When shit likes this starts flying, consider the source of it . . . an asshole: the attack on Santorum has begun by targeting his wife . . .

Nancy Hass working on her column

This really pisses me off, so please excuse any ensuing profanities.

Karen Santorum, the ultra-pro-life wife and mother of seven home-schooled children, has been the perfect complement to her husband, Rick, as he chases the Republican presidential nomination. On the campaign trail, the candidate often refers to her book, Letters to Gabriel, the story of the devoutly Catholic couple’s traumatic late-term 1997 miscarriage (the 20-week-old fetus lived two hours outside the womb). The couple opposes birth control as well as abortion, even in cases of rape.

But Mrs. Santorum, 51, apparently wasn’t always committed to the cause . . .

The article goes on to report that prior to meeting Rck Santorum, in the 1980'S, while she was in her twenties . . . Karen Santorum, nee Garver, lived with an abortionist who actually delivered her as a baby, being some 40 years older than she was.

“Karen was a lovely girl, very intelligent and sweet,” says Allen, who at 92 uses a walker but retains a sly smile. A wine aficionado who frequented the Pittsburgh Symphony and was active in the local chapter of the ACLU, he lives with his wife of 16 years, Judi—they started dating in 1989, soon after he and Garver split—in the same large detached row house where he lived with the woman who would become Santorum’s wife.

Wow, how could she give up a fucking bon vivant like that?! 

What I see here is the story of conversion, how a woman came to realize that her lifestyle was not healthy, it was not good, and changed.  Brava to Karen Santorum!  I once had a lifestyle of which I am not proud - and unlike Mrs. Santorum I had an abortion which I regret to this day - and changed.

But Nancy Hass evidently has issues with non-issues, and writes this smear piece for what end?  In California, Evidence Code section 352 prohibits the admission of evidence that is more prejudicial than probative, most times because it is old and stale - much like this information here.  Ms. Hass, I suppose, would hide behind the coward's cry of "But it's topical!" or "It's human interest and relevant now because she is a candidate's wife!"  No, it isn't - it is the fodder of cheap tabloids and Ms. Hass, you are naught but their whore.  The only purpose of a piece like this, depsite some liberal commentators to it that it "exposes hypocrisy" (really, a woman has to have the same ideology in her 50's that she had in her 20's?!), is muckracking and slander.