The Corner

Lisa Murkowski

regrets voting to protect religious freedom last week. 

From a local paper

when I talked to Murkowski, she said she voted for the Blunt Amendment (proposed by Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt), to send a message that the health care law needed a stronger clause for religious conscience. It was supposed to be a vote for religious freedom, she said, but to female voters back home it looked like a vote against contraception. The language of the amendment was “overbroad,” she said.

Normal.dotm

0

0

1

84

480

National Review

4

1

589

12.0

0

false

18 pt

18 pt

0

0

false

false

false

/* Style Definitions */

table.MsoNormalTable

{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;

mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;

mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;

mso-style-noshow:yes;

mso-style-parent:””;

mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;

mso-para-margin:0in;

mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;

mso-pagination:widow-orphan;

font-size:10.0pt;

font-family:”Times New Roman”;

mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;

mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;}

“If you had it to do over again, having had the weekend that you had with women being upset about the vote, do you think you would have voted the same?” I asked.

“No,” she said.

Her vote can and should be defended, and she would be in a great position to lead a little. It is not Roy Blunt who forced an issue involving contraception on the Senate, but the White House. But apparently it would take too much work for this senator to actually defend her vote to protect conscience in the face of this administration’s attack. 

Recommended

The Latest

Rat Patrol

Rat Patrol

Illegal leaks of classified information should be treated as a serious offense. But they would be easier to prevent if less information were classified.