Rick Santorum's Still Born Child

Ocelot

Illuminator
Ocelot
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
3,475
Location
London
As a brit I'm not forced to hear too much about the odious creature known as Rick Santorum. However one article struck a chord I didn't like too much.

10 things you didn't know about Rick Santorum

In amongst a whole heap if far right extremist views, actions and reactions which would be unpalatable to most liberals of my ilk there's this:

8) When his baby Gabriel died at childbirth, Santorum and his wife spent the night in a hospital bed with the body and then took it home where, joined by their other children, they prayed over it, cuddled with it and welcomed the baby into the family.
Click to expand...

Whether deliberately or not the author, Mehdi Hasan comes across as a Santorum basher* mocking a family's reaction to tragedy.

A follow-up piece denies that he was being judgemental in any way by including this titbit alongside the other unsavoury items on the list.

As a fellow one time visitor to the ordeal of fathering a stillborn child I find the ghoulish interest in the Santorum's reaction to similar trials to be unworthy. Yes fair enough his wife did document her experience and place it in the public domain, so this is not such an intrusion into their private lives it would otherwise have been. However the judgement apparently placed upon their grieving process is tacky and doubling down with the wilful blindness at how his article comes across and refusal to apologise he takes it over the bar.

The final straw is seeing Hasan's reaction to those of us who've been through this, and those who speak for us saying there was nothing wrong or unusual about the Santorum's grieving process.

He characterises the reaction as "Faux Outrage" and demands stats before he'll discard his now explicitly stated belief that showing affection for a stillborn child is as aberrant as it (to him) abhorrent.

Well I'll give him some stats, out of a recently polled sample of one, if Mehdi Hasan were to repeat his views to the respondent's face 100% of them would smack him in the face**. He could then judge for himself whether his broken skull was the result of real or faux outrage.

Story well summarised by the excellent Dr Petra

* There's an unfortunate consequence of redefining a word.

** Assuming of course that he'd had the decency to first step into the ring under Marquis of Queensbury rules. Wouldn't want to be advocating street violence now would we.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry about your loss.

I've also heard this story discussed by pundits on various news channels. I think that some people find that the story says something about Santorum's overt religiosity that many people find disturbing.

The article you cited links to another article from the New York Times that might shed some light into why Hasan felt compelled to include it in the list:

Santorum does not have a secular worldview. This is not just a matter of going to church and home-schooling his children. When his baby Gabriel died at childbirth, he and his wife, a neonatal nurse, spent the night in a hospital bed with the body and then took it home — praying over it and welcoming it, with their other kids, into the family. This story tends to be deeply creepy to many secular people but inspiring to many of the more devout.​

As someone who wants a potential president to be able to separate church and state, I kind of think that's a fair point to make about Santorum. I'm not sure how well it was made in the list though. The NY Times article does a better job.

-Bri
 
Last edited:
Bri said:
I'm sorry about your loss.

I've also heard this story discussed by pundits on various news channels. I think that some people find that the story says something about Santorum's overt religiosity that many people find disturbing.

The article you cited links to another article from the New York Times that might shed some light into why Hasan felt compelled to include it in the list:

Santorum does not have a secular worldview. This is not just a matter of going to church and home-schooling his children. When his baby Gabriel died at childbirth, he and his wife, a neonatal nurse, spent the night in a hospital bed with the body and then took it home — praying over it and welcoming it, with their other kids, into the family. This story tends to be deeply creepy to many secular people but inspiring to many of the more devout.​

As someone who wants a potential president to be able to separate church and state, I kind of think that's a fair point to make about Santorum. I'm not sure how well it was made in the list though. The NY Times article does a better job.

-Bri
Click to expand...

I do find Rick Santorum's overt religiosity disturbing and probably for similar reasons. Yet I feel that aspect of his character is adequately referenced elsewhere. Explicitly item 3 in this context. I don't understand any association between religiosity and this method of grieving. The religious pray over their dead, there's nothing newsworthy about that, its the taking the dead child home and cuddling it that seemed to be highlighted as specifically peculiar to the Santorums here. In the New York Times article the non-sequitur is explicitly referenced. Creepy grieving = Creepy religion. So I can't deny that was their intent however illogical I find it. Hasan however makes no such justification either in his original article or more tellingly in his follow-up piece.
 
Bri said:
I'm sorry about your loss.

