Lisa Murkowski to her fellow Republicans: It makes no sense to make this attack on women

posted at 4:26 pm on April 6, 2012 by Tina Korbe

WOW. Look, I respect that Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski values her moderate reputation, that she’s a kind person who seeks to facilitate conversation across the aisle, that she doesn’t want to offend her friends who are Democrats, but c’mon. She’s going to provide cover for Democratic rhetoric that Republicans are waging a “war on women”? Oh, I’m sorry, excuse me. Murkowski didn’t say Republicans are “waging a war.” She said they’re “making an attack.” Honestly, I can’t even figure out who she’s pandering to, other than to Democrats. From HuffPo:

“It makes no sense to make this attack on women,” she said at a local Chamber of Commerce luncheon, according to theHomer News. “If you don’t feel this is an attack, you need to go home and talk to your wife and your daughters.”

She also said that she would continue to support funding for Planned Parenthood, adding that the courts have affirmed a legal right to an abortion and she stands by that. …

Murkowski, however, voted for the failed Blunt Amendment last month along with all but one Republican, which would have allowed employers to refuse to cover contraception or any other health service for moral reasons. She later said she regretted her vote and wouldn’t do it again if she had the chance.

If I were her, I’d consider Democrats‘ constant demagoguery of Republicans’ defense of religious liberty a breach of that “zone of civility” she supposedly prizes so highly. But, then, we all know the term “civility” has lost all rational meaning.

This is so highly disappointing to me. It’s one thing to think that even religiously-affiliated employers should be forced to cover the costs of contraception for their employees (although I’ve never heard a compelling argument to think that myself). It’s another to suggest that objecting to such a flagrant violation of conscience rights is somehow making an attack on women.

Again and again, let me correct the misimpression for those who seem to think that women are incapable of either controlling our sexual urges and/or purchasing our own birth control. Women are fully capable of making our own decisions and of abiding by the consequences. We are capable of abstaining from sex if we can afford neither contraception nor a child. We are capable of working to pay for our own contraception. WE ARE CAPABLE! To suggest otherwise is to patronize us and to encourage us to think of ourselves as victims. You know what people who think of themselves as victims do? They ACT like victims. Why are big-government politicians so determined to absolve women from taking responsibility for themselves? Candidly, it gives them power over us. People always say, “With freedom comes responsibility,” but it works the other way, too, “With responsibility comes freedom.” When we cease to take responsibility for ourselves, we give the State power to assume responsibility for us and we rapidly become indebted to the State. Women, stop looking for the means to avoid responsibility! I’d rather be free than indebted any day, thank you very much.

Ms. Murkowski, I’m compelled to say to you what I’ve already said to Sandra Fluke and President Obama: You do not speak for me.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

spinach.chin on April 6, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Where did I claim to be a conservative? I never have, nor do I claim to be a liberal.

I am a self thinking American that has his own beliefs from what I read and come to my own conclusions.

I am looking for constructive discussions on issues that concern me.

Being a business then their religious beliefs should not impede the services of their customers, especially if they take tax dollars.

This is very simple, if they do not want to provide contraceptives then they should not be taking tax dollars. I have no problem with it then, but they can not have it both ways.

And I am sure they can not stay in business without the tax dollars since health care is otherwise unaffordable to people, which goes back to why the system is broken.

And before you say I am for obamacare, I am not. However I have yet to see a solution offered by the opponents to Obamacare, and instead of breaking it down and getting rid of it, fix it.

People in this country need health care, and it either has to become affordable or insurance has to be offered to people that cannot afford it somehow.

Im all for throwing obamacare out the window, but I want solutions, not just get rid of it.

damian1967 on April 6, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Im all for throwing obamacare out the window, but I want solutions, not just get rid of it.

damian1967 on April 6, 2012 at 11:04 PM

So, whats your solution? Also, why is it impossible to have a conscience if you take tax dollars? If they would be out of business without tax dollars, would you prefer they go out of business rather than have a conscience?

