« Murphy considering Stupak amendment (updated) | Main | Deutsch waiting till next year on taxes »

November 08, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I guess the more I think about it, the less I see any glaring disconnect. If memory serves correct, Murphy supports abortion rights so it's thus not shocking that he'd vote against Stupak. And he also considers himself a fiscal conservative, a group that generally opposes meaningful health care reform, so it's also not shocking that he'd vote against the House bill (which isn't quite as meaningful as I'd like but probably the best we'd get out of this Congress).

Bob Conner

So he's in favor of economizing except when it comes to abortion.



You can read his b.s. for yourself.


Personally, I probably would've voted against it too. There were parts of it that were fine, others that were insufficient but you take what you can get. But the provision that fines people for not having insurance is completely unconscionable to me. It's basically fining people for being poor or for having fallen on hard times. Granted, these people are post-fetal and thus apparently no longer the concern of some activists, but I still don't think they should be thrown under the bus with a provision that actually worsens the status quo for those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

The comments to this entry are closed.

This blog is by Bob (Robert C.) Conner, a longtime journalist and author of the 2018 novel "The Last Circle of Ulysses Grant" published by Square Circle Press, and a 2013 biography "General Gordon Granger" published by Casemate. He is currently writing a biography of the Kansas abolitionist Col. James Montgomery. His Civil War blog can be found at robertcconnerauthor.blogspot.com
Bookmark and Share
Blog powered by Typepad

Become a Fan