I've also heard this story discussed by pundits on various news channels. I think that some people find that the story says something about Santorum's overt religiosity that many people find disturbing.

The article you cited links to another article from the New York Times that might shed some light into why Hasan felt compelled to include it in the list:
Santorum does not have a secular worldview. This is not just a matter of going to church and home-schooling his children. When his baby Gabriel died at childbirth, he and his wife, a neonatal nurse, spent the night in a hospital bed with the body and then took it home — praying over it and welcoming it, with their other kids, into the family. This story tends to be deeply creepy to many secular people but inspiring to many of the more devout.
​
As someone who wants a potential president to be able to separate church and state, I kind of think that's a fair point to make about Santorum. I'm not sure how well it was made in the list though. The NY Times article does a better job.

-Bri
Click to expand...

How does that story make the criticism of Santorum on this issue better?
He and his family were grieving over a lost child, as part of that grieving process they prayed- I understand that religious observances are a pretty standard part of funeral rights for most cultures both worldwide and in the USA. Just what is creepy or worrying about this behaviour?
The issue here seems to be that the child was stillborn. If the child had survived some days or weeks then no-one would have thought Santorum's family's behaviour was odd or in any way relevant to his views on the separation of church and state or his politics.
 
Ocelot said:
I do find Rick Santorum's overt religiosity disturbing and probably for similar reasons. Yet I feel that aspect of his character is adequately referenced elsewhere. Explicitly item 3 in this context.
Click to expand...

I think item 8 probably highlights that aspect of his character more than item 3 does.

I don't understand any association between religiosity and this method of grieving. The religious pray over their dead, there's nothing newsworthy about that, its the taking the dead child home and cuddling it that seemed to be highlighted as specifically peculiar to the Santorums here. In the New York Times article the non-sequitur is explicitly referenced. Creepy grieving = Creepy religion.
Click to expand...

I kind of disagree. I don't think most people would find it that creepy for someone to take a body home as part of a dignified grieving process, and even including small children. It's the praying, welcoming it into the family, and the cuddling with the body at home that's creepy. Yes, the cuddling is creepier than the praying I guess, but the whole thing paints a picture to me that seems extremely religious in nature, moreso than just praying over a body at the hospital.

So I can't deny that was their intent however illogical I find it. Hasan however makes no such justification either in his original article or more tellingly in his follow-up piece.
Click to expand...

Right, Hasan just states the fact but doesn't really give any reason for why it's an important fact to know about Santorum.

I don't know that I would agree that it's one of the 10 most important things to know about Santorum, and I can understand how its juxtaposition with other statements in the article might make one suspect that it was highlighting the creepiness factor of the whole thing.

-Bri
 
brodski said:
How does that story make the criticism of Santorum on this issue better?
Click to expand...

The list cited in the OP doesn't criticize Santorum on this issue at all.

He and his family were grieving over a lost child, as part of that grieving process they prayed- I understand that religious observances are a pretty standard part of funeral rights for most cultures both worldwide and in the USA. Just what is creepy or worrying about this behaviour?
Click to expand...

I suspect that it's the whole picture of bringing home a dead body, introducing it to your children and welcoming it into the family, and cuddling with it that people find creepy and overtly religious in nature.

The issue here seems to be that the child was stillborn. If the child had survived some days or weeks then no-one would have thought Santorum's family's behaviour was odd or in any way relevant to his views on the separation of church and state or his politics.
Click to expand...

The child lived for a few hours, from my understanding, and they took the body home after death. You'll have to explain how it would have changed the nature of the story had the child lived several days rather than several hours before they took the body home.

-Bri
 
Bri said:
Yes, the cuddling is creepier than the praying I guess,
Click to expand...
How is that creepy at all, rather than perfectly normal? People often touch, hold, hug or kiss their dead loved ones to say goodbye. It's not creepy at all, its perfectly normal and human.
but the whole thing paints a picture to me that seems extremely religious in nature, moreso than just praying over a body at the hospital.
Click to expand...
We know that Santorum is religious, but frankly how he chooses to grieve for his dead children is not in the least concerning.
 
It's hard to see it as anything other than a rather tasteless cheap shot against a man whose body of work in the public sphere should provide more than enough evidence to damn him.

I have no idea what the generally recommended grieving processes are for stillborn children but I can't see taking the body home and making symbolic gestures such as these being massively out of the ordinary. He's a religious guy, but I don't think it does any good to create unnecessary scorn because it could lead to a backlash against the initiators.

