Connect with us

Rick Santorum’s Wife Was In Unmarried Relationship With Abortion Doctor

Published

on

Rick Santorum‘s wife Karen, before their marriage, was living in an unmarried relationship with the founder of Pittsburgh’s first abortion clinic in the 1970’s, left the doctor to marry Santorum, and at the time both Karen and Rick Santorum claimed to be pro-choice. Further, the doctor, OBGYN Tom Allen, is the same man who actually delivered Karen Santorum (then Karen Garver,) and is 40 years her senior.

(Editorial note: Rick Santorum’s attacks on the lives and relationships of unmarried people, including but not limited to people within the LGBT community, we feel allow for this level of scrutiny on both his past and that of his family. The Santorums’ life choices certainly are theirs to make, but building a political career attacking the lives of good, decent, LGBT  Americans, pledging to “die on the hill” to stop same-sex marriage equality is not one of them. We’re not judging their choices, as fervently as we disagree with them, we’re highlighting their hypocrisy and their mistaken view that they have the right to judge us for who we are.)

A lengthy 2005 profile in a local Philadelphia newspaper, which includes an interview with Santorum, quotes Dr. Allen, Karen’s former boyfriend:

“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 profile also reveals that both of Rick Santorum’s parents worked for the federal government, the Veterans Administration, and were housed on the grounds of the VA hospital. Santorum’s father was the chief of psychology, his mother the chief of nurses, the profile reveals. So much for Santorum being able to understand current medical stances on homosexuality, and so much for Santorum’s position on small government.

Ironically, the profile (remember, this is from 2005,) includes this line:

“He had Republican values,” adds U.S. Rep. Tom Feeney, another college friend of Santorum’s. “But it’s not like he was running around leading conservative jihads or anything.”

The profile also adds:

Santorum’s views on abortion changed around this time as well, recalls [Rick’s] cousin.

“Our extended family has many strong women in it, who are intelligent and outspoken. There was one year Rick stopped by a family reunion for an hour or two. It was around the time he was ‘rising to power’ and becoming rabidly, ridiculously conservative. His views on abortion were quite contentious that year, and for those few hours of his visit, the women all descended upon him like flies, calling him on his change of views. He had always been pro-choice to my recollection. That’s why it was such a heated issue that year. The women in my family felt betrayed.”

A Washington Post profile of Karen Santorum, published today, notes, Karen “recalls their first meeting: He was the lawyer at the big firm, she was the law student. She says that she was the headstrong career woman. ‘But I came home that night and wrote in my diary that I had met the man I was going to marry.’ As hard as it may be to picture, she says, ‘He sang all the way to the restaurant’ on their first date.”

In this 2006 video, released by true Santorum campaign, Karen Santorum says, “I think it’s really sad, I think it’s tragic, that our opponent would use my family, go after my children, in the way he has, for political gain.”

https://youtube.com/watch?v=InBZVI7u7t0%3Fversion%3D3%26hl%3Den_US

Lost on Mrs. Santorum is how she and her husband are going after our families, our children every day, for political gain. The scales are severely unbalanced.

Carole Joffee, a University of California, San Francisco professor, in her article, “Collision of Reality and Ideology: Karen Santorum’s Past and Rick Santorum’s Vision of Your Future,” writes,

Normally, I feel that the past sexual history of a candidate’s spouse should be off limits to journalists and bloggers. But given Santorum’s rising fortunes as a serious candidate for the presidency, and in particular, his astonishing views on sexuality and contraception, I believe that attention to Karen Santorum’s past is warranted in this instance.

What does all this have to with Karen Santorum’s past, before her marriage to the Senator?  In simplest terms, Mrs. Santorum was living in a situation–unmarried but cohabitating, and presumably using birth control—that has become only more common in American society since the late 1980s, when she lived with Dr. Allen. (Indeed, the only difference between Karen Santorum and millions of other Americans in similar circumstances, then and now, was the unusually large gap in age between her and her partner).