Those tax dollars are paid by we the people so why does a bureaucrat get to tell businesses what to do with my tax dollars?

Vince on April 6, 2012 at 11:15 PM

That is the truth.

The attack on women has reached levels which are uncalled for.

Referring to women as caterpillars? Goodness me!

liberal4life on April 6, 2012 at 4:35 PM

You have got to be one of the world’s worst trolls. It’s just painful to watch. *sigh*

Really, why are you here? You don’t add anything like some of the other libs. You aren’t massively pathetic and sad like KeninCT. You aren’t particularly witty or amusing. It’s not like you’re here to get another POV and learn what’s going on in the world and maybe try to think.

Seriously. Why are you here? Is there absolutely nothing else you could be doing?

kim roy on April 6, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Vince on April 6, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Our elected officials get to tell them, since they are the representatives of the people. If you do not like it, then vote them out, but about half of the country do not agree with your stance, while yes the other half does.

This is what happens when religion is mixed with politics.

And thats why I think they need to be seperated. Noone should be forcing their religion down my throat, and the same with me not forcing my beliefs down yours.

As far as the solution, I dont have an answer for it. But thats why we elect people, to find a solution to the problems of this great country.

They are quick to throw it out, and thats fine, but some up with the alternative!

Get rid of obamacare, Im all for it. But I want a solution, the same ole same ole, is not working and dragging the country, economy and good people down the drain.

damian1967 on April 6, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Wow – Alaska of all states has given easily the RINO’est Senator of them all…and that too as a write in candidate.

Murkowski still has harsh feelings about how she was denied her “rightful place” as bestowed on her by her father and is taking every opportunity to embarrass the GOP and give cover to Democrats to keep attacking Republicans on this issue….that too in an election year. this is nothing more than vengeance from a woman scorned.

If you don’t feel this is an attack, you need to go home and talk to your wife and your daughters.”
Feel ? How about you know using your powers of… reasoning ? If as a legislator i was to look at an issue based on my “feelings” then i would be doing a great disservice to my constituents – Senator, they sent you to work so that you can use your brain once in a while…. not “feel” your way to conclusions and such patent demagoguery.

Throw this woman out – oh wait, the dumb Alaskans voted for her in 2010 and we have to put up with this nonsense for at least 4 more years and frighteningly even more ??

At this point i would not be too surprised if Alaska votes for Obama in November.

nagee76 on April 6, 2012 at 11:47 PM

Our elected officials get to tell them, since they are the representatives of the people. If you do not like it, then vote them out,
damian1967 on April 6, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Pay attention. Kathlen Sabelius is not an elected official. The “law” was written to allow bureaucrats to decide what will what the “law” means. What ever happened to the Hyde Amendment?

This is what happens when religion is mixed with politics.

And thats why I think they need to be seperated. Noone should be forcing their religion down my throat, and the same with me not forcing my beliefs down yours.

Once again, pay attention. No one is forcing religion on anyone. It’s the government (bureaucrats) trying to force religious organizations to do things. That’s why Catholic Charities no longer provides adoption services in Massachusettes.

Vince on April 7, 2012 at 12:12 AM

In the face of various growing threats, efforts were made to clarify and strengthen conscience protection in current federal law. In 2004, Congress passed the Hyde/Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment as a part of annual appropriations law.

Most recently, the challenge to protect conscience rights includes the correction of serious—and unprecedented—problems arising from the new health care reform law as well as from policies and programs of the Obama Administration. The protection of conscience rights now also includes the protection of religious liberty

Vince on April 7, 2012 at 12:20 AM

See here.

Vince on April 7, 2012 at 12:22 AM

Vince on April 7, 2012 at 12:12 AM

So what if Catholic charities stop adoption services in Mass. Who cares really.

The Catholic church has been hiding pedofile priests for years and years, and they knew their priests were gay and abusing young boys.

Now they have a problems with it? Hypocrits!

Everyone said the sky would fall with marriage between gay couples, it did not fall.

