The point of it, is that those who use pro-life positions as an excuse to institute big government, are a liability to the conservative movement.
Give me just one example of how a pro-life position can possibly lead to bigger government.
Just one.
Here; I'll help you out. If we overtun Roe and outlaw abortions, we will have millions of new welfare babies to max out our welfare roles.
Now. Is that what your're saying?
It’s more about politicians who, on the one hand please conservatives with social positions they like—pro-life, anti-gay marriage, etc. And then on the other hand screw them with big government proposals—out of control spending, ‘compassionate’ social programs, etc.
Santorum has shown himself to be that kind of a politician, over and over again.
And it’s NOT just about his voting record. You can make all the excuses in the world about Santorum’s voting record that you want to—argue that it’s irrelevant because the votes were part of omnibus spending packages, or that these were pragmatically ‘necessary’ votes to please vital constituencies, etc.
But the fact still remains that statements which Santorum has made, articulating his philosophy of governance, indicate that he is no friend of limited government.
Now, I’m willing to give a man benefit of the doubt that he can change. I don’t hold quite the same views I did 5-10 years ago, and I’ll bet in 5-10 years my views will be slightly different yet. But until I see demonstrable proof that Santorum’s convictions have changed when it comes to essential fundaments of limited government, I will remain decidedly leery of a Santorum presidency.
If you believe that life begins at conception, and the the federal goverment is empowered and requried to do everything possible to protect that life, then everything the mother does from the moment of conception until birth that could potenially affect the health of that baby is subject to federal control, monitoring and regulation.
They can make her life hell if they want to.