, he does have them. Like you and me both, he is a sinner. But not without worth before God and his brothers and sisters — us.)

  • Thomas R

    That’s mean, but I have to admit for me his tribute to his wife went on a bit too long for me. I mean I’m happy for him and his marriage, but somehow in a debate it seemed odd to me. Maybe almost too intimate or something.

  • Barbara P

    I have to say that I find offensive the repeated posts by Mark/Greta equating Hitler with a woman or girl who believes she is in a difficult place whether by rape or health or age or whatever and goes ahead with an abortion because she is not at a place where trust in God comes easy. Yes she should not have had an abortion but forging ahead into such an uncertain future where so much will be required of you is not easy and we should pray for people when they fail in faith not compare them to Hitler. With the exception of John, the apostles failed in faith too once when the situation became difficult. The lack of sensitivty to the very real struggle that many girls and women go through makes me belief that Mark/Greta does not look at these girls/women through the eyes of Christ. By the way, that is not a typo, I used the singular tense on purpose.

  • Barbara P

    belief is a typo – it should be believe

  • Mike R

    Amazing stuff from Henry, et al. You say if Republicans commited wrong or mistaken past acts they would not see the light. Conversely, if a Dem did it, it would immediately be all over the MSM. Why is it then that the ONLY stories that have hit the MSM this year have been on Republican candidate issues? Quite honestly, looking at transgressions from the past mean much less to me than a candidate or Presidents current moral compass. This POTUS and his First Lady have served notice that they are radically anti-life and that is much more an issue than what any candidate may or may not have done years ago.

  • Mike R

    Odd that praising your wife, putting her on a pedestal and proclaiming her worth and value as a mother is “sentimental slop”. It really shows just how disingenous NOW and other feminists are.

  • sjay

    Well, there’s only one Democratic candidate this year. And certainly, in some quarters, his and his wife’s alleged transgressions are subjected to endless and apparently fruitless review. As for current moral compasses, the President’s isn’t perfect but I’d rather be stuck with it than that belonging to the whole lot of GOP candidates, with perhaps Ron Paul excepted.

  • Mike R

    He WAS a candidate in 2008 and one must wonder why his associations with convicted terrorists and anarchists were ignored by MSM. His attendance for years at a Church whose pastor spewed hate and racism was glossed over by MSM. Last, but not least you say POTUS is not perfect. I’m not looking for perfection, but I am looking for someone with a respect for life-not for someone who not only supports the murder of innocents in their mother’s womb but supports allowing babies to be partially born(whatever that means) and then using a surgical device inserted into their brains to murder them. That is what this man and his wife support.

  • Mark

    Steve, I read your post. You seem to agree that finding something about a 21 year old woman who is not running for office, and who later met and married a candidate and has transformed her life is the same as pointing out policy issues on a candidate themselves. That is lunacy. If there is something showing Santorum supported abortion and hid it in some way, it would be an issue to bring up. I think that is what Deacon Greg was pointing out as well.

    Show me where I am wrong on what I posted on Obama and where it is not relavent to the candidate and current policy.

  • Mark

    Barbara P, I am posting for myself, and not my wife Greta so I will only speak for myself. Greta right now is fighting cancer and and massive cold so even if she could post here, she is slightly tied up right now.

    Please show me where I equated Hitler to a woman having an abortion. What I compared is a party and politicians who supported and made legal the murder of millions of innocent babies to a party and politicans who supported and made legal the murder of innocent men women and children in Nazi Germany. So what you posted is flat out not accurate or true that I have compared any woman to Hitler. Read what I wrote.

    My wife Greta and I have had personal experience with the loss of our granddaughter and her baby in an abortion mill where her parents were not informed and died in the mill along with her baby. Since that day years back, we have dedicated ourselves to fighting this evil every bit as bad as what was being done in Hitler’s Germany. It was also legal in Germany to do what the nazi’s did because their party put judges in place to make the treatment of Jews and others possible. We see the same thing here. I suppose you believe Roe is good law and our country is better because we have made abortion legal. In our battle, we have been involved in helping many women and young girls find and alternative to killing the baby and at last count are god parents to a large number of babies, many who have stayed in our home for extended periods of time. We have utilized much of the funds we have put aside for our retirement to make this possible. So don’t get high and mighty as if we do not care about the mom and the baby. What is obvious is that you have little concern for an innocent baby in the womb who God created and placed where that infant should have found safety from evil and certainly should have been protected by a country that is supposed to be one under God.

  • Mark

    sjay Yep nothing like sticking to a guy in Obama who is not satisfied with a baby being murdered, but if the baby manages to survive the first murder attempt and is outside the womb, feels it is OK to have a second whack at killing them.

    I post what is policy decisions by the candidate, not personal trash. One might say hitting Obama’s wife on her weight is personal, but it changes if she is using her position to tell everyone else how to eat and impacting laws on what schools have to feed kids. Kind of like fighting against vouchers for poor kids to have a way out of DC public schools while putting your own in plush private school. Those are issues around policy which impact everyone else and from which they and their friends often find waivers.