In fact, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country! Go figure, those liberals, who would of thought.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 12:54 AM

Vince on April 7, 2012 at 12:12 AM

Pay attention:

In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions.It is not a permanent law, rather it is a “rider” that, in various forms, has been routinely attached to annual appropriations bills since 1976. The Hyde Amendment applies only to funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. It primarily affects Medicaid.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 12:58 AM

Vince on April 7, 2012 at 12:20 AM

And just an FYI, I am not for abortion, but I am also not going to tell any female what she can or can not do with her body.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 1:05 AM

Thanks again, Alaska!

Russ in OR on April 7, 2012 at 1:09 AM

These women Republicans are attacking… are they nasty backstabbing political opportunists? Because if they are, I don’t have a problem with it, and given the focus of most of your political positions, Barb, I suspect that not only are they, but there might be just one special one of them that concerns you. Know what I mean?

drunyan8315 on April 7, 2012 at 1:10 AM

Everyone said the sky would fall with marriage between gay couples, it did not fall.

…….

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 12:54 AM

You clearly do not understand the nature of cultural decay. A society will often get apparent improvement to stats for a while after it capitulates to further erosion.

For instance, if we go to a single payer medical system, the statistics should improve for a while, until the idiotically unintended consquences, like bright young people choosing to go into other lines of work, have a chance to bite. People dying from waiting in line for an MRI won’t happen until the number of MRI machines has had a chance to shrink significantly, and that could take a decade at least.

You don’t keel over and die because you are eating the seed corn.

fadetogray on April 7, 2012 at 1:16 AM

And just an FYI, I am not for abortion, but I am also not going to tell any female what she can or can not do with her body.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 1:05 AM

What being in favor of abortion means is that you favor its legal availability to women who want to murder their fetuses.

Thus, you are in favor of abortion.

fadetogray on April 7, 2012 at 1:21 AM

fadetogray on April 7, 2012 at 1:16 AM

SO you say, you really think it will get that bad? I have a lot more faith in our people and country that it would not get that bad.

And your vision of Cultural Decay does not mean that is what will happen. It is an opinion, and what you and other fear mongers say will happen, that doesnt make it so.

People also said intergration of black people into white society would be the end of civilization as we know it, that didnt happen as well.

I think if a person loves another, same sex or not, they should be allowed to live their lives married with the same benefits. It’s none of my business and I do not intent to get involved.

It is not going to hurt me or my life if they live in a married to one another.

THis is why support is above 50% for gay marriage now.

I also dont think that all these kids in foster homes without a family shouldnt be allowed to be adopted by same sex parents. It is better than being in a foster home all your life and never having a family.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 1:23 AM

fadetogray on April 7, 2012 at 1:21 AM

I dont believe it as murder, last I checked, my birthday is the day I came out of my mother. Not before.

I didnt have a name, social security card or anything else prior.

Noone has a right to tell a female that she has to do something with her body if she does not want to. Sorry, I draw the line there.

If I were female, no I wouldnt get an abortion, but thats my belief, and I am not going to put that on anyone else. Its their body and their life. They should absolutely have the right to a choice.

It’s suppose to be a free country, and telling a person they have to do something with their body is in fact taking that away from them.

Noone will chance my mind on that.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 1:26 AM

SO you say, you really think it will get that bad? I have a lot more faith in our people and country that it would not get that bad.

Of course you do. It is an essential part of the thinking of the promoters of decay that we are rich and powerful enough that we can afford to be stupid.

And your vision of Cultural Decay does not mean that is what will happen. It is an opinion, and what you and other fear mongers say will happen, that doesnt make it so.

Golly, no one’s opinion matters all by itself. Give yourself a gold star.

People also said intergration of black people into white society would be the end of civilization as we know it, that didnt happen as well.

That’s right, and I was one of the people saying that claim was a bunch of hooey.

I think if a person loves another, same sex or not, they should be allowed to live their lives married with the same benefits. It’s none of my business and I do not intent to get involved.

