« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Pandering Murkowski Regrets Blunt Amendment Vote, Wishes She Had Voted on Lies Instead

Women Can't Handle The Truth!

On Thursday, the Senate voted on the Blunt Amendment which would have allowed religious institutions/employers to opt out of the mandate in Obamacare requiring “free” coverage of contraceptives and abortifacients. I know, it’s not as sexy as someone being called a ‘slut’, but that is what the actual amendment was about. Individual freedom and religious liberty, funnily enough things on which this country was, you know, founded. In fact, the rights delineated in the First Amendment are so crucial, America would not be America without them.

But what says Murkowski, who did vote for the Amendment on Thursday? Total mistake! Because pandering to false narratives is more important than the truth and The Constitution. Also, silly women. Can’t expect them to understand facts.

Asked if she would vote for the amendment again if she could do it over, Murkowski said, “No.”

Why the swift change of heart?

The Anchorage Daily News column says Murkowski returned to Alaska after the amendment failed and kept running into female voters unhappy with her over her vote. Murkowski told them she had voted for the amendment because she wanted to send a message that the health care law needed stronger protections for religious conscience. But public debate on the measure had changed, she said, and what was supposed to be a “messaging amendment” on religious freedom, an issue Republicans were hoping to champion, ended up becoming a vote on contraception rights.

WHAT?  So she would have changed her vote because she would prefer to vote on a false narrative and outright scare tactic lies rather than on the actual facts and issues?

Useless, thy name is Murkowski. With friends like her, who needs enemies? This is exactly what I mean when I say that we cannot continue to fear extremists on the Left and cravenly cave to their lies. By doing this, Murkowski has given credence to those lies and is helping to perpetuate the entirely false ‘GOP war on women’ meme. NO ONE is trying to take away anyone’s contraceptives. You can buy them anywhere and no one has any plans to change that. But, hey, what does the truth matter? As long as we can scare dames away from straying off the plantation and use them for our gain! Murkowski has aligned herself with those (the always sexist Left) who seek to do that. As always. They care nothing about ‘women’s health’. It’s all about power and their deplorable ideology. If it’s about health, why is the Obama administration putting ‘the cause’ of abortion over women’s health?

What about championing the truth? What about actually standing up for women by acknowledging that they aren’t helpless idiots who couldn’t possibly understand facts and basic reasoning skills? How about fighting the false narrative and explaining the truth? Hey, you know who did do that? An icky old white man. I suppose now it’s sexist to have enough faith in women to tell them the truth. See, when David Gregory once again tried to frame the debate as an ‘attack on women’s rights’ and “blah blah blah ‘access to contraceptives’” (as if you can’t buy them at every single pharmacy everywhere) Newt Gingrich said this:

“Nobody’s blocking anyone from having access to contraception. No one. The young lady who testified can get access to contraception. Nobody said she couldn’t. The question is should a Catholic institution, or for that matter, the Ohio Christian University which is a Protestant institution, which is a very pro-Life institution, which is now being told it will have to pay for abortion pills. Should a Protestant fundamentalist institution be dictated to by Washington politicians over whether or not it can have its own religious beliefs, or have we become a country where it’s okay to go to church on Sunday morning for one hour, but let’s not actually express those beliefs the rest of the week?”

“This is the most fundamental assault on religious liberty in American history,” continued Gingrich, “despite every effort by the elite media to distort what it’s about. It’s not about access to contraception. People have, people who want to can get access to contraception everyday.”

Exactly.

But Murkowski would rather cave and ‘empower’ women by being complicit in their exploitation. That’s a ‘moderate’ for you. Afraid of the Left, lacking convictions and more concerned that willfully ignorant people will think she’s meany pants than she is concerned with the truth and the good of this country.

Oh, and FYI Ms. Murkowski — maybe you want to explain to the poor helpless women that this mandate will likely increase the cost of their contraceptives? I won’t hold my breath. Truth is hard.

 

 

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • surfcitysocal

    Vote out all our elected weenies, Democrat or Republican, male or female.

  • Agelaius

    Murkowski has always flirted with being pro-abortion, and she certainly got nervous about the fact that liberals have turned this into a discussion of control over women having sex. But it was a pander.

    I do think this whole issue is actually two issues, and the Republican Party can embrace both.

    First, is the religious liberty issue. Nobody should be forced to be complicit in providing women with contraception if it goes against their religion or belief. Period. There should be a religious escape clause that prevents people from supporting activities that are contrary to their deeply-held beliefs. Of course, this issue will get a bit ragged around the edges – hippies can say they are against war and consider pot a sacrament, and withhold taxes arguing that they can’t fund the military and worship some great diety. But if there are mainstream religions, particularly Christianity or Judaism, which are consistent with the Founding Fathers’ Judeo-Christian ethic, then there should be an “out” clause.

    But this issue is, to some extent, about whether we can or should allow the government to support a woman’s “right to choose”, whether that choice is birth control or abortion. A woman’s choice ends when another life begins. Since birth control can be used to terminate a pregnancy, the government has a legitimate interest in restricting it. Look, women who want birth control are going to be able to buy it. That’s not going away anytime (soon). I guess what disturbs me is the idea that women have complete autonomy, just as it bothers me that men feel they have complete autonomy and can abandon their children. We need to get more of a balance, which has existed always in human societies everywhere, in which individual rights are balanced with the rights and responsibilities of the family. I have a problem with men abandoning their chilldren, just as I have a problem with the notion that women are exclusive masters over their bodies. If they are married, choices regarding children become a joint issue within the family. If they are teenagers, choices and behaviors regarding reproduction are a matter for parents as well as the teenage girl. I guess that a single, adult woman should be given deference on issues like birth control, which will not be illegal in the United States, but in most other circumstances, we need to strengthen the family and the healthy interdependence upon which human society depends. Griswold v Connecticut was a mistake.

  • johnt

    The Murkowski thing is depressingly common. She just made the mistake of blathering about it. Do you think she’s the only spineless rabbit to read the papers, watch the major news programs, and then make up that sponge called her mind? Democrats don’t worry about having to receive instructions, they just practice the line the media lays out for them, and in any case they are just as debased as the media anyway
    Alaska voters had their chance, they went with the sponge the Republican leadership wanted. Principles? gone.

  • ww2nd95

    is a bad idea. We will not win that argument in the general. I’m not sure why we keep shooting ourselves in the foot here. Letting a company base a decision on whether to cover you or not (and this isn’t just birth control) based on his/her moral beliefs not only opens up policy for complete discrimination, but it makes us look bad. Why do we not just let the contraception issue, that the Dems absolutely set us up with.. die and go by the wayside, so we can start talking about important issues, rather then taking the Dems bait and continue going back for more.

    • demsaresatanic

      or this nation is too far gone to be saved by the democratic process. If the electorate is really so stupid as to not understand that govt should not have the power to force a Catholic school to provide contraception it is time to consider democracy a failed experiment. You give up far too easily.

  • withaplum

    What do you expect? For every conservative who says, “Its about religious liberty,” there are three who can’t help themselves and start running their mouths about the dangers of contraception. Conservatives have proven themselves to be completely unable to stay on message on this debate. The left wanted to frame this as about contraception, and the right has helpfully decided to rush headlong into their trap.

  • rabun1016

    An underpublished but important story.