Chris Matthews Falsely Claims Santorum Said He'd Be Fine With States Outlawing Birth Control
What is it about MSNBC that seems to make it impossible for its anchors to consistently tell the truth?
On Thursday's Hardball, host Chris Matthews falsely claimed Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum "said it would be fine with him if states outlawed the sale of birth control" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let me go back to Congresswoman Speier, and again, I respect your views so much on this because of the fact that you are who you are. I want to ask you this. I didn’t put that on [unintelligible] what Foster Friess said. He is a major spokesman now for, for former Senator Santorum. He’s out there a lot all the time. And he is now representing a candidate, Santorum, who has said it would be fine with him if states outlawed the sale of birth control. I mean, you’re talking about a guy from the Cro-Magnon Era in terms of politics. And there he has his guy out there making a joke about women. I mean, talk about an insulting comment as Congresswoman Norton, that was insulting, clearly. What do you make of this that we’re still in a world where this is still going on, that point of view?
WRONG!
Here's what Santorum told the Washington Post's Melinda Henneberger on January 6 about this very subject:
“I was asked if I believed in it, and I said, ‘No, I’m a Catholic, and I don’t.’ I don’t want the government to fund it through Planned Parenthood, but that’s different than wanting to ban it; the idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case. I don’t think the government should be involved in that. People are free to make their own decisions.’’
The former Pennsylvania senator recently told ABC’s Jake Tapper that, yes, he disagrees with Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court decision that struck down a ban on contraception.
He said Friday evening that it’s the idea that states don’t have a right to pass such a law that he opposes, because he does not see the right to privacy as a constitutional right envisioned by its signers. This is hardly a new argument.
“It could have been a law against buying shoestrings; that it was contraception has nothing to do with it. States have the right to pass even dumb laws.”
To be clear, he does think that laws banning birth control would be dumb “for a number of reasons. Birth control should be legal in the United States. The states should not ban it, and I would oppose any effort to ban it.’’
Shouldn't that have ended claims that Santorum "said it would be fine with him if states outlawed the sale of birth control?"
Apparently not if you work for M-BS-NBC.

Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
And Now, For the Next Liberal Crap Sandwich of the Day
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 7:14pm.
Bullcrap on a roll. This man's credibility is so damaged he has nothing to lose by compounding his lies with more and more and bigger lies. He is in a liars contest with Obama to see who can tell the most and biggest lies.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
Ummm.... Ed Schultz is the
Submitted by Kevpot on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 11:51pm.
Ummm.... Ed Schultz is the biggest tool on cable and he is trouncing Chris in the ratings game. That alone speaks volumes about Chris's credibility. He is a lap dog for the left and that's all that matters to Phil Griffin.
Chris Matthews gave it all up in 1998
Submitted by frank14 on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 1:40pm.
He spent 8 months saying Clinton should be impeached if the blue dress matched and then when it did he said Clinton should be "shunned". He became a Democrat hack after that point and O'Reilly took all his audience.
Mattews was a long time Dem hack before that
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 1:46pm.
He worked for Tip O'Neill and Jimmy Carter.
It's
Submitted by grammajane on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 8:04pm.
only beginning. These lying sacks of sh-t will be lying until this election is over. Just wish these candidates would start sueing these media criminals for the false remarks they get by with. Come on lawyers..........get on it!!!
Folks, this
Submitted by bobsmom on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 8:27pm.
could be a new game for us. Finish the statement, "Chris Matthews falsely claims___________". How about "spittle is the new black?", or "I never liked it when the nuns smacked my hands with a ruler", or, "I AM NOT GAY!!"
Oh my, the fun we could have at parties. The man is an a$$wad.
"I was making a statement
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 8:32pm.
"I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case. I don’t think the government should be involved in that."
...except that he said we get laws from God that we must abide by.
~Oh dear
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 8:37pm.
Everyone PANIC. It's not like the laws already in place have any basis in Judeo-Christian morality.
Oh, wait.
Not the point. Why is he OK
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 8:47pm.
Not the point. Why is he OK with imposing some of religious beliefs on people but not others?
