Karen Santorum’s had a six year love affair with abortion doctor 40 years her senior. Interesting side note he was the doctor that delivered her.

Dr Allen said: 'Karen was a lovely girl, very intelligent and sweet.

'Karen had no problems with what I did for a living.'


The detail in this story that seems to be grossing people out the most is that Karen, whose last name was Garver when she was living openly as the kind of fornicator she and her husband now claim is so sinful the government should work against you, was actually delivered by her boyfriend Tom Allen when she was born in 1960. I'm from a small town, so that probably doesn't have the effect on me that it does on people who aren't used to some of the uncomfortably close romantic entanglements people can get in. That this detail captures people's attention suggests that we've become a little too inured to the hypocrisy of right wingers who carry on---and Rick Santorum is the worst---about how the government should restrict contraception access and teach abstinence-only because sex outside of marriage is sinful and how abortion providers should be subject to criminal penalties. It's worth noting that when it comes to the black markets of the sort that conservatives wish to create around abortion, girlfriends and partners often get caught up in police stings, so if the laws the Santorums want were in place back then, it may not just have been Dr. Allen in danger but also a young Karen Garver. But even if not, since she lived with him for so long, she basically benefitted materially from "abortion money" he earned providing abortions, money that helped pay for her housing, if nothing else.


Views: 50


You need to be a member of Arapahoe Tea Party to add comments!

Join Arapahoe Tea Party

Comment by Yvonne Michelle Gerhardt on March 9, 2012 at 10:08am

Regarding birth control pills, you are partially correct, "reform."  However, there are some hormonal pills that prevent ovulation altogether.  Hence, there is no conception or life aborted within a hostile environment.  Be careful not to fall in to the all-or-nothing fallacy.  Do continue to defend the pro-life position from conception until natural death.  I commend you for that.

Comment by Yvonne Michelle Gerhardt on March 9, 2012 at 10:05am


Sanctions are not a form of terrorism.  One would have to assume that another country is ENTITLED to the handouts of America (or other countries) in order espouse that view.  They are, in fact, not entitled to any American support.  Ceasing to divert American wealth from its citizens to foreign countries who do not have our best interest in heart is a just and logical action.  Each country is accountable to and for its own people.  

What you have posted seems to be the implication that American welfare and entitlements should be steadily streamed to international causes.  There is no justification for this.  

On the other hand, if you would like to give to UNICEF, the Red Cross, or any other international support organization, then you are free to do so.  

I am glad that you are prolife.  That is a worthy cause and position.  Be careful not to muddy the waters with tidbits of distracting information, such as mentioned above.  

Regarding Rick Santorum, I am no great fan ... but for other reasons.  I think that one of your other bloggers made a great point.  One should not judge a person's current position (when proven accurate and true) by the things he or she did decades ago.  If the Santorums had a "come to Jesus" moment, for the lack of a better way to put it, then that is to their credit.  However, if it is proven that they are still not prolife, then that should be brought to the attention of voters.  The protection of human life is not only a social issue, it is a moral and legal issue. 

Was the point of your original blog to personally attack the Santorums or to defend a prolife position?  Please clarify.

Thank you.

Comment by Yvonne Michelle Gerhardt on March 9, 2012 at 9:50am

Randy, you make a good argument.  I'm finding that many of the bloggers on this site seem to be posting anything but pro-Constitution principles, as was the implied agenda of the Tea Party.  So then, have liberals high jacked the site?  It would be nice to read something that was coherent and applicable to the real issues.

Comment by Yvonne Michelle Gerhardt on March 9, 2012 at 9:47am

How does this help further the Tea Party cause?  It reads more like a gossip piece.  Also, your reference to right wingers pretty much gives away your political and moral allegiance.  Does the Arapahoe County Tea Party approve of your blog?  Just curious.  It would be good for viewers to know. 

Comment by reform on February 21, 2012 at 9:35pm

Randy, I am sorry that the only person you can support is Santorum.  I myself can only choose a candidate that is 100% pro-life at all stages of life.  This does not only mean the white child within a womb.  I also believe that a Muslim woman who is carrying a child within her womb should be allowed to give birth to a healthy child in a hospital where medication and doctors can help her.  I believe that the through prayer all things are possible.  I do not believe that that Muslim woman's child will some day attack me if I allow it to be born.   Sanctions are a form of terrorism. Not allowing innocent women and children to get food, medicine, proper housing and clothing is very anti-life.  I am pro-life from the moment of conception until NATURAL death.  This includes all human life throughout the entire world.  Santorum does not respect life from the moment of conception until natural death.  He supported funding for birth control pills not only in the U.S. but through out the world.  Birth control pills that the government passes out to citizens here and abroad create a hostile environment for a conceived child. This conceived child can not attach to his mothers womb. This child will die. 

Rick Santorum is OK with that!!!  Yeah he says he is pro-life ------- as long as (as you said) his constituents will agree to that?  Yes, I do support Ron Paul.  Yes, I do read Tom Woods writings (mostly on economics).  Yes, I do listen to the Judge.   These people seem to educate.  They actually give factual information that I can learn from and increase my knowledge about economics, foreign policy, the monetary system, etc...

No, I do not listen to Rush.  No, I do not listen to Beck.  No, I do not listen to Hannity, etc......   These people seem to spread hate. They seem to give opinions.  I come away angry, at what and why, I don't understand.

I do read a lot of foreign newspapers.  I also listen to RT network.  I find that the media here in the U.S. is very controlled.  We do not have a free press in the United States of America.  The things that are said in other countries would shock you if you took the time to listen and learn. 

I challenge you to watch RT network (in English).  I challenge you to look up and investigate the SCO.  The SCO will be the new U.N. as soon as this whole system collapses.I challenge you to read papers from other countries on the opinions of the wars in the middle east and the U.S. involvement.

I also challenge you to read the book by G. Edward Griffin,  The Creature From Jekyll Island.  

 I will give you 2 weeks to do these things.  Don't respond until you have done these things. 

Then in a different blog setting debate me.

Comment by Randy B Corporon on February 21, 2012 at 9:02pm

Now we are legitimately to this poster's last act of desperation.  He/she/it (since reformer chooses to remain anonymous) is asking you to judge the scruples or suitability of a presidential candidate based upon the decisions his wife made in her 20's back in the 1980's.  I was in my 20's back in the 1980's.  I assure you, I don't wish my life, my maturity or my decision-making to be assessed based upon the decisions I made back then or, especially, on the decisions made by another.  I believe in growth, maturity and redemption.  This poster has previously linked to a web site belonging to a Ron Paul supporter.  Of the remaining Republican candidates, Ron Paul is the only one who I could not aggressively support.  His foreign policy is a danger to our security.  His libertarianism overrides his conservative instincts and blurs his ability to see what it means to be a constitutionalist.

© 2018   Created by Chairman's Committee.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service