In short, Rick Santorum’s stated policy positions, which include not only his well known obsession with abolishing legal abortion, but also his opposition to birth control and all nonprocreative sexual acts, are greatly out of step with the lives of the vast majority of Americans.  Clearly, the Santorums have changed their views over time on the issues of premarital sex and contraception as well as abortion, moving in a far more conservative direction. The couple has attributed these changes to a deepening religious faith, and such new beliefs are of course their right. But the Senator’s fervent desire to deny the rest of us the sexual and reproductive choices that his own wife once enjoyed is breathtakingly hypocritical and cruel.

Indeed.

Editor’s note: In an earlier version of this article, the first sentence incorrectly read:

Rick Santorum‘s wife Karen, before their marriage, was living in an unmarried relationship with the founder of Pittsburgh’s first abortion clinic in the 1970’s, left the doctor to marry Santorum, and at the time both Karen and Rick Santorum claimed to be pro life.”

It has been corrected to read “pro-choice.”

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Susan Collins Doesn’t Regret Kavanaugh Vote After Roe Repeal: ‘Didn’t Impact Maine’

Published

on

Republican Sen. Susan Collins said she does not regret her tie-breaking vote to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, even after the Supreme Court voted to reverse Roe v. Wade, ending the right to an abortion at the federal level. She said that the decision did not affect her state.

Speaking to reporter Randy Billings fo the Portland Press Herald, Collins said that she disagreed with the Roe decision, but pointed out that she also supported Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who all dissented from the decision.

“Obviously, I’m disappointed in that decision, which turned abortion issues back to the states. It has not had an impact on the state of Maine in that name actually expanded its law,” Collins said, according to WCSH-TV.

READ MORE: ‘She Knew What Brett Kavanaugh Was Going to Do’: Morning Joe Calls Out Susan Collins Over Abortion Ruling

In explaining her vote to confirm Kavanaugh, she said “When I look at a justice, I look at their qualifications, their integrity, their background, their experience in reaching a decision.” During Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, he dodged questions from senators on whether he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade calling it “settled law.”

“One of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” Kavanaugh said at the time.

When pressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) over a 2003 email he wrote where he said he was “not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level,” Kavanaugh said he was merely referring to the positions of such scholars.

“But the broader point was simply that I think it was overstating something about legal scholars. And I am always concerned with accuracy, and I thought that was not quite accurate description of legal, all legal scholars because it referred to ‘all,'” he said. “To your point, your broader point, Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed many times… That makes Casey precedent on precedent. It has been relied on. Casey itself has been cited as authority in subsequent cases such as Glucksberg and other cases. So that precedent on precedent is quite important as you think about stare decisis in this context.”

Following the 2022 ruling that overturned Roe, Collins admitted that the decision was “completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.”

Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing also hinged on accusations of sexual assault. Christine Blasey Ford testified before Congress that Kavanaugh had attempted to rape her while they were in high school, allegations Kavanaugh denies. During the hearings, sexual assault survivors met with Republican senators Collins and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, urging them not to confirm, according to Time magazine.

Murkowski ultimately was the lone Republican vote against confirming Kavanaugh.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

Josh Hawley Slams Baseball League for Punishing Players Over Anti-Pride Night Demonstration

Published

on

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) accused Major League Baseball of a “pattern of discrimination” after the league punished three players for their protest during a recent Pride Night celebration.

Hawley released the letter Tuesday afternoon following MLB issuing three San Francisco Giants pitchers for writing references to the Bible on their hats, a special Pride Night variant of the standard Giants hat featuring a rainbow version of the team logo.

“I write with grave concern over your reported decision to issue a formal warning to three Major League Baseball (MLB) players for publicly expressing their Christian faith. This follows a high-profile undercover investigation that revealed at least one MLB team discriminated against a player based on his Catholic faith. You must answer for what appears to be a pattern of discrimination within MLB against baseball players who profess their Christian faith,” Hawley wrote.

READ MORE: Baseball Commissioner Says Pride Jerseys Make Some Players ‘Uncomfortable’

Hawley was not the only Republican politician to condemn the MLB. Vice President JD Vance tweeted “Trump won we don’t have to do this anymore,” alongside a retweet of Sports Illustrated’s coverage of the warning. Rep. Nancy Mace from South Carolina wrote “So it’s okay when they’re forced into wearing pride hats for social propaganda, but Bible verses are an issue?” Mace made a name for herself attacking the first transgender representative Sarah McBride (D-DE), and recently came in fifth in her district’s primary election.