~Give me an example, please
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 8:54pm.
.
He's for making gay marriage
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 9:08pm.
He's for making gay marriage illegal, but he doesn't want to make contraception illegal.
He's for keeping gay marraige illegal
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 9:20pm.
.
~Balboa
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 9:25pm.
There's no such thing as 'gay marriage'; it's a concept made up in the past decade or so. He doesn't have to make it illegal, as it's a made-up concept that would have to be legislated into existence.
The Bible doesn't address contraception, as there was no such thing when it was written.
Got any more fallacies you'd like shot down?
He believes in only
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 9:33pm.
He believes in only traditional marriage because of his religion.
He doesn't believe in contraception because of his religion.
Why is he OK with the government legislating one and not the other?
~Does the government legislate contraception?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 9:39pm.
And how does one "believe in it" or not? I can see practicing it, or not. But believing in it?
Traditional marriage is just...marriage. Gays are the ones trying to make new laws about it and change it from what it's always been. The rest of us just aren't falling into line to make a special law re-defining an age-old institution to satisfy the demands of less than 5% of the population.
I believe you and I covered this topic recently.
That's what I'm asking: if he
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 9:43pm.
That's what I'm asking: if he believes in keeping marriage defined traditionally, through law, why wouldn't he want to legislate the banning of contraception?
Bal, here's and answer.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 9:52pm.
Because marriage is between two people of the opposite sex. It involves no change to the status quo, gay marriage is something that doesn't exist, that a small group of people are trying to establish. Contraception is not a societal issue requiring a change in an institution that has existed for thousands of years.
By the way, he's not going to force everyone abstain from eating meat on Fridays during Lent, but MO is going to try to do that through her health policies, and BO is going to try to do it through his economic policies. But it will be an every day prohibition.
But it all comes back to his
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 10:03pm.
But it all comes back to his religion informing his belief: abortion, gay marriage. You just wonder where he draws the line.
Bal
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 10:12pm.
How do you know this? He's never said anything of the sort. Abortion is a human rights issue, not a religious issue. Gay marriage is a misnomer, like dogs getting married. You can say they're married but they aren't.
But he's said that abortion
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 10:14pm.
But he's said that abortion being legal is wrong because it doesn't comport with God's law, that God gave us rights, laws.
God's law being
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 10:14pm.
Thou shalt not kill
So we're just talking the
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 10:19pm.
So we're just talking the commandments then?
Bal
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 10:25pm.
I think at this point you're being intentionally obtuse.
I'm not really trying to be.
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 10:31pm.
I'm not really trying to be. I'm trying to figure how far Santorum's religious belief's go in influencing his stance on laws, public policy, etc.
Really?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 10:44pm.
When has Santorum said anything about oulawing contraception? That red herring was tossed in by BO operative Stephanopoulous. Abortion is killing another human being, already illegal. Why the controversy? I believe this is all orchestrated to deflect from the horrendous economy and world situation.
He hasn't, but I'm trying to
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 10:49pm.
He hasn't, but I'm trying to get a sense of exactly why not, and how religion informs his decisions.
(and I agree this is a non-story)
Figures
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 10:46pm.
What you need to be concerned with is how much more of your liberty the current Admin is going to confiscate. Even if you dont give a crap, the rest of us do.
Christians are the last folks I am worried about at this point, jeez
Like a typical lib you are
Submitted by MrSnuggles on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 10:50pm.
Like a typical lib you are confused what "gay marriage" is all about. It is not about banning anything, gays can get married and have ceremonies. What Santorum is against is GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZING gay relationships. It simply serves no purpose and provides no benefits to society. However gays are free to live their lives the way they see fit, just as women who want to kill their unborn children with chemical contraceptives can too we just do not want to be paying for what we believe to be evil.
Balboa says he's trying to figure it out.....
Submitted by ThePickle on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 11:07pm.
The answer to your question would be that his "beliefs" influence his stance on public policy and the law just as much as any other politicians "beliefs" influence their stance on public policy on the law.
A large portion of liberal politicians "believe" that there is nothing wrong with the concept of "gay marriage" and as such their beliefs influence their stance on public policy and the law.
