Murkowski regrets voting for conscience protection act [CNA]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CNA_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CNA_News

Guest
Anchorage, Alaska, Mar 19, 2012 / 11:30 am (CNA).- Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, a professing Catholic who has broken with the church on several fundamental moral teachings, publicly reaffirmed her support for abortion and contraception in early March.

Murkowski’s comments came during an interview with Anchorage Daily News writer Julia O’Malley. Murkowski said she regretted casting her March 1 vote in favor of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act that would have amended the federal health care law to allow health plans to decline coverage of contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs that are contrary to the religious beliefs of those offering the plan or those purchasing it.

“I have never had a vote I’ve taken where I have felt that I let down more people that believed in me,” Murkowski told the Anchorage Daily News in an article published March 5.

Murkowski explained that she initially voted for the conscience protection measure to affirm her support for religious freedom. She even wrote a letter to the Catholic Anchor in February in which she blasted the Obama Administration for mandating that religious groups offer health care coverage that is contrary to their moral teachings.

“Unfortunately, the Obama administration unilaterally determined that religious hospitals, charities and schools will be required to go against their deeply-held — and constitutionally-protected — beliefs when offering health care services to current employees,” Murkowski said in her letter to the Catholic Anchor.

“Worse still is the olive branch extended by the Department of Health and Human Services: religious institutions have a year to compromise on their beliefs and adhere to this policy,” Murkowski added. “It is insulting that this administration believes that a year delay in implementation of this rule would cause more Americans to change their position — their conscience — their belief — on a fundamental freedom such as this.”

Also in the letter, Murkowski said she agreed with Anchorage Archbishop Roger Schwietz’s February pastoral letter to all area parishes, in which he said “People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom.”

Murkowski even quoted Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York in saying the Obama Administration “has now drawn an unprecedented line in the sand.”

But just two weeks later, after hearing some criticism for her vote, Murkowski told the Anchorage Daily News that if she would not support the Blunt Amendment, given another vote.

“I have always said if you don’t like abortion the best way to deal with it is to not have unwanted pregnancies in the first place,” she said. “How do you do that? It’s through contraception.”

When told that this position contradicts the teachings of the Catholic Church, Murkowski was unmoved.

“You know, I don’t adhere to all of the tenets of my faith. I’m a Republican, I don’t adhere to all of the principles that come out of my party,” she told the Anchorage Daily News. “I’m also not hesitant to question when I think that my church, my religion, is not current.”

She added: “I have taken the position that there are instances where abortion should be made available.”

In a March 9 email response to questions from the Catholic Anchor, Murkowski said she supports conscience clauses.

“However, I?have concerns that the Blunt Amendment could have unduly limited American’s access to many health services,” she said.

The Catholic Church has long taught that contraception is contrary to God’s designs because it distorts the purpose and context of sexual relations, which are to bring forth children in the context of marriage between a man and a woman. The unitive aspect of sex, in which a husband and wife are united, is also affirmed by the church, but efforts to space children should be done without thwarting God’s designs. To this end the church teaches that couples should employ natural family planning methods to space children, rather than using artificial contraception.

The church also teaches that abortion is a “grave evil.” The teaching has not changed. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church “abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.”

Posted with permission from Catholic Anchor, newspaper for the Archdiocese of Anchorage, Alaska.

feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/catholicnewsagency/dailynews?d=yIl2AUoC8zA
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/catholicnewsagency/dailynews/~4/YyY2-LiB-4M

Full article…
 
Shameful, another Catholic politician not following the Church’s teaching on abortion. Why should the Amish and it seems Muslims too, get an exemption in the HHS mandate, but not anybody else? This HHS mandate will be laughed out of court, you can not have one rule for these two religious groups and another rule for everybody else.
 
No surprise. She has been a loyal Democrat first all the time.
 
Shameful, another Catholic politician not following the Church’s teaching on abortion. Why should the Amish and it seems Muslims too, get an exemption in the HHS mandate, but not anybody else? This HHS mandate will be laughed out of court, you can not have one rule for these two religious groups and another rule for everybody else.
Wait are you serious? Muslim and amish are getting exemptions? This is such a joke… How is this blatant attack on the Catholic Church even being tolerated anymore?

This country is going to ruins pretty quickly. Time to pack up and head to Rome.
 
I initially thought that perhaps Murkowski was one of the pro-choice crowd who could actually make the distinction between so-called women’s rights and religious freedom, but I guess not.
 