Why should couples get any benefits single people do not get? Seriously. Explain that to me. Why does society take my wealth to improve the lives of people with companions?

It is not going to hurt me or my life if they live in a married to one another.

I don’t give a damn whether they live like they are married, but that isn’t what this fight is about. Gay people want to get in on the racket, and you want to let them.

But it won’t hurt you much, all by itself, so you can afford to be stupid about it.

THis is why support is above 50% for gay marriage now.

Support is over 50% now because people are getting weary of being called bigots whenever they turn on the TV.

I also dont think that all these kids in foster homes without a family shouldnt be allowed to be adopted by same sex parents. It is better than being in a foster home all your life and never having a family.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 1:23 AM

That is not the ground on which a battle is being fought. The fight is over whether adoption providers can make a decision different than yours because they have a different opinion than you have about it.

fadetogray on April 7, 2012 at 1:35 AM

Noone will chance my mind on that.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Exactly. So you are adamantly in favor of abortion.

fadetogray on April 7, 2012 at 1:36 AM

Damian- “her life” “her body” try again dipstick, that’s the whole issue, that there’s two involved, regardless of when the government issues certificates LOL

bernverdnardo1 on April 7, 2012 at 1:43 AM

damian1967 on April 6, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Folks here are like bloodhounds, you can’t hide, they found you quick.

Bmore on April 7, 2012 at 1:45 AM

If I were female, no I wouldnt get an abortion, but thats my belief, and I am not going to put that on anyone else. Its their body and their life. They should absolutely have the right to a choice.

It’s suppose to be a free country, and telling a person they have to do something with their body is in fact taking that away from them.

Noone will chance my mind on that.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 1:26 AM

The First Principle, and most important principle, is to defend the most defenseless among us. Being Pro-Life is exactly that: defending the right of the unborn to have a life. I hear all this pandering to the rights of women, and yet, why not defend the rights of the unborn children? Why don’t liberals get it? Abortion takes away ALL rights of the unborn.

HoosierStateofMind on April 7, 2012 at 2:42 AM

In fact, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country! Go figure, those liberals, who would of thought.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 12:54 AM

That is because Mass has one of the lowest marriage rates in the country. People here cohabitate rather than get married, since government has made it more of a burden and expensive. That makes the break up much easier, just move out, no lawyers, no judges, no restrictions. It is a much worse situation for children and women than actual marriage.

Not to mention, how is it going in Mass with Patrick and Obama? Crime rates are back up to where they were before Romney and Bush. Yeah, the libs have all the “right” solutions for the people, but they only work in their sub-par imaginations rather than the real world.

ray on April 7, 2012 at 3:46 AM

The problem with low population states is the talent pool can vary so dramatically. Murkowski the mindlessly yapping maltese is a fine example of what can be scrapped from the bottom of the political barrel.

ray on April 7, 2012 at 3:58 AM

It frustrates me no end when “republicans” let themselves be used by the leftist mainstream media.

Senator Murkowski, they are using you, period. I’ve lived through the so-called “feminist movement” and it morphed into an entitlement movement for people who were upset/angry/etc. and wanted an excuse to get “equality”. People, regardless of subset, are not equally talented, not equally successful. You should know this. Making this kind of statement regarding one subset of the population only shows that perhaps press exposure means more than truth.

I’ve voted R most of my life. Why? I grew up in a town where the Dems (along with their union and mob buddies) controlled everything and eventually wrecked the city. It’s no different now – except that the destruction is on a far larger scale.

For the record, the Dems must be getting really desperate to go down this road. Senator Murkowski, we don’t need to help them. Please retract this statement.

MN J on April 7, 2012 at 8:12 AM

“WHAT WAR AGAINST WOMEN?”

LizardLips on April 7, 2012 at 9:08 AM

This is very simple, if they do not want to provide contraceptives then they should not be taking tax dollars. I have no problem with it then, but they can not have it both ways.

damian1967 on April 6, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Actually, you’re wrong. Being a religious institution means they DO get to have it both ways, whether you agree our not.