  • Barbara P

    Please do not make assumptions about me – you are the ones who constantly equate this tragedy to the tragedy of Hitler’s Germany. They are two very different things – both tragedies but two very different things. You can’t compare this to Hitler’s Holocaust without also accusing the young girls and women of the same thing. Respectfully, no doctor could perform an abortion without a patient. So please fight abortion on its own terms. I am very sorry for your personal tragedy but that doesn’t give you the right to equate this with Hitler’s Germany. It is more than admirable that from this pain you have done so much to help others but that also doesn’t allow you to get high and mighty and accuse me of not caring for the child in the womb. I have raised two children with disabilities – I know what pro life means.

  • cathyf

    99%?!?!?!

    So where in the CCC does it say that authentic Catholic organizations systematically compile dossiers on their members and members’ family & friends by mining the contents of “spiritual direction”? Including the “spiritual direction” of children? (So what juicy little tidbits did RegLegCorp get from the Santorum’s daughters and their friends?)

    What chapter covers how recruiting of new members should be carefully reviewed and limited to rich people? That members are trained to systematically lie to donors?

    Where does it say that when the pope banishes your leader to a life of prayer and penance, instead you help him live out his last days in luxury accompanied by one of his concubines and their daughter, whom you know is his daughter because you sent out samples for DNA testing? Those enablers who are STILL in charge of the organization.

    Show me where in the CCC it says that you should set up a phony “religious congregation” of women? Where they were lied to that the Church had approved their structures when the Church didn’t know they existed until the LC visitation, and their structures violated numerous articles of Canon Law. Where they were pressured heavily to join after a few weeks or months of “discernment”. Where they were summarily dismissed, sometimes after decades of service, with no education, no money, when their fund-raising abilities waned and they were no more use to the group.

    Where in the Catechism does it say that in the weeks leading up to the release of the Visitator’s Report by the Vatican you get one of your school parents, the richest man in the world, to use his newspaper, The New York Times, to slander the pope as an enabler of pedophiles on the most ridiculously thin story?

    Where does it say that leaders who are continuously being caught out in lies to this day as to when and what they knew about the “false prophet” Founder who was “devoid of scruples and authentic religious sentiment” get to be part of the “99% excellent”? The leaders who were personally involved in shuffling sexual predators (plural) across international borders and putting them in charge of schools and youth activities in their new assignments.

    Where does it say in the CCC that authentic Catholic religious orders take boys as young as 10 or 11 and separate them almost entirely from their families and the larger Church (a few days a year visiting home)?

    Where in Canon Law does it allow a religious order to require its members to take a vow never to criticize any superior, and to report any confrere who does?

    What other religious order in the history of the Church that has a papal delegate appointed to take it over 60 years after its founding, and over a year later when he is asked what the charism of the group is responds that it’s a “good question” (“Bella domanda”)? (Best suggestion I’ve heard so far: pecunia et pueri)

    http://www.regainnetwork.org/article.php?a=47245905
    http://www.regainnetwork.org/article.php?a=47246073
    http://www.regainnetwork.org/article.php?a=47246152
    http://blogs.21rs.es/trastevere/2012/01/24/lo-que-de-paolis-no-quiere-investigar-en-la-legion-de-cristo-pederastia-y-encumbrimiento/

  • Mark

    Again, I ask, what did Pope Benedict find to decide to not shut it down if it is as bad as you indicate. Where you a member and have first hand information? Curious. Before I would condemn somone as you seem to be doing to Santorum wife as part of this overall attack on her, seems like you should have clear facts. Your links to site that obviously exists to bash them is far from something one should depend on. How about something from the Vatican.

  • Mark

    Barbara P. I did not make assumptions about you. I only pointed out that you distorted what I said. To support this further, now you make this statement.

    “They are two very different things – both tragedies but two very different things. You can’t compare this to Hitler’s Holocaust without also accusing the young girls and women of the same thing.”

    Excuse me, but this would mean anyone attacking the Nazi holocaust is somehow accusing the Jews and other victims. I am equating where both Germany and the USA have had parties, Nazi and Democrat, that have systematically gone about supporting the legal holocuast of millions of innocent victims. I am not talking about the victims in either case. If anything, the Nazi’s had far fewer victims than have been harmed by the Democrat’s ongoing support of abortion. What party is it in the USA that has a clear line in the sand that they will go to any length to fight justices who will make the slaughter of innocent victims against the law? What party fights every attempt to even limit it even when the fight is over a partially born infant being murdered without pain killer in the most brutal fashion that would have been very acceptable to Josef Mengele in the death camps. What party almost through the entire ObamaCare to a crashing end rather than put anything in the legislation itself clearly preventing any funding of abortion while claiming it was not in there anyway? Democrat is the answer. What party claims it wants abortions safe, but fights all attempts to force abortion mills to be inspected and meet the same standards as hospitals? Democrats.

    I congratulate you on raising your daughters. I would like you to support your charges saying I have accused you of not caring. As to your knowing what pro life means, please justify your ongoing support of the party that has enabled and continues to fight for this holocuast of 54 million innocent babies and why would anyone in the face of those numbers not look at other holocaust of innocent victims, especially babies. Your Catholic Church is not on your side on this one unless you go through the dance of justification where nothing you can come up with meets the required “proportionate reason” and no one when asked has been able to line up anything that makes sense against 54 million innocent babies killed in the womb. But I will wait for your list.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X