Disgust was widespread in the attacks against Rick Santorum and his wife for taking their dead baby home to allow the family to grieve his death together. Washington Post liberal columnist Eugene Robinson gratuitously brought the issue up on the Rachel Maddow show:
“He’s not a little weird, he’s really weird,” Robinson said of Santorum. “And some of his positions that he has taken are just so weird that I think that some Republicans are off-put. Not everybody is not going to be down, for example, with the story of how he and his wife handled the stillborn child. It was a body that they took home to kind of sleep with it, introduce it to the rest of the family. It’s a very weird story.”
He wasn’t alone. Fox’s resident liberal, Alan Colmes, made a similar comment, as did some other less notables on the left.
The critics were wrong. Experts, such as the American Pregnancy Association, recommend spending family time with a deceased baby. From its on-line essay, “Stillbirth: Surviving Emotionally:”
With the loss of your baby, your family members will also grieve. Your baby is someone’s granddaughter, brother, cousin, nephew or sister. It is important for your family members to spend time with the baby. This will help them come to terms with their loss. If you have other children, it is very important to be honest with them about what has happened by using simple and honest explanations. It is your decision whether you would like the children to see the baby.
But Wesley, they took the baby home? So? That isn’t usual, but not “weird.” From an ABC story on the issue:
In the context of the times — the year was 1996 when the family buried Gabriel — their behavior was understandable, according to Dr. David Diamond, a psychologist and co-author of the 2005 book “Unsung Lullabies.”…As for Santorum’s own ritual so many years ago, Diamond said, “In this context, it isn’t a very big deal. It’s not far out of the norm at all…There is nothing pathological about it or particularly alarming. I suppose for people who believe life begins at conception, maybe it’s even more understandable.”
The goood news is that the criticisms were met with a barrage of pushback from the left side of the aisle, not just the right. The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg came to the Santorums’ defense: From “Was Santorum ‘Weird’ For Bringing Home His Stillborn Baby?”:
There is much I don’t like about Rick Santorum’s ideas, but the story of how he and his wife dealt with the tragic death of their baby is not something that bothers me. Pete Wehner has an appropriately indignant post, quoted below, about the attacks on Santorum over this issue (and he summarizes the sad story as well), but it strikes me as indecent to criticize the loving, if discomfiting, behavior of people who have just suffered the worst possible tragedy known to humankind.
As a result of the widespread criticism, Robinson and Colmes were shamed into apologies.
Why attack how parents grieved in the first place? I think, it came out of a reflexive loathing certain liberals feel toward social conservatives. (I am reminded of the nasty attacks on Sarah Palin for giving birth to Trig, who has Down syndrome. Wonkette went so low as to ridicule the boy.)
But this time the attacks backfired, revealing far more about the critics than the Santorum family. And how nice that the unwarranted nastiness was pushed back into the cave where it belonged by people who completely disagree with Rick Santorum’s cultural and political views.
January 7th, 2012 | 6:41 am
[...] a great example of an apologist post I ran into while researching this entry. I still have the taste of astroturf in my mouth from [...]
January 7th, 2012 | 9:13 am
I saw the discussion on Fox, between NATIONAL REVIEW editor Rich Lowry and Alan Colmes, and couldn’t believe the level of unkindness that Colmes statement concerning Santorum’s baby reflected. no decent person could defend Colmes comment or Robinson’s comment. I sense that Colmes knew, right after he said it, based on his body language that he crossed a line.
I don’t support Santorum for president. But he seems like a very decent guy and he didn’t deserve (no one would deserve that) to be treated that way.
[Reply]
HistoryWriter Reply:
January 9th, 2012 at 11:08 am
@Bret Lythgoe,
Guess again. Looks are deceptive. Rick Santorum is an extremist who is on record as wanting to ban all forms of contraception. That’s right: ALL forms of contraception. He’s about as in touch with the American mainstream as Anthony Comstock.
HW
[Reply]
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 9th, 2012 at 11:56 am
To set the record straight: He didn’t say that at all. In fact, he said he didn’t propose that. He mistakenly thinks states have that right, which Griswald says they don’t.
[Reply]
HistoryWriter Reply:
January 10th, 2012 at 7:10 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
Wesley: THIS should set the record straight, coming as it did from Mr. Santorum’s own lips:
“Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
Now please tell me how he isn’t opposed to contraception.