One only need look at the recent 9-0 decision by the SC regarding religious institutions to see how they likely feel about its constitutionality.

spinach.chin on April 7, 2012 at 9:15 AM

ray on April 7, 2012 at 3:46 AM

Do you just make this stuff up to try and justify yout thinking?

1) Crime is not up under Patrick, in fact it is lower if not about the same.

2) Crime rates in the US are down all together through Obama years in general.

3) Divorce rates are lowest in states that allow same sex marriage.

HoosierStateofMind on April 7, 2012 at 2:42 AM

By your logic, if a mother dies because of an unborn child, and the child lives, they should be put on trial for Murder. They ultimately killed their mother. If they are going to have rights, then they should be held to the same standards as born people, otherwise it is not equal rights.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 9:22 AM

spinach.chin on April 7, 2012 at 9:15 AM

If they provided contraceptives, then unwanted pregnancies would be down, thus meaning less abortions.

bernverdnardo1 on April 7, 2012 at 1:43 AM

If it were about two people, then thats easy. If you are married, then an abortion should have the decision of the two people, and not just the mother.

But if there is no marriage, then the woman should not be forced to do something for the man because they made a mistake and have no intention of getting married.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 9:27 AM

I dont believe it as murder, last I checked, my birthday is the day I came out of my mother. Not before.

I didnt have a name, social security card or anything else prior.

Noone has a right to tell a female that she has to do something with her body if she does not want to. Sorry, I draw the line there.

If I were female, no I wouldnt get an abortion, but thats my belief, and I am not going to put that on anyone else. Its their body and their life. They should absolutely have the right to a choice.

It’s suppose to be a free country, and telling a person they have to do something with their body is in fact taking that away from them.

Noone will chance my mind on that.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 1:26 AM

That’s an incredibly simplistic argument for someone who wants to be taken seriously as an independent thinker.

So, your humanity hinges upon acquiring a few legal documents from the govt? WTF!

What’s the difference between a “fetus” that at one point is in the uterus, and 30 seconds later is out of the womb?

You scoff at traditional conservative arguments on issues, claiming to be a “free-thinker”, but swallow hook, line, and sinker liberal talking points on issues and argue fervently for them (GOP offered no viable alternative to Obamacare, a fetus is party of the mothers body right up until the time of birth, etc.) Interesting…

spinach.chin on April 7, 2012 at 9:29 AM

spinach.chin on April 7, 2012 at 9:29 AM

I never said the GOP offered no viable alternatives, I said NOONE has.

I never said the fetus is part of the womens body up till birth either, I am not qualified to decide when an abortion is justified or should be allowed till, however I do think there should be a times that it is allowed.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 9:32 AM

If they provided contraceptives, then unwanted pregnancies would be down, thus meaning less abortions.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 9:27 AM

A non-argument. It is in violation of the constitution to force them to do so.

spinach.chin on April 7, 2012 at 9:34 AM

spinach.chin on April 7, 2012 at 9:29 AM

My point about the legal documents is only that I do not believe that the rights of an unborn child to some certain time frame, should out weigh the rights of the mother to carry a child.

Why should the rights of a fetus (Lets say 1 month old) trump the rights of the mother? And why should anyone govern that? It is unfair and unequal protection.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 9:35 AM

spinach.chin on April 7, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Where is it in violation to force them to do so in the constitution? Where is there case law on it? Please show me.

They are taking tax payer dollars, so long as they are, I dont think it is or should be up to them to force their religious veiws on others.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 9:36 AM

I never said the GOP offered no viable alternatives, I said NOONE has.

I never said the fetus is part of the womens body up till birth either, I am not qualified to decide when an abortion is justified or should be allowed till, however I do think there should be a times that it is allowed.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 9:32 AM

The GOP offered alternatives, but your progressive mind well not allow you to accept it as “viable”.

You also made the implication that it would have been ok to abort you up until the time that you came out of your mom and had a name and SSN.

spinach.chin on April 7, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Here is a good line on this matter, since there is no case law to affirm your feelings on this matter. In fact there is case law to support my views on it.

