God Bless Mika Brzezinski!

A blogger interview Rick Santorum did months ago has gotten play everytime he has had a surge. And so it is going into the Michigan primary. He talked about the dangers of contraception and that he would not walk away from his beliefs as president. That, of course, doesn’t mean a President Santorum would move to outlaw contraception, and he has made that clear in subsequent interviews. Morning Joe, as much of MSNBC has and does, addressed his comments and general beliefs and willingness to talk about them this morning. And co-host Mika Brzezinski defended him:

BRZEZINSKI: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with believing that, I really don’t. I don’t think that means he’s going to ban birth control across the board.  Those are his personal beliefs. And I think that as a father, and a man who’s held public office, he’s lived up to them, it appears. Which makes it interesting for the conversation, and it’s a conversation probably every family should have, about birth control and its role in society with their own kids.  He’s got his own, and he stands by them, and I think he’s an interesting part of the national conversation in terms of where our society is going. And there is a lot of risky behavior out there that happens to be connected to birth control. So there’s a whole other side to this conversation.  And not once did I say should it be banned, or should it not be covered by health insurance. ButI think it’s OK to have those beliefs or those concerns.

I mentioned this on Laura Ingraham’s show this morning and guest host Raymond Arroyo ended the segment, Kathryn Lopez stands with Mika Brzezinski — I sure do here. And thank her. That is a brave thing, to be that honest. We know from the recent Komen incident how kindly the liberal feminist sisterhood receives common sense, and their tolerance for those who stray from their women’s health talking points.

UPDATE: Thank Brzezinski here.



  • Aaron Dewees

    First, when it comes to matters of health & medicine (and this is after all being billed as a healthcare issue, right?) we don’t say a man can’t be an OB-Gyn because he can’t ever be pregnant and doesn’t have a uterus or ovaries. We don’t dismiss a Psychiatrist who has never personally dealt with a mental illness from being able to care for those who have. We don’t say a male oncologist can’t treat a woman for breast cancer because he doesn’t understand what it is like to have breasts. We don’t say a heterosexual therapist can’t help a homosexual…in fact we say they MUST learn how. There is no doubt that being a woman gives special insight and credibility to caring for other women that I (as a man) will not understand. But I don’t believe it makes a man completely incapable of understanding the plight of a woman. In fact, my wife and I practice NFP, and she will be the first to tell you that I understand her fertility and keep the charts better than she does. It is quite humorous when she tells her friends…”I rely on my husband to understand and follow my cycles J” Just imagine the text message: ”Honey, when is my peak day?” My second counterpoint: so let’s say for arguments sake we should leave men out of the discussion on issues relating to a woman’s fertility. Doesn’t that mean that all mean should step away from the argument – those for the HHS mandate as well as those against? Then the president should actually recuse himself because he doesn’t know what it is like to take contraception and he doesn’t have ovaries or a uterus so how could he possibly speak to this aspect of women’s health? When the Supreme Court decided Roe v Wade – the Justices who can’t possibly understand pregnancy should have recused themselves. How can a man, who will never be pregnant, decide if ending a pregnancy is Right or Wrong? I am sure you get my point!

    • doubting thomas

      Could somebody provide a direct url right on the WHO website to where I can find proof of the claim that “the birth control pill was ranked in 2005 by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer as a “group one” carcinogenic drug”? I want a primary source, not something from a pro-life blog.

  • JohnE

    More news organizations need to report on this sort of thing. I think many women (and men) need to question some long-held assumptions about the healthiness of contraceptives:


    I know I wouldn’t feel comfortable taking a pill every month for decades unless it was absolutely necessary. Fortunately with natural family planning, there are healthy and natural ways to avoid pregnancy while also improving your marriage. And those who use it in order to have the freedom to fornicate or commit adultery, maybe it’s time to re-assess whether this “freedom” has really been a benefit.

  • Gerald Donahue

    The arguement is not contraception, but whether the government can force anyone to provide it. The government cannot force anyone to violate their conscience. Saying, the insurance company will pay for it does not preclude the “force of law” provision.

  • tereseb

    Not to mention the effects on the environment. Synthetic estrogen does not break down in wastewater like natural estrogen and affects the fish, making the males fish feminized or actually ambiguous. This is what we can see. What is estrogen and progesterone doing that we can’t see?

  • Maggie Zoiss

    The birth control pill was ranked in 2005 by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer as a “group one” carcinogenic drug. Such a finding points to the real possibility that the pill can and does contribute to a number of cancers in women, including breast cancer.

    Speaking at a 2010 conference, Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a breast cancer surgeon and co-founder of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, shared with her audience “a wealth of statistical data from various sources to support a fact that is known by the medical community to be true yet is rarely acknowledged: use of the pill has been strongly linked to an increased risk of breast cancer. The pill is also believed to increase the risk of cervical cancer and liver cancer.

    “This stuff is not new, it’s not magic, it’s in the literature,” she said, linking pill use to the 660 percent rise in non-invasive breast cancer since 1973. “Women want to know, and women have a right to know, what researchers have known for over 20 years.” http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=44766

  • Mark

    Last time I looked, the birth control pill was a prescription drug and came under the FDA. With a growing list of issues about the pill and possible connection to cancer, it would seem a reasonable question might be asked as to how much we have evaluated the impact it has one women’s health. The same is true of abortion. I would hope that whoever is in office would take the heat if they see that the pill should be evaluated in a fair and ethical way to insure women are aware of any possible issues with taking the pill and also if it proves to be a major cause of concern, that it be addressed. What is known is that since the pill was put on the market, cancer in women has increased dramatically and also that cancer is striking larger numbers of younger woman.



Receive our updates via email.