So yeah, a cheap shot, at best. And one that I'd be ashamed of if I was the author, especially in hindsight after it had been pointed out.
 
Last edited:
brodski said:
How is that creepy at all, rather than perfectly normal? People often touch, hold, hug or kiss their dead loved ones to say goodbye. It's not creepy at all, its perfectly normal and human.
Click to expand...

The list doesn't claim that item 8 is meant to be negative, and in fact doesn't comment on it at all. The fact that you believe it to be negative indicates that you understand that some people find it creepy, even if you yourself don't find it creepy.

We know that Santorum is religious, but frankly how he chooses to grieve for his dead children is not in the least concerning.
Click to expand...

I think the story does speak to just how overtly religious he is. In addition, some people do find the behavior peculiar if not creepy.

However, I agree that it's valid to ask whether or not that episode warrants being in a list of the top 10 things one should know about Santorum. I tend to agree that it's not one of the top 10 most important things to know about him.

-Bri
 
I have no idea what it is like to lose a child like this, and it is totally heartless to judge someone in this position. This tells us more about the author than it does Santorum (as if there is not enough already known about Santorum). How low does a person have to be to use personal tragedy to score political points.

Daredelvis
 
Bri said:
The list doesn't claim that item 8 is meant to be negative, and in fact doesn't comment on it at all. The fact that you believe it to be negative indicates that you understand that some people find it creepy, even if you yourself don't find it creepy.

-Bri
Click to expand...
What a load of bunk. The list is presented as 10 bad things about Santorum. I know my shorts get really uncomfortable when I spin too much, you must have lost the feeling in your legs by now.

Daredelvis
 
Here are some NHS guidelines for staff dealing with stillbirths and neonatal deaths (my bolding):

Encourage parents and close family members to see and hold their baby.
Suggest they may like to wash and dress him/her using their own clothes if
available.
Always refer to the baby by name - write the name on cot card and in notes.
Allow parents time and privacy with their baby - they should not be rushed.
Label the baby with I.D. bands, both parents names if not married, sex, date
and time of birth - place mothers ID bands in back of notes.
When parents are ready carefully weight the baby and take footprints and
handprints. Where possible take a lock of hair.
Offer to contact relevant Minster of religion.
Take photographs of the baby - as soon after birth as is practically possible.
Contact Bounty and/or medical illustration. If parents have their own camera
encourage them to take their own photographs.
When parents are ready the baby should be transferred in the moses basket
to the appropriate place with midwife and porter.
Mortuary book must be completed correctly including information of ID bands
of the baby - surname of both parents (if not married), Christian names, sex
of baby, date and time of birth.
Click to expand...
http://www.cardiffandvaleuhb.wales....64/STILLBIRTHS AND NEONATAL DEATHS Policy.pdf
 
Last edited:
I agree that this shouldn't be something to pillory him for.

There's plenty of other legitimate stuff to pillory him for. It's just bad form to pick on somebody who's lost a family member however they choose to deal with it.
 
I think everybody grieves in their own way. I'm not going to say he and his wife chose to do the right or wrong thing.
 
daredelvis said:
What a load of bunk. The list is presented as 10 bad things about Santorum. I know my shorts get really uncomfortable when I spin too much, you must have lost the feeling in your legs by now.
Click to expand...

Again, I've acknowledged that the item on the list with other negative items might cause someone to think that the author of the list meant it negatively.

However, item 3 on the list is also a little more nuanced, so I don't know whether that claim stands up to scrutiny or not.

Nonetheless, the comment to which you are responding was in answer to brodski's question about how is the episode creepy at all, rather than perfectly normal. Whether or not you agree that the author of the list cited by the OP used the story to make Santorum seem creepy and whether or not you agree that such use is fair to Santorum, I think it's pretty clear that at least some people do find the story creepy.

-Bri
 
Last edited:
My niece did a similar thing with her stillborn son, including posing for pictures. According to some folks, it helps the grieving process. I cannot help but shudder, but that's just me.

To me, this sort of attack on the way a family grieves is way out of bounds and should be loudly condemned by all caring people. I destest almost everything Rick Santorum stands for, but I would never stoop this low. You'd have to dig a hole to stoop this low.
 
There is also the issue that he makes blanket statements against abortion with out regard for situations like the one his family suffered. He makes constant statements condemning the procedure as well.

If he was a good catholic he should have let his wife die of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom