Apparently, Lisa Murkowski was unprepared for the impact of her voting for the rule to have employers dictate the health care choices of half the nation’s population.
Back from Washington, D.C., for the start of the Iditarod Sled Dog Race, the senator kept running into female voters who wrote in her name in the last election — moderate women who did not always vote Democrat or Republican. These women were coming unglued.
The reason: Murkowski’s support for a measure that would have allowed not just religious employers, but any employer, to opt out of providing birth control or other health insurance coverage required by the 2010 health-care law for moral reasons.
I called her office Friday looking for an interview but didn’t expect to get one. Then an email arrived from her account on Saturday, agreeing to meet me Sunday night at the Millennium Hotel.
We talked for 45 minutes. What Murkowski told me I already suspected. She’s a moderate. She supports abortion rights and contraception coverage. She also doesn’t line up completely with the Catholic Church when it comes to birth control. She regretted her recent vote.
“I have never had a vote I’ve taken where I have felt that I let down more people that believed in me,” she said.
Murkowski tried to retreat to a “religious freedom” argument, but I think that link has now been severed. Whatever religious freedom case conservatives wanted to make when putting the power of health care decisions in the hands of employers and taking them away from women has been thoroughly discredited. Murkowski almost certainly knew that at the time – she admitted to Julia O’Malley in this interview that the language was “overbroad” – and still voted for it.
Here’s what I never understand. Murkowski is never described as an independent. But she lost the Republican primary for Senate, only winning re-election with a write-in campaign. She was not the Republican nominee. But after the election, she folded herself right back into the Republican Party, to the point of aligning with them on this Blunt amendment vote. Now she’s suffering a huge backlash from precisely the voters who put her in office. Republicans didn’t like her enough to nominate her for Senate in 2010. And now moderates will never forgive her for trying to take away health care choice from women. Murkowski saying she wouldn’t vote for it again probably isn’t good enough.
And you wonder about the loss of faith in leaders and institutions.





29 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Let’s warm up Peabody’s Wayback Machine so Lisa can renew her application for a redo vote or a spine.
Our leaders have no principles except “more cash for re-election.” They don’t even realize that they are admitting they have no principles. At least Lisa seems to have finally figured out she let people down, but her explanation is ….???
Typical Republican “moderate”.
She proclaims to be a moderate, then votes for a truly vile, right wing POS bit of legislation (like this amendment). Then she apologises for it. That’s Murkowski’s definition of “moderate”.
You would think after the shitty way the GOP leadership treated her in the primary, she’d be more independent. Nope.
It get’s murkier an murkier all the time. Doubt it will change her base much. IMO.
I hope the women she fucked with will never, ever forget! Everyone who voted for Blunt should be tagged with this despicable behavior. And, yeah, Rush Limbaugh IS the Republican Party!
Why doesn’t Murkowski have enough money to win without any voters, like O does?
And, like any criminal…..she’s not sorry; she’s just sorry she got caught!
Yep thats SOP for the GOP!
Then they all play the victim card! What a bunch of whiny ass fuckturds!
Let’s hope the women voters remember when re-election time comes. Murkowski is a chickens–t who follows Repub party line.
Better to have government dictate the health care choices of all the nation’s population?
BTW, not against birth control, just government mandates.
I gotta say I was in a blue funk for week’s after the full scale assault on doormat women began. I am slightly encouraged to see there’s some fighting back going on.
It is inherent in any third party payment system that the payer eventually wakes up and decides since he pays, he’s going to determine what he’s paying for. That goes for govt as well as private payers. The theory is that a rep govt makes better decisions for recipients of medical care than dictatorial corps that have no legal constraints on their behavior vis-a-vis employees (short of murdering them, and even then not so much as mining exec got 3 years for 29 murders).
When govt turns into dictatorship, all bets are off.
If the Lisa Murkowski-supported Blunt amendment had passed, the following question would have appeared on all job applications:
Have you ever used contraceptives (or gotten an abortion) in the past, or are you currently on the pill now (or thinking about getting an abortion)? Yes or No?
Yes? Next job applicant!!! And security throw this slut and prostitute out!!!
Is this clear enough for Murkowski? And does this clear-up why Rush Limbaugh said what he said last week about Sandra Fluke?
Corps could put that Q on applications right now.
There is a big difference between a profit driven enterprise that has an interest in keeping its labor costs low and an institution that exists to promote the general welfare of citizenry in a non profit manner.
I have no problem with the government mandating that everyone who will utilize health care(which is essentially everyone)have a health insurance policy. My problem is compelling them to purchase from a profit driven company. Other than that I’m good with making sure that the hospitals get rid of inefficient 2 tier plans where they charge $2000 to the guy without insurance and $200 to the guy with(as if it costs different amounts for the same treatment).
Note: the Blunt amendment should be retitled the Monica Goodling amendment, because what Monica Goodling was doing at the Department of Justice is exactly what the Blunt amendment sought to do at every company across America, putting a Monica Goodling in charge at every one of them.
Just like under Shrub, and Wisconsin, the overreach from all the asshat conservatives is forcing people to stand up and fight for liberal and progressive principles.
I never thought the conservative overreach would occur while a Dem was in the White House… but, Big Zero has lost the vote of so many people I know he may lose even if Frothy Rick wins the GOP nomination, so what does it matter? The only hope is for a real grass movement third party to become competitive anyway.
Besides, I prefer being punched in the face to being stabbed in the back.
I’m so stealing that.
Even though as a pragmatic matter I’m not sure I agree.
You do me honor, eCAHN. I wonder if I could sell it to a GOP media consultant…
Obama could still lose, even to Santorum or Gingrinch. 8 months is a very long time in politics. Anything can happen.
Shorter Murkowski: I had no IDEA so many voters pay attention to our votes. When did this happen?
And why aren’t the media calling it the Blunt-RUBIO amendment? Rubio, that conservative star in the GOP firmament, was a co-sponsor. This needs to be hung around his neck like a slab of decaying meat.
Why does this feel like the “Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?” moment?
She tried to do the damage that she could do, but now she regrets it.
I listened to an interview with a Southern state legislator (female), guest on Michelle Martin’s Tell Me More (NPR). Don’t hold me to the details, but the legislator proposed a bill(?) that would treat men’s vesectomy rights the same way as women’s reproductive rights were treated. She was out to make a point, only relative connection to a serious bill.
But she was deluged with responses that generally divided into women’s responses of “Right on! You go, girl!” and men’s responses of “Stupid bitch, don’t even know that men don’t make fetuses!” (I’m paraphrasing). Is this the way sides are going to line up? (Perhaps within fundamental religion circles anyway?)
And your point is that Republicans and their supports are stupid? I already knew that.
Not sure what you said, but I think now, Big Gov. requires your Employer (you) to pay Big Insurance to take a profit, and pay Big Pharma to take a profit and provide You with “free” birth control.
Enjoy the free.
She must have thought she could reprise the role of “good ol’ girl” after folding herself back into the Rebagger caucus. Now, nobody wants her.How could she be so dense?
Have you been so anti-social all your life, or is it an acquired disability?
Rush could just as easily been talking about Murkowski last week.