HW
[Reply]
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 10th, 2012 at 7:22 pm
Well, Troll, of course he is against contraception. He’s an orthodox Catholic. But that’s not what you wrote. You said he wanted to legally ban “all contraception.” You wrote he was “on record” as advocating that. So, let’s see the source. But opposing and banning are different, assuming you can wrap your intellect around that. It’s not hard if you care about honest discourse. But if you are just a name calling troll who thinks himself somehow superior to those he hates for their politics, and who shoots from the shadows of anonymity, you don’t care about such things.
[Reply]
HistoryWriter Reply:
January 10th, 2012 at 7:45 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, .
Of course he’s Catholic. That’s not the point.
In October, Santorum told a blogger: “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is, I think, the dangers of contraception in this country.”
Now, of course, he’s trying to back away from his more extreme pronouncements, but he’s already on record as wanting no federal funds to be used for birth control.
He also is opposed to the Supreme Court’s decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, and believes states should have the right to ban contraceptives altogether.
Are you suggesting that he’s opposed to contraception as a Catholic and DOESN’T want to ban it? Just like he’s opposed to abortion but doesn’t want to ban that?
HW
[Reply]
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 10th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
Of course. He said so. Noweither cite your “on record” as wanting to ban “all” types of contraception or slink away.
[Reply]
Austin Hesse Reply:
January 16th, 2012 at 1:36 am
@Wesley J. Smith, Here a video of Santorum actually discussing the matter.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/03/rick-santorum-doubles-down-says-states-have-right-to-declare-birth-control-illegal-video/
What amazes me is that he maintains that states can make any law they wish. No they can not. I’m wondering if a state suddenly set limits on the amount of children that people can have if he’d support their right to do so. The state of Virginia learned that they could not prevent inter-racial marriage in Loving vs. Virginia. The Supreme Court struck down the miscegenation laws as unconstitutional.
What I find so hypocritical is the fact that I have heard him on his campaign saying he wants less government interference in our lives, but maintains that a state has the right to ban contraception. I don’t know if Rick has ever thought that the idea that government state or federal can dictate wither or not I can legally uses contraceptives, interference on the most basic level.
[Reply]
January 7th, 2012 | 2:09 pm
Props also to Salon (I believe it was) for posting a medically detailed article debunking the despicable rumor that they this child was aborted rather than dying by a miscarriage (caused by a uterine infection, which was in turn caused by fetal surgery to try to save the child’s life by correcting an anomaly).
[Reply]
HistoryWriter Reply:
January 9th, 2012 at 11:01 am
@Lydia,
Sorry, but you’re wrong. The fetus was expelled as a result of an injection received by Mrs. Santorum to cause labor, although she knew full well that the fetus was incapable of living outside the womb. That’s something you folks call “abortion,” so please don’t insult people’s intelligence by trying to pretend it wasn’t.
HW
[Reply]
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 9th, 2012 at 11:57 am
No, she received an injection for an infection to save her life knowing that could result. It wasn’t the intended result. You are such a troll. And nasty.
[Reply]
Lydia Reply:
January 9th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, right on. Moreover, the infection itself was (the Salon article is good on this) a cause of labor. Treating the infection was the only possible way to try to treat both patients. You can’t keep a baby to term in a badly infected uterus.
[Reply]
HistoryWriter Reply:
January 10th, 2012 at 7:17 pm
@Lydia,
You mean that under the circumstances an abortion was OK? Mr. Santorum has repeatedly said it’s NEVER OK.
HW
[Reply]
HistoryWriter Reply:
January 10th, 2012 at 7:14 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
Wesley:
The drug that was administered was pitocin. It is used to induce labor, not to treat infections. That’s TWICE I’ve caught you stretching the truth.
HW
[Reply]
January 7th, 2012 | 2:35 pm
Before hospitals and in the 3rd world, a dead baby in the home was and is quite common. We expose the body at grandpa’s funeral for all to see, grieve, and remember. But why not a baby? When the left does something that isn’t status quo, like a man walking half naked in a parade dressed as a woman or a nun, it is considered progressive. When a conservative does something different, out comes list of adolescent descriptives.
Not having read the book by Santorum, I would bet seeing the baby helped with the healing. Leftists are unhappy because they have been involved in the killing of the unborn and so this transference of the anger, especially by males, is not surprising.
[Reply]
HistoryWriter Reply:
January 9th, 2012 at 11:06 am
@TXW,
Really? Are you going to tell us that it’s normal to take a dead 20-week fetus home to show the kiddies, croon lullabies to it, and then spend the night with it in your bed? That’s what Mrs. Santorum said they did in her book “Letters to Gabriel,” so please don’t think people were making it up. It’s just plain, old-fashioned WEIRD.
