Home | About | Donate

Another Rabidly Pro-Life Republican Reportedly Urged Mistress to Seek Abortion


Another Rabidly Pro-Life Republican Reportedly Urged Mistress to Seek Abortion

Jessica Corbett, staff writer
Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.), co-sponsor of House bill passed Tuesday night that bans women's constitutional right, doesn't believe in abortions—unless he thinks his girlfriend should have one
Rep.  Tim Murphy (R-Pa.)


While maternal deaths increase this issue is mired in class warfare and double standards that is contrary to any decent standard of care for women. Not to mention unconstitutional. Motivation also being the discrimination being expanded in health care and segregation at all levels to meet their bottom line.
All this from Republican Congressman Tim Murphy. I edited this and removed my comment “what a pig” in favor of I object to this behavior.

Excellent article. Thank you


Another do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do Republican? What a shocker…


I was one of this guy’s constituents until the 2010 census mercifully moved his District boundary a few blocks to the south of my home. Now my House Rep. is a unremarkable Democrat (Doyle), the only US House Democrat for a couple hundred miles in every direction representing the corralled-by-Republican-gerrymandering constituency of the Pittsburgh City limits.

My fondest memory of Tim Murphy was back in 2009 or 2010 (I think) after he or his aide had single-payer activists bearing a “Medicare birthday cake” to his local office arrested. I called his DC office to express my message of outrage on his VM, and to my surprise, Murphy himself called me back, on a Saturday, a few days later and went on angrily that the activists were part of the “extremist left-wing socialist” organization MoveOn. I explained that they had nothing to do with MoveOn, which I could only wish were real leftists, and went on trying to explain my positions on a host of issues so he might know what real leftist looks like, and hung up. What can one do when they claim that the sold-out "MoveOn is are “radical socialists”?

The heart of Murphy’s district is the right-wing upper-middle-class, fundie-Christian Tea Party, megachurch-going, exurban McMansion belt south of the city, so the fallout from this affair will be an even harder-right Republican replacing him. Murphy has typically run unchallenged or challenged by a Democrat who gets zero support and resources from the party.


These people are hypocrites as are those who continue to vote for them even though they know they have no integrity or decency. This is the American dilemma - lack of character among the people as displayed by the people they elect.


Don’t worry, Murphy will be replaced by a politician with far more integrity in 2018. Trouble is he will be even more extreme-right-wing and theocratic.


golly, another GOP hypocrite? Imagine the shock.

The news would be if one of these frauds actually believed anything they ever said that wasn’t, “cut my taxes”.


Do you believe that any of them really have integrity? Over and over again they have proven to act in corrupt ways contrary to what they say they are. It is like do as I say not as I do - a double standard. You are probably correct about his replacement but they need to live by their own creed if they plan to impose it on others.


Yet another phuking hypocrite Republican politician. This reflects very badly on their constituents who continue to re-elect them. Our country, so saturated with religion, certainly seems to have a dearth of morality and decency, starting at the top. Apparently “trickle-down” does work in this context, as corrupt, self-serving attitudes of the so-called “leaders” infects their followers also.

Or, maybe, the people who vote for this scum know what they’re getting and just don’t care!


Sometimes I think the people that you describe in the first sentence above are the biggest problem that we face in striving to make this a better, more humane, more equitable society. More than even the very rich!

Good post, Yunzer!


The bill does not ban any constitutional right. It imposes a ban on abortions after 20 weeks, with exceptions.

—unless he thinks his girlfriend should have one

Presumably well before 20 weeks.

There is a broad swath of the population which rejects both extreme views–that a clump of cells is a full person, and that a viable fetus is mere tissue. This swath agrees with the general principles set forth in Roe–that the state has no compelling interest to intervene in early term abortions, but that restrictions on late term abortions are both justifiable and permissible. Calling Murphy hypocritical for holding two positions which are largely in keeping with Roe and which don’t violate the positions of this middle swath is only a PR win for the abortion restriction side, because it is, by extension, calling the views of the middle swath hypocritical. And if the hope was that by highlighting an instance in which Murphy was pro-choice, that would erode support for him from the pro-life side, that’s only going to happen if they find an even more strongly anti-choice candidate to replace him. Be careful what you wish for.

