Frankly, this critique is hardly new, as far as it goes. But Mr. Santorum actually goes further in his assaults on modern life. He has attacked the very idea of birth control, an issue that many Americans probably regard as having been settled 50 years ago.

Ordinarily, Mr. Santorum’s views could be dismissed as those of a crank. The problem is, it’s becoming clear that his growing numbers of supporters apparently agree with his implicit contention that contraception should be outlawed—in the name of Christianity.

Mr. Santorum, to his credit, hasn’t tried to hide this knuckle-dragging world view. “Many of the Christian faith have said … contraception is O.K.,” the former senator said last fall. “It’s not O.K. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” With some pride, Mr. Santorum noted that “no president has talked about” the evils of birth control. Well, he’s right about that.

What started as a debate over abortion rights a generation ago—a debate in which principled people can and do have reasonable differences—has deteriorated into the spectacle confronting us now, when a major presidential candidate can argue not simply that abortion is wrong, but that birth control is “not O.K.”  If a candidate made such a declaration even a decade ago, he or she would have been dismissed as a laughing stock. But the intolerance of the religious right has become only more stringent in this, the second decade of the 21^st century. It is fair to argue, as many liberals and Democrats should, that the religious right is determined to criminalize contraception. Yes, they’re coming after your birth control.

At long last, has it really come to this? It is one thing for a religious organization to demand an exemption to health-care insurance mandates regarding abortion services or access to contraception. But when a presidential contender argues that birth control is “not O.K.,” it’s time to check the calendar to make sure that it really is 2012.

This debate has no place in presidential politics. How horrifying that it is actually taking place.

That’s the lesson reasonable people will take away from the recent controversy involving the nation’s best-known breast-cancer advocacy group, the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Komen, in an act of political and moral cowardice, announced that it would no longer fund Planned Parenthood’s breast-cancer screenings because the organization has come under relentless attack from antiabortion groups. Planned Parenthood, of course, also provides contraception and abortion services in addition to breast-cancer screenings.

Thanks to the quick action of tens of thousands of women, Komen reversed its decision. That’s a good result, but the controversy itself remains very troubling. Why did such a well-known and admired organization feel the need to defund Planned Parenthood in the first place?

The answer is that antiabortion zealots have poisoned the debate over abortion and contraception, as Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s frightening campaign has demonstrated. In their world, Planned Parenthood is nothing short of evil, and any organization that gives a penny to it is judged to be a coconspirator. Never mind the possibility that women surely will die without access to the organization’s breast-cancer screenings.

The public outrage over Komen’s original decision is heartening, for it shows that some people understand what is happening in this cultural war over abortion and women’s health.

That battle, however, is far from over.

Nancy Brinker is really sorry she'd rather spend money on pink guns than Planned Parenthood

Ms. Brinker's statement came after 22 senators wrote to the foundation admonishing the decision to stop giving money for life-saving mammograms and breast cancer screenings to the non-profit organization because Republicans have linked Planned Parenthood with abortion clinics.

“We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.”

“Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation,” she added. “We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.”

This decision earned praise from the head of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, which must be the most grudging measure of goodwill ever put forth, considering that a) reading between the lines, Ms. Brinker was essentially saying that the foundation will honor the grants in place, and not necessarily donate money in the future, and b)Komen's spends most of its donors' money on promotional items, like pink handguns. Which we can all agree is a much better use of funds than to give it to a service that helps lower-income women obtain affordable health care.

Well that's how democracy works: Abortions for some, pink handguns for the rest!