Brown on Braude to Defend Support of Blunt Amendment

Scott Brown appeared on Jim Braude last night on NECN to talk about his support of the Blunt. But bizarrely, rather than defend the amendment he sticks his head in the sand and pretends the bill which he co-sponsored doesn’t include “moral convictions”. Here’s a link to the video, as it should be seen to believe (can’t get it to appear while trying to embed) [fixed -ed.].

Greg Sargent gives the blow by blow:

“You acknowledge that Senator Blunt’s amendment that you’re supporting goes far further than religious objections, no?” The reporter asked.

“No, I don’t,” Brown answered, adding that “one of the cornerstones of our Constitution” is “to allow for religious freedoms.”

The reporter then incredulously pointed out that the bill also allows for denial of coverage due to “moral conviction,” and pressed Brown again and again.

“That’s the language,” the reporter said. “I’m repeating it verbatim, Senator Brown.”

“I disagree with your interpretation,” Brown said. “It’s very clear that this is about the ability for religious groups — churches, universities who want to practice their faith in adherence to our Constitution.”

The video is a must see, Brown had difficulty getting this thoughts together, kept on throwing Coakley’s name out there, religion, attack by Warren, etc. almost like he was given his talking points but couldn’t put them together. But by far the most bizarre was the “I disagree with your interpretation”, Braude exasperated, tells Brown “I’m reading this verbatim”.



Discuss

5 Comments . Leave a comment below.
  1. Just astounding

    The willingness of Scott Brown to simply lie is astounding.

    I found his comment: “Professor Warren, quite frankly, I’m shocked that she would be so divisive as to pit women against their faith and their church” (2:36) particularly offensive. What an outrageous LIE! It is the Church itself, aided and abetted by Mr. Brown, that exacerbates this “divisive” conflict. How dare he so patronizingly speak for women, while so dishonestly characterizing the position of “Professor” Warren.

    This guy epitomizes the dangerous, sleazy, and dishonest misogynists who have done so much harm to so many women throughout history. His stance on this issue aligns perfectly with his past stances against the victim of his endorsee Jeff Perry and even his own daughters in his victory press conference.

    Scott Brown needs to be removed from public office. Period.

    • Mr. Morph

      Anyone remember Brown’s outrageous commercial in his last campaign that had John Kennedy morphing into Brown? (I never understood why Coakley didn’t laugh him out of the room for that.)
      So here we go again. Now he’s telling us he (Brown) stands with Ted Kennedy. And twice compares that great oppressor Elizabeth Warren (even though she never held office) with Martha Coakley.
      Will he dust off the old video morph technology again?
      The debates can’t start soon enough.

  2. "But that would never happen here!"

    He insists the entire time to ignore the vagueness of the amendment’s language, then when Braude (thank goodness!) pushes him and pushes him on that point, says that oh, but your scenarios would NEVER happen, there’d be outcry! Well, gee, I don’t think I want to effing have my health care coverage HINGING on whether or not there’s an outcry. I want the LAW to protect me. Asshat.

  3. Also

    The question that NEEDS to be put to Brown:

    The Catholic takeover of hospitals, among other important services they are taking over, employ AND SERVE many non-Catholics. Should the Catholic Church be able to determine the access to birth control or other coverage of their non-Catholic employees? What if the only major hospital in an area is a Catholic-run one? (Certainly this is the case in some areas of the country.) Are you telling doctors, nurses, orderlies and admin staff that if they want fair and equal access to necessary health care coverage, to go find work elsewhere? Especially when that hospital takes government money to provide services??

    I think the Catholic Church should be forced out of the whole business of providing hospital care among other things. But if they are going to be employers of necessary services, then they need to play by the rules that all other employers play by.

  4. Force the Church out...

    …of exactly what it is called to do in the world, such as you know, healing the sick? Let’s stick with the argument that if you take federal money you play by federal rules; that argument is much stronger.

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Tue 23 Sep 4:18 AM