Religious groups’ claims that constitutional rights are being violated by this requirement may not hold up in court. Many Catholic universities and hospitals receive federal money — money raised through taxes paid by Americans of all faiths and beliefs. In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that a religious college that accepts federal money, even indirectly through student loans, should be required to follow federal education regulations. Catholic hospitals also get some of their funding from the federal government — Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements.

If employers are required to offer contraceptive coverage through their health insurance plans, then all employers should be required to offer the option. Using birth control should be a woman’s choice, and it’s one she should make while following no one’s beliefs but her own.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Where is it in violation to force them to do so in the constitution? Where is there case law on it? Please show me.

They are taking tax payer dollars, so long as they are, I dont think it is or should be up to them to force their religious veiws on others.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 9:36 AM

I’ve already explained the reasoning. The SC likely disagrees with you (and not just the conservative justices).

spinach.chin on April 7, 2012 at 9:45 AM

spinach.chin on April 7, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Really? Then why am I able to show case law that would support it? I dont think it is as clear cut as you think it is. They receive federal dollars, thus meaning if they want to have that money then they have to follow the same rules.

Its easy, stop taking the money and do what you want.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 9:46 AM

In February 1984, in a related case, Grove City College v. Bell, the Supreme Court required every college or university to fulfill federal requirements – past and future requirements – if its students received federal aid. As a result of the court’s decision, Hillsdale withdrew from all federal assistance beginning with the 1984-85 academic year; Grove City College, the defendant in that case, followed Hillsdale’s lead four years later.

My point EXACTLY!

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 9:50 AM

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Do federal education guidelines violate religious conscience? Most assuredly, they do not.

Apples and oranges…

spinach.chin on April 7, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Really? Then why am I able to show case law that would support it?

You haven’t.

spinach.chin on April 7, 2012 at 10:05 AM

spinach.chin on April 7, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Actually, Yes I have. Grove City College v. Bell.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Do federal education guidelines violate religious conscience? Most assuredly, they do not.

Apples and oranges…

spinach.chin on April 7, 2012 at 10:02 AM

At times they do.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Actually, Yes I have. Grove City College v. Bell.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 10:08 AM

As I’ve said, it’s apples and oranges. Federal education guidelines do not violate religious conscience, so it is within the government’s reach to require institutions that take federal money to follow those guidelines.

Requiring a Catholic hospital or organization to pay for abortions and contraception is a violation of religious conscience.

If the hospital had said that it intends to stop treating patients with a heart condition, then you might have a point… but not here.

spinach.chin on April 7, 2012 at 10:22 AM

At times they do.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Really? When?

spinach.chin on April 7, 2012 at 10:23 AM

…and don’t say “teaching evolution”, because you’d just beclown yourself.

spinach.chin on April 7, 2012 at 10:25 AM

“If you don’t feel this is an attack, you need to go home and talk to your wife and your daughters.”

I have, senator. And they don’t think it’s an attack.

Not every woman in this country is an urban secular liberal – even if those seem to be the only ones you run into.

The_Jacobite on April 7, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Catholic hospitals also get some of their funding from the federal government — Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements.

So the business that took money from me out of that $300 Stimulus check I got a few years ago are also subject to intense regulation from the government? I would have thought it’s the individual who is taking government money at that point, not the hospital, since that’s who the program was designed to help, the uninsured (Or are they likewise somehow beholden to Blue Cross when taking their customers as patients?). Does this argument also apply to food stamps? Are grocery stores even allowed to refuse food stamps?

Using birth control should be a woman’s choice, and it’s one she should make while following no one’s beliefs but her own.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 9:43 AM

I’d argue that if she has a significant other in her life, she should consider that person as well in that and many other decisions (and of course her doctor who may decide that blood clots are a high and unnecessary risk with that particular patient), but ultimately neither of these sentences have anything whatsoever to do with the contraception debate. 99% of women in this country who want the pill, already have it. This debate has absolutely no impact on that at all, even though people are breaking their arms to pat themselves on the back about how much more they care about women’s health without even offering up something that would improve it.