Beliefs are often based on the most nebulous factors and are often rooted more in "faith" than they are based on tangible, verifiable evidence.
While you may question Mr. Santorum's stance on the issue, as they seem to be rooted in a religious philosophy you disagree with, his "beliefs" are no more inconsequential than liberals "belief" that there is nothing wrong with "gay marriage", as that belief is as much based on "faith" as Mr. Santorum's, owing to the fact that there is as little tangible evidence for that conclusion as their is for Mr. Santorum's .
You don't "know" there is nothing wrong with it, you "believe" there is nothing wrong with it.
That's a solid response.
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 11:17pm.
That's a solid response. Thanks.
No Problem.
Submitted by ThePickle on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 11:25pm.
No problem. You have good evening.
The definition of marriage
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 10:15pm.
The definition of marriage is and always has been the same - a union between a man and a woman.
Homosexuality is and always been an abomination. Why are you so obsessed with wanting to marry a man? Go find yourself a nice girl if you can find one that can stomach your inane ideas.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Bal
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 10:08pm.
Why should the law and tradition be changed just to satisfy you and all the other degenerates that want to live a repulsive lifestyle?
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
~Seriously?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 10:18pm.
Are we even having a conversation this asinine?
why wouldn't he want to legislate the banning of contraception?
Look me in the eye (metaphorically speaking) and tell me you think ANY national politician would touch that with a ten foot pole.
bal
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 9:46pm.
You're still a liberal, huh? After hanging out here for years, engaging very smart people? *SMH*
Do you notice people never say "straight marriage"? That's because it's redundant. As so many have logically pointed out (like the Vet), the word -- and what the institution is founded on -- is already defined and taken.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
*snicker*
Submitted by bobsmom on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 8:49pm.
Must really suck to be a lib right now. Wish I could empathize, but knowing that they're feeling what we felt in the summer/fall of 2008 is just delicious to me at the moment. Sorry. That makes me rotten. But on Bobsmom's give-a-shitometer, how they feel ranks about a solid -10.
bobsmom
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 9:53pm.
Enjoy it. We've been suffering under libs for a long time.
Bal, How come your not
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 10:29pm.
Bal,
How come your not complaining about your Messiah invoking God in the laws he passed?
C'mon, let's see you defend him.
Like I said, not complaining,
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 10:46pm.
Like I said, not complaining, just trying to figure out where he draws the line.
He told you where he draws
Submitted by Kevpot on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 12:00am.
He told you where he draws the line. But, liberals like you are so dishonest (and Godless) that they want this to be the wedge issue and so they have no problem in flat out scare mongering by forwarding complete exaggerations like, "He wants to BAN contraception".
No doubt we will soon hear from the left how Romney wants to ban caffeine since Mormons abstain from its use.
We now know Chris Matthews gets his talking points...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 9:35pm.
verbatim from Media Matters. If Media Matters makes a false claim, Matthews will happily repeat it and could care less whether it is true or not, just as long as it meets his criteria which is this: It has to make Liberals look good and it has to make Conservatives look bad.
It used to be that the non-Fox news media used the NY Times as their main source for misinformation but now, in the computer age, it is Media Matters that has the job of supplying them their liberal propaganda.
It may or may not be a step up.
There goes that Smearin' Pap Matthews again
Submitted by djwolf12 on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 10:28pm.
Just like he heard Rush Limbaugh say that he wants the military segregated like it was under President Truman. Yeah I believe that like I believe Rex Ryan came through on his guarantee this year that the NY Jets were going to and did win the Super Bowl this year.
The solution
Submitted by alvin on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 12:32am.
It's inexpensive and logical says Rick funder: Just issue a voucher for one aspirin to every woman in the US:
Santorum backer Foster Friess: In his day, ‘gals’ used aspirin between their knees for birth control
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/santorum-backer-foster-friess-day-gal...
Good work alvin
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 12:36am.
"Friess is presumably saying all women who didn't want to become pregnant were abstinent and thus had no need for birth control."
If it had been Colbert or Stewart, you'd have gotten the joke.