If Murphy said things in the past which indicated his opposition to abortion choice at any point in pregnancy, then that’s what should have been highlighted as actual hypocrisy. And that would also have put the focus on early-term choice–where the middle swath is most likely to agree with the pro-choice side.


Just for the record, no dumbsh!t politician has the right to call the shots on womens’ reproductive healthcare.
Your words, “restrictions on late term abortions are both justifiable and permissible”… No.
Late term abortions happen because something deeply wrong is happening to either the woman or the fetus, in many cases, both.
There is NO justification whatsoever for politics to poke their noses in on this medical issue, absolutely none.


No, they probably don’t have much integrity. But I’ll take a pro-worker, pro-poor, pro-environment politician without integrity over a right wing capitalist ass-kissing one with or without integrity any time.

And why hasn’t Murphy resigned yet? If he were a Democrat, particularly a quasi-progressive one who got in trouble because of an affair, like, say, Eliott Spitzer, or presidential candidate of John Edwards, he would be facing massive calls to resign by now…


No, I think integrity is important and their policies and agenda really don’t have integrity if you consider that they are supposed to represent the welfare of the people. They are hypocrites who lack integrity on almost every level. Integrity implies fairness and justice - something they don’t comprehend. Integrity implies doing something for what you are paid for and representing those who elected you - not just representing special interests and the wealthy. For all I know he may well represent the views of the people in his district. The leaders or elected officials in many instances do represent the people of their district and therein - we have a big problem in America with the character and quality of many of our people.


What record?

“no dumbsh!t politician has the right to call the shots on womens’ reproductive healthcare.”

The Roe decision set forth the guideline that the state has a compelling interest in regulating to protect potential life late in pregnancy, and even allowed that the state could forbid late term abortions so long as exceptions were made to protect the life or health of the carrier.


Putting a period after a claim doesn’t automatically make it true.

“Your words, “restrictions on late term abortions are both justifiable and permissible”… No.”

Those were indeed my words–describing the general principles set forth in the Roe decision. Are you disagreeing with that characterization, or are you disagreeing with the Roe guidelines themselves?

“Late term abortions happen because something deeply wrong is happening to either the woman or the fetus, in many cases, both.”

Hence the exception for medical reasons (in addition to exceptions for rape and incest).

“There is NO justification whatsoever for politics to poke their noses in on this medical issue, absolutely none.”

If it is truly a medical issue, then it would not be proscribed by H R 36. If this bill does become law, there would, of course, have to be a process to discriminate the cases which are genuine medical issues from those which are not. But at that point, that would be a legal determination. The political legislative process would be over.


Hip, Hip, HOORAY! Excellent comeback to Trol…er Trog.


Your basement awaits you.


Like any pugnacious prevaricating patriot of the GOP strain, Murphy was only concerned about how much the pregnancy, birth, and rearing would cost him…he’s all about the money. His losses would be cut by having his gal pal go to a Planned Parenthood or Women’s Clinic in a state that honors Roe v Wade and values the health of women/families to end the pregnancy…even if the cost included bus fare and snacks on the way (he would not fly his gal pal…cost too much).


Well, Murphy was certainly trying to represent the right-wing suburban McMansion, three-SUV’s-in-the-garage people who elected him. His even more right-wing replacement - with lots of “integrity” - will do an even better job.

But if someone is, say, fighting for single payer and the rights of workers, but has sex with a prostitute and then lies about it, well, I really can’t get too excited about that.

Some of the most savage dictators in history had lots of “integrity.” I don’t recall Hitler or Stalin ever getting accused of any kind of graft, unauthorized use of public funds, or sexual trysts.


Hitler and Stalin can murder millions of people and they still have “integrity?” Don’t think so but we are debating over words and definitions. I think corruption is a very important issue. How many district attorney’s have been willing to send innocents up to prison or even death row - just to advance their career or fit the needs to their community. Integrity means they have morals and values. Hitler and Stalin did not and Murphy doesn’t either. If he was an honest person, he would admit people have a right to run their lives free of dictates. Murphy should not impose his morality on others - particularly when he doesn’t abide by his own moral code. We need leaders who are honest and trustworthy and who work for the best interest of all people. We need leaders who will stand up to their own constituents if they feel they are wrong. We need leaders not followers who are in positions of leadership.