Esthier on April 7, 2012 at 10:39 AM

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 9:43 AM.

Walmart has birthcontrol for $9 a month!

flytier on April 7, 2012 at 11:07 AM

If I wrote how I really feel about this god awful, backstabbing woman I would be banned from Hot Air!

Winebabe on April 7, 2012 at 11:17 AM

“This is so highly disappointing to me.” T.K.

What did you expect from her? WE all know what she is about, you?

“They ACT like victims.” – T.K.

Congrats, you just joined them.
(sigh)
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on April 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Lisa Murkowski’s credentials as being a victim of Repulican’s war on women doesn’t even compute. She’s a typical RINO that thinks she can get some traction with the stupid among us(Democrats and people who don’t pay attention)so that Obama wins in November. All the Congress Critters act as if they have been kidnapped by Obama and threated with their lives if they don’t pay homage to the Won. I’m very sick of Obama and the Congress critters that go to DC every day. Throw them all out!

BetseyRoss on April 7, 2012 at 11:46 AM

And just an FYI, I am not for abortion, but I am also not going to tell any female what she can or can not do with her body.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 1:05 AM

Then by all means, allow me -

Lets say Damian1967 and Damian1968 are conjoined twins. Should Damian1967 be allowed to tell Damian1968 to lay off the freakin heroin?

Sorry pal. Once the female is “with child” it is no longer just about her.

BigAlSouth on April 7, 2012 at 1:06 PM


And before you say I am for obamacare, I am not. However I have yet to see a solution offered by the opponents to Obamacare, and instead of breaking it down and getting rid of it, fix it.

People in this country need health care, and it either has to become affordable or insurance has to be offered to people that cannot afford it somehow.

Im all for throwing obamacare out the window, but I want solutions, not just get rid of it.

The Republicans have offered quite a few different ideas on the subject (BTW, I don’t accept your premise that just because we “need” something, the government should supply it. After all, we all need food and shelter even more than healthcare, and the government should *NOT* be in the business of supplying it at all).

My faves are:

Get rid of or severely cap punitive awards.
Cap non-economic damages (throw out anything with “mental” in it).
Make insurance portable across state lines.
Allow an individual to choose what type (if any) insurance he wants.

I can pretty much guarantee you that if the first two points were implemented across society (not just in medical), costs would come down dramatically.

How can you be sure, you ask? Because I live in Saudi Arabia, where torts are discouraged and where using the justice system as a lottery is not allowed. Example given: Saudia has the world’s worst drivers (I’ve heard that there are worse, but I’ve yet to see it). In order to understand this, you have to drive here to believe it. They drive on both sides of the road (and sidewalks), make left-hand turns from the right lane, run stop lights as if they don’t even exist, etc. Up until last year, they were usually number 1 or number 2 in traffic fatality rates (they’ve recently cracked down using traffic cameras).

In spite of all this, I pay less than $400.00 per year for full auto insurance with no deductible. And the cost of repairing vehicles here is not that much less than in the states.

So…if we used the same methods that Saudia does, there should be no place in the states which charges more than $100.00 per year for a bad driver.

Natrium on April 7, 2012 at 3:34 PM

I wonder what types and how many prescription pills it takes for this neurotic hag to get through a day. She has to have a taxpayer-paid assistant just to help her with this monumental task.

jan3 on April 7, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Go see the movie “October Baby”.

Pragmatic on April 7, 2012 at 4:50 PM

What a (female dog).

/

Red Cloud on April 7, 2012 at 6:22 PM

And just an FYI, I am not for abortion slavery, but I am also not going to tell any female slaveowner what she can or can not do with her property.

damian1967

Blue Hen on April 7, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Women are wonderful beings mostly. Just not this one.

