Reid’s Dem-agogues Lose Phony War for Votes
By Tony Perkins
Forget birth control. America needs border control! But that’s not something the nation is likely to get from this Senate, whose leaders are too busy chasing women’s votes to put out the real fires over immigration, the economy, or the Middle East. Of course, the greatest irony of this contraception push is that liberals thought it would help them in November, when in reality, it’s turning into the best advertisement for a conservative takeover yet!
It may come as a surprise to Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), but women are capable of looking past their reproductive systems to the serious issues facing America. With just a handful of weeks left on the legislative calendar, they know those are the conversations leaders should be having — not a trumped-up political show over pills that they have more access to than ever. Still, the President’s party plowed ahead anyway, eating up precious time to misrepresent a Supreme Court ruling that exempted religious employers from covering drugs that run counter to their faith by preventing or ending a pregnancy.
As Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) pointed out, “Nobody, nobody, nobody” (except Rep. Nancy Pelosi) “is talking about restricting access to contraceptives” — a lie the House Minority Leader was caught making. “What we’re talking about is the federal government using brute force to force people to pay for abortion-inducing drugs of others against their religious faith.”
That didn’t stop Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) from trying to paint her bill in a misleading light. No woman, she argued, “should require a permission slip from their boss” for birth control. Then, in a not-so-failed threat, Murray warned that Americans would be watching how conservatives voted. Let’s hope so, because they’ll see that — with the exception of three Republicans — the GOP views women as more than one-dimensional voters. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) made that quite clear in his complete deconstruction of the Left’s talking points.
“The most extraordinary feature of the bill before us today is the incongruity between its title and its content… I rise today in opposition to the [Protect Women’s Health from Corporate Interference Act] because it doesn’t do anything to protect women’s health — and it does much to undermine the bulwarks of liberty enshrined in our Constitution that have made America the most religiously diverse and tolerant nation in human history.”
“The authors of this bill,” he pointed out, “…know the American people reject their intolerance of diversity and indifference to the First Amendment. We know their bill cannot become law. Indeed, we know this for a fact, because if the regulations they support were actually written in the law, ObamaCare itself never would have passed. [The mandate] was slipped in after the fact, by bureaucrats not subject to public accountability.” With that, Republicans blocked Sen. Murray’s bill, voting 56-43 to send the bill to the recycle bin until Sen. Reid brings the measure back up. “We are going to vote again on this issue before the year is out,” he swore.
If he does, a new report says they may have some explaining to do. According to the study, five million Americans have lost their health insurance under ObamaCare. How can Democrats say they’re championing women’s health care when they backed a bill causing millions to lose theirs? Good question. One more voters ought to be asking.
Tony Perkins is president of the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council. He is a former member of the Louisiana legislature where he served for eight years, and he is recognized as a legislative pioneer for authoring measures like the nation’s first Covenant Marriage law.
(Via FRC’s Washington Update. Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.)
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.