Pitcher Landen Roupp wrote Gen 9:12-16 on his cap next to the rainbow logo. Two relief pitchers, JT Brubaker and Ryan Walker, wrote similar references to the same Bible verse on their hats. The verse refers to the rainbow symbolizing the covenant between God and all creatures that he would not flood the earth again, however many anti-LGBTQ Christians have used the verse to accuse the queer community of co-opting the rainbow symbol.

MLB says that the warning came not over the content or meaning of the messages, but instead was a violation of the league’s rules about uniform integrity.

“To be clear, this routine verbal warning not to wear the hat in future games is not disciplinary and had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the message,” the league said in a follow. “We respect players’ right to free expression. However, writing of any kind, with any message, is prohibited per Major League Baseball’s uniform regulations which provides in part that, ‘(a) player may not write, attach, affix, embroider or otherwise display nicknames or messages on apparel or playing equipment,'” MLB said in a statement, according to the New York Times, adding that similar warnings had been issued to players who wrote the names of family members on uniforms.

Another relief pitcher, Sam Hentges, wore the standard version of the Giants hat. He did not receive any warning from MLB.

The Giants have a long history of supporting the LGBTQ community. It was the first team to wear rainbow versions of its logo during Pride games. It was also the first team to raise money for HIV/AIDS research in 1994.

The team apologized for the pitchers’ protest, sending a statement to the San Francisco Standard, that  it was “proud to support Pride Night and the LGBTQ+ community.”

“Baseball should be a place where everyone feels welcome, respected, and valued. We also respect that individuals may make personal choices about participating in team activations. We understand that the choices by individual players have caused pain and anger to many in the LGBTQ+ community and we are sorry for that.  Those choices do not change our organization’s commitment to inclusion, belonging, and creating a welcoming environment for all. We remain grateful to our fans, partners, employees, players, and coaches who help make Pride Night a meaningful celebration.”

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

CORRUPTION

White House Retweets McDonald’s Advertisement, Appears to Take Credit for Bringing Back Apple Pie

Published

on

Trump McDonalds

The White House used its X account to repost a McDonald’s advertisement alongside a photo of President Donald Trump with three bags of fast food.

On Tuesday, shortly after noon on the East Coast, the official White House X account retweeted a post from the fast food giant advertising that it was bringing back the fried apple pie next week. The White House attached the photo of Trump posing in the Oval Office with bags of food.

Making America Great Again for real,” it tweeted, alongside the eyes “looking” emoji, appearing as if the president was taking credit for the product’s return. 

While Trump has frequently shared his affinity for McDonald’s products, this is perhaps the closest the White House has come to an actual commercial endorsement for the brand. Recently he had McDonald’s food delivered to the White House by DoorDash as another photo opportunity, but it was officially to promote his “no tax on tips” policy, rather than the companies themselves.

READ MORE: McDonald’s Tweets to Donald Trump: ‘You Are Actually a Disgusting Excuse of a President’

Previous presidents have refrained from using the position to promote a product like this. Trump is an exception; while most of the time his product promotions have been for his own branded products like the Trump Bible, he has occasionally expanded his presidential endorsement to other products.

His daughter Ivanka posed with Goya black beans after the company’s CEO praised Trump in 2020. Trump himself then took a photo posted to Instagram of himself posing with various Goya products in the Oval Office.

Last year, Trump promoted Elon Musk’s car company Tesla by staging a photo op with a number of Teslas parked on the South Lawn of the White House. CNN’s Brianna Keller pointed out at the time that former President Joe Biden similarly had automobiles parked on the White House lawn for a photo op. In that case, however, it was as part of an “Electric Vehicle Summit,” and featured executives from multiple car manufacturers, rather than an endorsement of a single company.

Legally, those holding public office are barred from endorsing products, services or enterprise. Presidents prior to Trump were expected to divest themselves of their businesses; former president Jimmy Carter famously divested himself from his peanut farm upon taking office.

Carter put his farm into a blind trust, where the trustees have full discretion and beneficiaries have no control over the trust nor receive any reports. However, during his first term, Trump put his assets in a trust controlled by his sons and an additional executive, according to the Washington Post. After being elected to a second term, he has again put his assets in a similar arrangement, according to the Hill.

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.