Bmore on April 7, 2012 at 6:57 PM

I’ve got to ask Alaska – what makes a republican a republican and a democrat a democrat? I think I’d be an independent from what I see going on.

How much further left does Murkowski go as a republican in her words and actions before she becomes a democrat?

And yes, I’m a double X chromosome.

athenadelphi on April 7, 2012 at 8:42 PM

I don’t understand why this woman continues to call herself a Republican?

She is against almost EVERYTHING a conservative stands for…for goodness sake, it’s time for a come to Jesus moment for this woman…face it YOU ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE!

But she’ll probably reprimand me for using Jesus in the public square…

ccrosby on April 7, 2012 at 10:44 PM

By your logic, if a mother dies because of an unborn child, and the child lives, they should be put on trial for Murder. They ultimately killed their mother. If they are going to have rights, then they should be held to the same standards as born people, otherwise it is not equal rights.

damian1967 on April 7, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Congrats. You are likely the stupidest person on the internet tonight.

Midas on April 8, 2012 at 12:14 AM

I’m waging a war on women, but only the ones from American Gladiators and they always kick my azz :(

DHChron on April 8, 2012 at 8:51 AM

I’ve got to ask Alaska – what makes a republican a republican and a democrat a democrat? I think I’d be an independent from what I see going on.

……………..

athenadelphi on April 7, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Democrats vote overwhelmingly for massive expansions of the federal government such as Obamacare, and they overwhelmingly support the appointments of Justices (and Cabinet Secretaries and so on) like Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer and Ginsberg who think trampling on our “outdated” Constitition in order to allow for such massive expansions of government is just peachy. Republicans tend to oppose those kinds of things.

Note the use of the words “overwhelmingly” and “tend,” neither of which is an absolute like the words “all” or “always.” There is a much stronger tendency for Democrats (evil people) to support the advance of evil than for Republicans (good people) to oppose it. Such is the nature of the world.

All other issues, however important the supporters of those issues think those issues are, tend to swirl around that central issue of the role and power of the central government.

Murkowski voted against Obamacare. That was a big point in her favor during the 2010 election. However, if she had voted for Obamacare, she would not be “Senator” Murkowski now, and she and everyone else knew that, so it is kind of silly to give her credit for the vote.

fadetogray on April 8, 2012 at 9:57 AM

The same people who support women’s right to abortion (the cold-blooded murder of the unborn) are no different than the germans who looked the other way when millions of jews were murdered during WWII. It is really pathetic that so many women have multiple abortions, as if they are treating a veneral disease.

Oracleforhire on April 8, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Is it just me, or does Lisa Murkowski look a lot like DiFi in this picture? Suffice it to say she thinks a lot like DiFi as well. As someone who’s lived in California longer than I’d like to admit, this isn’t a compliment.

Sir Rants-A-Lot on April 8, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Damn Sam. How in hell did contraception become a political debate much less a “war against women”. ATTACKS! What attacks. Who attacked whom? I have yet to see or hear any conservitive and/or republican that wants to deny birth control pills for women. If anyone wants to talk about attacks let us talk about obama attacking freedom of religion. If the 2012 race had to do with anything other than race or birth control pills obama would lose in a landslide.

TomLawler on April 9, 2012 at 8:03 AM

Stuff like this is why she was labeled a ‘RINO’ and voted out of office to begin with. The ‘War on Women’ is nothing more than a Liberal Propoganda campaign attempting to divert people’s attention from the fact that Obama violated the Constitution, AGAIN, with his health care mandate to/on religious institutions. Murkowski is either ‘on-board’ with the Libs or too stupid to kow what is going on.

There is not one politician anywhere who is against contraceptives, especially those prescribed medically for certain medical condition. Mandating that religious institutions provide ABORTION-inducing drugs is the issue that violates the Constitution. If Democrats/Liberals want to publicly define the ‘War on women’ as the GOP opposing Obama’s violation of the Constitution, then the GOP could come out and publicly state, ‘Yes, we are against Obama’s violation of the Constitution!’

easyt65 on April 9, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3