Republican U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon calls herself pro-choice, but her opponent, Democrat Chris Murphy, says her support for abortion rights only goes so far.
The Murphy camp is seizing on comments made by McMahon during an editorial board meeting with The Hartford Courant. Asked if a rape victim should be provided with emergency contraception, even if she happens to show up at a Catholic hospital, McMahon framed her answer in terms of religious freedom and government overreach.
“Well, I just think…that it is an issue of separation of church and state, and that institution should decide what its role would be, and what it’s comfortable with doing in that instance,” McMahon said in the interview.
But that position runs counter to Connecticut law. In 2007, after a lengthy debate, the legislature passed the bill requiring all hospitals to dispense emergency contraceptive pills to rape victims. The measure passed by bipartisan, veto-proof margins in both chambers and was signed into law by one of McMahon’s most prominent political supporters, then-Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell.
As reported by the Courant’s Capitol bureau chief, Chris Keating, the Catholic church had lobbied strongly against the proposal and some insiders believed the Church might file a lawsuit to block the law. However just a few days becfore the law took effect, the bishops released a statement saying they would comply.
“The Bishops and other Catholic health care leaders believe that this law is seriously flawed, but not sufficiently to bar compliance with it at the present time,” the bishops said. “We continue to believe this law should be changed.”
McMahon sought to explain her position during last night’s debate in New London. “I do want to clarify one thing that Congressman Murphy had said about the rape issue and contraception…It was really an issue about a Catholic church being forced to offer those pills if the person came in in an emergency rape… that was my response to it. I absolutely think that we should avail women who come in with rape victims the opportunity to have morning after pills,” she said.
Murphy spokesman Eli Zupnick drew a connection between McMahon’s comments and those of Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin of Missouri.
“Connecticut voters have made it clear that all victims of rape and sexual assault should be given the care they need no matter which hospital they get brought to in the middle of the night,” Zupnick said in a statement. “But Linda McMahon told the Courant that she agrees with Todd Akin and right-wing Republicans that some rape victims shouldn’t be shown compassion, they should be shown the door.”
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
17 Responses to Murphy Campaign Says Linda McMahon is Channeling Todd Akin on Emergency Contraception
About Capitol Watch
The Hartford Courant’s Capitol Watch blog provides insightful and in-depth coverage of Connecticut politics... read more- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
NEW! CT Politics App.
Courant.com brings you the latest CT political news, blogs, tweets and photos, powered by the Hartford Courant and FOX CT.
Download it now:
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
She would rather bow to a questionable narrow application of the separation of powers than provide a woman with the help she needs after a rape. Not an abortion, just a pill a day after possible conception. This is the big problem with Republicans – ideology over people. The far right has her in their grip. She says she is “independent minded” but here she is spouting the same old right-wing party line. She is not smart enough to explore this issue on her own so she borrows and repeats their tired old logic verbatim. And this is what she says now – her actual beliefs and likely actions would be far more oppressive to women.
This from the poster who ‘feels’ that the stimulus packages have helped create jobs, all while failing to acknowledge that when it comes to net jobs Obama has made things worse.
According to Thomas Sowell: Economist Edward Lazear has cut through all of Barack Obama’s claims about “creating jobs” with one plain and inescapable fact — “there hasn’t been one day during the entire Obama presidency when as many Americans were working as on the day President Bush left office.” Whatever number of jobs were created during the Obama administration, more have been lost.
Speaking of ideology, indeed
Kim, Those facts are true but are a selective read of the stats. Look at the graph below. You can see that the peak happens at the end of the Bush years. Then there is a 2 year crash causing the loss of 8 million jobs. It looks like the 2 year Obama recovery is starting to accelerate in the steep curve over the last year shown. Whoever becomes president will enjoy a continued recovery.
http://www.peakprosperity.com/sites/default/files/resize/remote/89acef88ed159119b0d011487ecfd144-580×580.jpg
Why would she go to a Catholic Hospital and why wouldn’t the Democrat Secularists provide an alternative crisis center offering pills and counseling 25/7? Mostly because they are far too cheap to donate and want to convert the Catholics to their ideology. Their compassion stops when it comes to offering viable alternatives which is really just another form of rape.
I am aware that my upcoming comment has nothing to do with this story, but I don’t care about this story and I have a question.
What is with Murphy’s money management problems? I understand he blamed not paying his rent and mortgage on the confusion marrige. Fine. BS, but whatever. I can’t prove it is BS.
But how is it that a man making a $174,000 per year salary shows up to a televised debate wearing an old suit with the lapel fraying and looking like it was just pulled out of the bottom of his hamper? Is he trying to look poor to appeal to the common man, or does he manage his finances so poorly that he can’t afford to buy a new suit, or get his old one pressed?
Normally, I could not care less about any aspect of fashion, but I have to wonder what he does with his money.
Only a moron would talk about such things as ‘channeling’ in relation to a political campaign….Chris Murphy fits the bill completely…
If a hospital uses government funding then they should be required to provide contraceptives to rape victims.
