Lisa Murkowski Regrets Voting For Blunt Amendment

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) regrets voting for a controversial birth control amendment by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and wouldn't vote for it again if given the chance, she told the Anchorage Daily News this week.

"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 in a Sunday interview with the newspaper. Asked if she would vote for the amendment again if she could do it over, Murkowski said, "No."

Murkowski voted in lockstep with most of her party to try to pass Blunt's amendment to a Senate transportation bill; the measure would have allowed any employer to refuse to cover contraception or any other health service by citing moral reasons. The amendment went down in a 51-48 vote, but only after weeks of both parties ratcheting up the debate over protecting women's access to contraception versus preserving religious liberty. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) was the only Republican who voted against it.

The Anchorage Daily News column says Murkowski returned to Alaska after the amendment failed and kept running into female voters unhappy with her over her vote. Murkowski told them she had voted for the amendment because she wanted to send a message that the health care law needed stronger protections for religious conscience. But public debate on the measure had changed, she said, and what was supposed to be a "messaging amendment" on religious freedom, an issue Republicans were hoping to champion, ended up becoming a vote on contraception rights.

In the end, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) saw Republicans' plan backfiring and pushed for a vote on the amendment to score Democrats a political win.

Murkowski conceded that Republicans lost that battle. "The wind had shifted, and Republicans didn't have enough sense to get off of it," she told the newspaper.

Comments

[John Horner]

10:22 PM on 04/05/2012

Hmmm, a little late to take a stand .... after you voted the other way.

[BzyLzy]

12:08 AM on 03/08/2012

HA! Well, we tried to tell you to get the he!! out of our uterus's but you didn't listen!!!!!! Instead you went out Bible thumpin' on the stump. Next time pay attention; listen with the two ears God gave you and keep the one mouth quiet enough to pick up the conversation around you!

[calmly2]

10:21 PM on 03/07/2012

All she had to do was READ IT.

[Political Avatar]

03:34 AM on 04/06/2012

They generally follow the the goals of leadership unless they were on the committee for that particular bill.

As she stated bluntly, the leadership framed it as 'freedom of religion' bill, when actually that was just code for taking away women's rights, Snow figured it out, Murkosky did not until after the vote, when women came up and explained to her what would happen if that amendment had somehow passed.

In a way Murkoski had it both ways, she kept her party leaders happy (it matters not to them what she would do in the 'future') and then she pacified her constituents by publicly saying it was a bad vote.

I do hope her female constituents font fall for it though.

[ken1080]

01:26 PM on 03/07/2012

Did the amendment also make sure Jehovah's Witnesses can stop their kids from blood transfusions ? After all that is government interfere of a religious conviction, right ? Same issue.

[BlueArizonan]

12:33 PM on 03/07/2012

By "Republicans didn't have enough sense to get off of it," she clearly means "I didn't have enough sense to get off of it." As far as GOP politicians go, I like Sen. Murkowski. However, I think it is absolutely insane to vote for a bill, especially one that is in serious danger of passing, to "send a message." Participating in a debate, releasing a statement, even threatening to vote for something sends a message. Actually voting for this bill only sent one message to me: you want employers to be able to choose healthcare for other people based on any whim of conscience, religion, or economics.

The Senate doesn't really have a take-back mechanism. Once you voted for it, you voted for it. If this nightmare had passed, then what? Hope Dems just vote against the transportation bill altogther? It obviously would have then passed the even more whack-a-doodle GOP House. So then trust that the GOP doesn't have enough votes to override a veto (if one had even happened)? That is some SERIOUS gambling with my healthcare. I do not appreciate it.

[ohiotechie]

11:33 AM on 03/07/2012

What an utterly empty statement to make. You voted for it - live with what you did instead of trying to rewrite history. It's like the person who doesn't have the courage to confront the bully talking smack about the bully after they're no longer around. "I was about to hit him!" Yeah, sure you were.

[Awake-and-Sing]

03:09 PM on 03/08/2012

Lisa Murkowski was tough enough to take on the Republican Party in a write-in campaign.

I don't think this was about courage.

Either she joined the other Republicans in a craven choice to join the war on birth control when they thought it was a base rallier with the religious extremists.

Or, she didn't real the bill, which is no excuse, because Snowe clearly did.

Only now are they going to see just what a blowback they will deservedly receive.

[badbernanke]

11:28 AM on 03/07/2012

Ms. Murkowski would like to abort her vote. She needs a morning after pill after all.

[MikeW CA]

10:12 AM on 03/07/2012

How about this? Let's get employers out of the business of making health choices for employees. Single payer would blunt this argument.

[ThreadKiller]

09:54 AM on 03/07/2012

Not-Joe the Not-Plumber will Not-be elected

[vobox3343]

09:34 AM on 03/07/2012

Just another example that Republicans can't work for the good of the many.

[Wandaz]

07:58 AM on 03/07/2012

For people who argue that the defeat of the Blunt amendment and all of the surrounding hubbub about contraception will not hurt republicans come November, think again folks.

[syhersch]

07:43 AM on 03/07/2012

So she votes for bills to become the law of the land even though she doesn't believe in them and the bill lets people down. But she votes that way because she is a Republican and that is what Republicans are told to do. Hmmm

At what point in time does she think it might be necessary to be an American instead of a Republican and vote for things that don't let people down?

[allencollinsa]

05:56 AM on 03/07/2012

she is a typical republican liar.

[allencollinsa]

05:54 AM on 03/07/2012

then why did she vote for it? Obama/Biden 2012'

[blknightowl]

03:34 AM on 03/07/2012

"The wind had shifted, and Republicans didn't have enough sense to get off of it," she told the newspaper."

Yeah, right. Senator Murkowski had the chance to vote her conscious, as the Republicans didn't support her in her election. Then she turns around and votes with them for whatever "messaging" reason she can come up with. Only when she is confronted with her constituents, does she try to explain and sound contrite.

Sorry, I'm not buying it. I do my best not to give any politician a second chance to lie to me. She has had her chance. On to bigger and brighter (or at least smarter) lies...