Wait are you serious? Muslim and amish are getting exemptions? This is such a joke… How is this blatant attack on the Catholic Church even being tolerated anymore?

This country is going to ruins pretty quickly. Time to pack up and head to Rome.
I am 100% sure about the Amish exemption, Sister Mary Ann Walsh, USSCB writes about the Amish exception, she writes members of Medi-Share get an exemption too:

usccbmedia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/amish-ok-catholics-no.html

Muslim exemption I am not 100% sure of. There has been very little outrage from the Muslim community on the ObamaCare mandate, and if mandating health insurance is a travesty in the Muslim community, surely there would of been more outrage - Muslims must be getting an exemption like the article I linked says.

HHS mandate is not just an attack on Catholics, but on the many other religious groups that have denounced it like Lutherans, Evangelicals, Southern Baptist etc.
 
I initially thought that perhaps Murkowski was one of the pro-choice crowd who could actually make the distinction between so-called women’s rights and religious freedom, but I guess not.
They are in complete bondage to the Adversary. Such perversion loses all capability of responding merely to Natural Law.
 
No surprise. She has been a loyal Democrat first all the time.
What are you talking about? :confused:

She’s a Republican. It even says so right in the article.

“You know, I don’t adhere to all of the tenets of my faith. I’m a Republican, I don’t adhere to all of the principles that come out of my party,” she told the Anchorage Daily News. “I’m also not hesitant to question when I think that my church, my religion, is not current.”
 
What are you talking about? :confused:

She’s a Republican. It even says so right in the article.

“You know, I don’t adhere to all of the tenets of my faith. I’m a Republican, I don’t adhere to all of the principles that come out of my party,” she told the Anchorage Daily News. “I’m also not hesitant to question when I think that my church, my religion, is not current.”
I know she’s a Republican. She just acts like a Democrat.🙂
 
Murkowski doesn’t believe in freedom of conscience. She is every bit as vile as the typical Democrat in Washington. She is simply one more example of what becomes of someone who buys liberal pabulum, and casts her soul with the forces of evil. 😦 Rob
P.S. Her statement about her concern about "access to health services" is a total lie. She cannot possibly be stupid enough to believe this, but she thinks that her voters are stupid. She may be right about THAT.
 
What are you talking about? :confused:

She’s a Republican. It even says so right in the article.

“You know, I don’t adhere to all of the tenets of my faith. I’m a Republican, I don’t adhere to all of the principles that come out of my party,” she told the Anchorage Daily News. “I’m also not hesitant to question when I think that my church, my religion, is not current.”
I am not surprised somebody mistook her for a Democrat. The pro choice, anti conscience protection views are so comment among Democrats when you hear it from a Republican - wow! It is rare.
 
The pro choice, anti conscience protection views are so comment among Democrats
That’s because most if not all pro-life (“blue dog”) Democrats were voted out last election, some even having voted against Obamacare.
 
“You know, I don’t adhere to all of the tenets of my faith. I’m a Republican, I don’t adhere to all of the principles that come out of my party,” she told the Anchorage Daily News. “I’m also not hesitant to question when I think that my church, my religion, is not current.”

My favorite part ^
:rolleyes:

I suppose God’s laws aren’t “current”.

I love these outspoken people who self-identify as Catholics & act as if they are theologians.
Lord love us.
 
FWIW,

Republican Senators collecting money from pro-choice interests:

Johnny Isakson (Ga)
Lisa Markowski (Alaska)
Kay Bailey Hutchinson (Texas)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Olympia Snowe (Maine)

opensecrets.org/news/2009/12/senators-backed-by-prochoice-i.html
I’m surprised any pro-choicers are still giving money to Kay Bailey Hutchison. She’s pretty much pro choice in name only (PCINO?).

She has a 100% rating from Right to Life and a 0% from NARAL.
 
She has a 100% rating from Right to Life and a 0% from NARAL.
Would Senators Mark Kirk (R-Il) and Scott Brown (R-Mass) be given the same ratings? Just curious as they’ve been described as pro-choice (or moderate) by the talking heads.
 
“You know, I don’t adhere to all of the tenets of my faith. I’m a Republican, I don’t adhere to all of the principles that come out of my party,” she told the Anchorage Daily News. “I’m also not hesitant to question when I think that my church, my religion, is not current.”

My favorite part ^
:rolleyes:

I suppose God’s laws aren’t “current”.

I love these outspoken people who self-identify as Catholics & act as if they are theologians.
Lord love us.
Such arrogance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top