If they are independent, they should have the option to follow their own path. If that means no contraceptives, so be it.
Seems simple, doesn’t it Kim?
As a matter of fact, hospitals that do not use federal funding beyond appropriate Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement should be allowed to follow their own path regardless of the topic, so long as they are acting within the scope of their State laws regulating the practice of medicine.
This whole Federal Funds issue is slowly being reformed by the Supreme Court starting with School Vouchers for parochial schools.
The GOP will back an increasing number of Choice and Voucher initiatives structured like Food Stamps and School Vouchers that allow the purchase of religious oriented services in competitive marketplaces such as Kosher Food at Kosher Markets with Food Stamps and Catholic School seats with Milwaukee and Louisiana vouchers. Health Care will also be self-directed vouchers when done.
The re-writing of the separation clause by cheap butt Democrat secularists has to end. Obama’s mandate is clearly unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court recetly upheld the constitutionality of ObamaCare. It was in all the newspapers.
The Contraception Mandate is a separate set of cases.
Mike,
The Obamacare ruling clearly stated the individual mandate is a tax. That was the only way to allow this law to be deemed Constitutional, and this sets up 2 opportunities for the S.C. to invalidate the law.
First off all, any tax must originate in the House. The Individual Mandate tax did not. Obamacare was a bill that originated in the Senate, passed, then was voted on in the House. This point was not argued before the Supreme Court. However it will be, as groups and individuals are already lining up to challenge on this basis.
Secondly, any buisness or individual suing based on the mandate must be harmed by the mandate prior to being able to successfully sue. This has not happened yet, as the Democrats were smart/shady enough to put the implementation of the mandate after the election. But it will happen. Whether the S.C. decides to ignore our Constitution yet again has yet to be seen. If Roberts continues down his path of liberal like disregard for the Constitution, I’d say he was Bush’s biggest mistake.
Most of what you say is reasonable. The charge of ignoring the constitution seems excessive. The court is the decider of whether a law is constitutional. There are many pundits without law degrees, never mind the additional specialization of constitutional law. The public take may be off the mark. People are free to bring new cases and the court may or may not hear them. We’ll see.
Mike,
I agree that pundits without law degrees cannot decide Constitutional arguments instead of the Supreme Court.
However, it is not a matter of interpretation, opinion, or any other version of gray area that all bills regarding tax revenue must originate in the House. This is clearly spelled out in the Constitution.
It is also clear that the Mandate is either a tax or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court clearly determined this point.
Further, there is no argument that Obamacare was passed by the Senate before the House. The Senate did not pass the House Bill, which included a Public Option and other Liberal wish list items. It was the other way around.
So, assuming you take each of these undeniable facts to be true, if any Justice rules against those who bring this case before the court once they are harmed by the Mandate, how else would you describe this other than ignoring the Constitution?
It’s a lot more complicated than you indicate. I’m not going to argue other than to provide one link. Here is what one Professor of Constitutional Law says about the “origination” challenge:
Well, there are a few problems…
In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. in 1911…
In Rainey, the Court made clear…
In addition to all these problems…
“Members of the media will no doubt ask legal scholars (such as yours truly) whether the PLF’s new constitutional challenge to Obamacare is likely to succeed on the merits. I’ve just given you my answer: not under existing law.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/the-right-strikes-back-a-new-legal-challenge-for-obamacare/262443/
He says, and I agree, there will likely be many more challenges.
Mike,
I had already read this article. While I agree that the precedents it mentions could, and probably will stop the PLC from being succussful, it doesn’t change my opinion that a ruling against the PLC would ignore the Constitution.
Just because previous liberal courts have set precedent and ignored the Constitution doesn’t mean they followed the Constitution. For example, judicial support of Kelo, any law that restricts firearm ownership, and every single law that restricts or regulates the practice of religion is based in Liberal opinion of what Liberal Judges/Justices think the Constitution should have said, rather than what it actually did say.
In the case of restricting religious symbols on public land, that is flat out reversing what the Constitution says. When the Founder’s wrote, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” they were not leaving anything up to interpretation. They did not mention “make no law unless religious symbols offend someone”. They did not mention “make no law, unless it applies to public land”. They wrote what they wrote; Congress was not to make any laws regarding religion.
My opinion remains that if the Constitution is followed, Obamacare is gone with the PLC case. However, I have little faith that the Justices will rule based on what the Constitution says, rather than what they think it should have said.
Mike, I suppose I should have some sympathy for you getting beaten like a rug by John Galts’ impeccable skills and facts. But I don’t – I’m not a liberal, a Democrat or a Progressive. I believe in tough love.
I do have some concern that someone who seems to have above-average intelligence can continue to hold on to views and positions that are repeatedly shown to be wrong. Sadly, you reflect the average voter in America – you vote with your feelings instead of with facts and instead of voting for what’s best for the country as outlined in the consitituion. That document got you to this point yet you work hard at destroying it. Now THAT is sad and should be criminal, but it’s simply another example of the shoddy job being done by our public education establishment