Actually, Santorum doesn't seem to think even married couples should be using contraception. I just blogged the transcript of his comments on Griswold V Conneticut -- the case that established the right to privacy -- on Aaron Brown here: http://alternet.org/blogs/lfiles/

But as I say on my blog, maybe Ricky should consider the fact that homosexuals never ever need to use contraception. Ah, the moral confusion of a bigot.

Ohh, yes! Be responsible! Get pregnant all the time and have lots of abortions! 'Cause America's Christian pastors need something more serious than birth control to preach against so they don't sound like they're just out to control women!

And anyway, spending hundreds of dollars on abortions is more Capitalist than spending significantly less on birth control!

Santorum, you dipshit, "responsibility" means you remember to take a little pill every day, in order to not irresponsibly become pregnant.

No hormonal birth control has ever harmed women as much as its unavailability would. Maybe we should ban Santorum for being harmful to women.

P.S. I am of a religion that does not believe it is wrong to have sex outside of marriage (so long as it's consentual, safe, and otherwise causes no harm). If society did not tolerate sex outside of marriage, then society would be inflicting on me the rules of another religion, and that society would be flawed. And unconstitutional in this country. Also it would be unfair to any number of people who would not be able to marry the person they wish to have sex with.

And birth control does not encourage sex, inside of marriage or out. Any sort of non-exploitive/abusive/unsafe sex life is my right, whether there is birth control available or not. (Birth control is also my right, but we'll not get into that here.) All birth control does is decrease the demand for abortion. Also reduce worry and stress, and eliminate periods if desired. And grant to women their FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO BODILY AUTONOMY.

No wonder Santorum hates it.

Also, to whomever keeps arguing that "if Roe gets overturned, blue states are safe," please notice that Pennsylvania, a blue state, elected Santorum. Minnesota, another blue state, elected Coleman, a pro-life Republican, to the Senate, and Pawlenty, a pro-life Republican, as governer. New York, a blue state, elected Pataki as governer, and Massachusetts, a blue state, elected Romney to the same position.

The simple-majority vote for president is not a real indicator of where a state's government stands.

One of the side effects of birth control on women is decreased libido. Maybe he's worried that if women are all not having babies that they will stop wanting sex too. And I'm assuming that would affect him directly...

When I look at my family tree and see the women who gave birth to twelve children over the course of twenty-four years (many were pregnant at the time that their eldest daughters were pregnant), I think that it's obvious why reliable birth control is a necessity for women. Women in committed relationships get pregnant. It's a fact of life. Imagine trying to raise twelve kids because controlling your own fertility is "dangerous."

If men were the ones to get pregnant, do you think we would (still) be having this discussion??? Birth control would be distributed for free, methinks...

sorry...