HW
[Reply]
TXW Reply:
January 9th, 2012 at 10:17 pm
@HistoryWriter, You are right. It isn’t normal. It also isn’t normal to have a dead 20 weeker to take home, they are usually put in a red plastic bag and incinerated (hence not “wierd” because it is common practice?). Deviances from the WASP norm also include orthodox Jewish funerals, Lakota funerals, and Hmong funerals. All wierd, all happening as we speak in this country! Amish stuff, too. What are we to do about this wierdness problem? Put the Santorums on a reservation!
[Reply]
HistoryWriter Reply:
January 10th, 2012 at 7:16 pm
@TXW,
I don’t know of any western (let alone WASP) community in which people take dead 20-week fetuses home and sleep with them — but, chaqu’un a son gout.
HW
[Reply]
January 7th, 2012 | 4:31 pm
Colmes is a phony, a professional straw man. He’s there to represent what Fox wants their gullible audience to think “liberals” believe. Why would you give any credit to anything he would say, or consider it a triumph for conservatives when he backs down? It’s like cheering when the Washington Generals lose to the Globetrotters. It’s his JOB to lose.
And TXW? “Before hospitals and in the 3rd world, a dead baby in the home was and is quite common.” True, because the baby was born and died there. It’s a bit different to bring a dead fetus home for everyone to handle. If Santorum and his family felt that helped them handle the loss, fine. Doesn’t explain why they publicized their ritual. If I were going to do something like that (I wouldn’t, btw) it would be a private family affair.
[Reply]
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 7th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
This Fox obsession is so silly, but if you read the post, I was complimenting the left media, and said not a thing about any kind of triumph for the right. Maybe you need a nap.
[Reply]
padraig Reply:
January 8th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, You brought Fox into it, as did several of your commenters. I’m not obsessed with Fox, I ignore them until people bring their scams into what should be a serious discussion.
[Reply]
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 8th, 2012 at 5:09 pm
When did I bring Fox into it? By IDing Alan Colmes? I also identified who Robinson writes for. It’s proper form, not an excuse to rail against the Murdoch boogeyman. Booo!
[Reply]
HistoryWriter Reply:
January 9th, 2012 at 11:11 am
@Wesley J. Smith,
Not the entire “left media” please. There are lots of writers out there (myself included) who think what Santorum did with the dead baby was big-time WEIRD. Ditto for his misguided belief that states have the right to ban birth control. Apparently he never heard of Griswold v. Connecticut, a ruling that’s been in place for the better part of half a century.
HW
[Reply]
pentamom Reply:
January 10th, 2012 at 10:46 am
@padraig, So if someone writes a book sharing their experiences with the death of a child in hopes of encouraging others who go through it, it’s somehow an unsavory “publicizing” of their grieving process?
Do you also think that if anyone writes about their experience of holding a traditional wake in the home, even though their relative died in the hospital, they’re also somehow open to whatever criticism someone might choose to make? Sure, they’ve taken the risk, but does that end any conception of whether the people who do the criticizing are themselves open to criticism?
There really is nothing to see here. Taking a loved one home who dies elsewhere is a time-honored tradition, and the existence of modern hospitals does not somehow transform it into a “weird” practice. Treating death clinically and bodies as though they are fit only for hospitals, morgues, and funeral homes is the historical and cultural anomaly.
[Reply]
HistoryWriter Reply:
January 10th, 2012 at 7:19 pm
@pentamom,
“Taking a loved one home who dies elsewhere is a time-honored tradition”
However, spending the night with it in your bed is kind of weird.
HW
[Reply]
padraig Reply:
January 13th, 2012 at 3:39 pm
@pentamom, I’m Irish and have Jewish in-laws, I know all about private wakes in the home.
In other parts of my family we do open casket funerals. There are people that consider that to be weird.
But, we don’t sleep with the corpse. We say goodbye and then put the earthly remains to rest in a dignified fashion. Don’t compare what Santorum did to this.
[Reply]
January 7th, 2012 | 6:28 pm
Debased “commentators” like Colmes and Robinson are reflexive bigots. Anything with a hint of pro-life or Christian conservatism (fundamentalism!) drives them mad. I can only imagine the private rantings of these despicable creatures.
[Reply]
HistoryWriter Reply:
January 9th, 2012 at 11:15 am
@David Elton,
Despicable creatures? Well you have to admit, some fundamentalist stuff IS pretty strange. I mean, when people seriously believe that dead people rise and walk around, that virgins have children, that snakes talk and that the universe is only 11,000 years old, that’s not exactly mainstream rationality, is it? Admittedly snakes talk in Harry Potter movies, but, hey…
HW
[Reply]
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 9th, 2012 at 11:53 am
HW: I’ve warned you about this garbage before. Did you forget your last suspension?
