Reid's Dem-agogues Lose Phony War for Votes
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.
GOP Suits up for Case against Obama
President Obama told the GOP to sue him -- and House conservatives plan to. Tired of the lawlessness from this White House, Speaker John Boehner is making good on his promise to file suit against the President for his pattern of constitutional disregard. While congressional Democrats pan the idea, the House Rules Committee found plenty of legal experts in favor of it. Men and women across the ideological aisle see the danger in consolidating power with the President. Jonathan Turley, an Obama voter and George Washington University professor, testified that the lawsuit was a “worthy” effort.
Despite personally supporting the President and ObamaCare, he thinks the administration has overstepped its bounds. “Our system is changing in a dangerous and destabilizing way. We are seeing the emergence of a different model of government in our country -- a model long ago rejected by the Framers,” Turley said. Florida International University’s Elizabeth Price Foley echoed his concerns, explaining that “When a President unilaterally waives, delays, or suspends a law such as [ObamaCare], he squelches any opportunity to have a robust, political debate about the workability of the law, and thereby undermines democracy itself.”
While some claim that Congress has the ultimate authority to keep the President in check with its power of the purse, even Turley realizes that the administration’s ability to move money around nullifies this check on Executive. Either way, it’s time someone held this President accountable. And we’re grateful that Speaker Boehner is prepared to pursue every avenue to try.
Adams and Eve of Academic Freedom
Faith can be an occupational hazard. Just ask Associate Professor Mike Adams. The 21-year teacher of criminology was the perfect candidate for promotion -- except for one thing. His faith in Christ. The University of North Carolina Wilmington had hired Adams as an atheist, but his conversion didn’t do much to boost his career. Over time, he started writing columns and doing media appearances from a conservative perspective -- infuriating UNCW’s forces of political correctness in the process.
Like most universities, the faculty was a fraternity of liberals, who insist on diversity but practice anything but. When Dr. Adams applied for a full professorship, the school turned him down. In 2007, Adams sued the University, arguing that they violated his free speech rights. Seven years and several appeals later, he won. Although UNCW denied that Adams’s faith had any role in their decision -- the jury disagreed. “[N]o individual,” the Fourth Circuit had ruled, “loses his ability to speak as a private citizen by virtue of public employment.”
Although the school finally agreed to promote Adams, his attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom just announced more good news: UNCW will not only be paying him $50,000 in back salary but $615,000 in attorneys’ fees. For liberals, who knows the real chilling effect for conservatives is the cost of litigation, this is a major victory.
And the celebrations don’t stop there. Former FRC policy analyst Teresa Wagner had reason to cheer in her own fight against ideological discrimination. After being turned down for a job at the University of Iowa Law School because of her political views, Wagner sued in 2009. A federal judge dismissed the case after a jury deadlocked—a decision the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals called premature. This week, it agreed to give Teresa a new trial. Let’s hope it’s more impartial than the IU’s hiring policy!
Tony Perkins' Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
No comments:
Post a Comment