[Reply]
HistoryWriter Reply:
January 10th, 2012 at 7:24 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
I’M not the one who brought up religion. I was responding to Mr. Elton’s accusation that those who question fundamentalist theology are “reflexive bigots” and “despicable.” You D ID see those remarks, didn’t you?.
Really, Wesley, you ought to watch those knee-jerk reactions. One might get the impression that hanging around with all those Creationists is getting to your sense of fairness.
HW
[Reply]
January 8th, 2012 | 11:38 am
Surprising Fox News would be the ones putting this forward. Trying to get sympathy for Santorum with their viewers? Is Ailes hoping to stop Romney still? Or was this a soft-opening for the talking point that Santorum is a little weird? To see if it could be handed off to bigger names if there wasn’t too much blowback?
[Reply]
HistoryWriter Reply:
January 9th, 2012 at 11:17 am
@Frank,
Santorum a LITTLE weird. Oh, man! He’s a LOT weird.
HW
[Reply]
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 9th, 2012 at 11:52 am
So are you, from what I can tell. You are such a troll.
[Reply]
padraig Reply:
January 9th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, Wes, you’re not supposed to troll your own blog. ;)
[Reply]
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 9th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Maybe it’s contagious. : )
[Reply]
HistoryWriter Reply:
January 10th, 2012 at 7:24 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
You’re starting to repeat yourself. Has your imagination run its course?
HW
[Reply]
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 10th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
No my patience with your nastiness and trollism try being thoughtful.
[Reply]
January 9th, 2012 | 3:17 pm
Someone of a different political stripe mourns their lost child, and you think that’s weird. I think it’s weird to believe the compassionate solution to your particular problem is to have your unborn child torn limb from limb with a pair of forceps.
[Reply]
padraig Reply:
January 9th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
@Chris, we’re talking about the method of mourning, not the mourning. Nobody’s arguing with the mourning.
[Reply]
January 9th, 2012 | 10:04 pm
HW, why is it that so-called progressive people, people who call themselves tolerant, are so obsessed with this? Rituals of mourning in human history are varied and run the gamut; how can anyone say a person is weird for doing what his tradition and his heart tell him? If a body is treated respectfully I see no reason a person shouldn’t do as they need to do.
How can you call yourself tolerant when you are intolerant of one of the most basic expressions of humanity: caring for the dead?
[Reply]
HistoryWriter Reply:
January 10th, 2012 at 7:31 pm
@holyterror,
Do you not see the weirdness in Santorum’s behavior? Spending the night sleeping with a dead 20-week fetus goes beyond “mourning” and begins bordering on necrophilia. It has nothing to do with being tolerant. In fact, I feel rather sorry about the family’s loss — as well as Mr. Santorum’s apparent psychological problems.
[Reply]
January 10th, 2012 | 3:36 pm
a 19 or 20 week old fetus is not a full term baby.
[Reply]
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 10th, 2012 at 3:59 pm
So? He survive for two hours in the world. He was delivered and was a neonate, aka, a baby.
[Reply]
HistoryWriter Reply:
January 10th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
“Delivered?” You mean “aborted and survived for two hours.”
HW
[Reply]
pentamom Reply:
January 11th, 2012 at 10:52 pm
@HistoryWriter, No, miscarried and then removed faster than letting nature take its course, which could have killed his mother. Late term miscarriages result in babies all the time, some of which are currently driving cars or even collecting Social Security. You don’t called a breathing, delivered child a “fetus,” ever. Breathing humans who are not in utero are not fetuses. Unless you just want to diminish the humanity of such a child, and then I guess it’s okay to be just plain inaccurate in your language.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fetus
(Notice the phrase “in the womb.”)
When you abort a baby, you’re trying to get rid of it. This baby died a little sooner because they were trying to save him.
[Reply]
HistoryWriter Reply:
January 12th, 2012 at 7:37 pm
@pentamom,
You really should try getting your facts straight. What happened was that Mrs. Santorum’s condition was deteriorating, so labor was induced by injecting her with pitocin. As a result the fetus was expelled (aborted, actually, since doctors already knew it had absolutely no chance to live outside the womb). I understand that his wife’s life was at stake, but Mr. Santorum had been on record as opposing abortion under ANY circumstances; consequently his agreement with the procedure can be considered an act of gross hypocrisy. No amount of grammatical obfuscation by his supporters is going to change that.
[Reply]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact