Skip to main content

Mitch McConnell talks one way and votes another on women's issues

Kentucky senator and man who believes turtles are a man's best friend - Mitch McConnell - released a document on Friday which touted his support for VAWA (Violence Against Women Act).

In the document, a voter is quoted to have said: "Mitch was the co-sponsor of the original Violence Against Women Act - and continues to advocate for stronger policies to protect women. I am proud to call him my senator."

There's just one small problem with that. While McConnell did sponsor VAWA in 1991, he didn't support it in '93, and voted against it in '94, 2012, and 2013. One out of five isn't bad, though - right, ladies?

McConnell also voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Act and Paycheck Fairness Act, because McConnell said they'd "make the workplace more difficult for women." Yes, because equal pay for women would add so much stress to their lives and make paying their bills so much more difficult.

Then the Elder Mutant Ninja Turtle's wife - former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao - said that her husband supports increasing cancer screenings and check-ups for women. This is an odd statement to make as well, for the anti-Donatello has been campaigning against the Affordable Care Act, which happens to increase women's access to preventive medicine.

Taking all this into consideration, I can only imagine McConnell trying to win the woman's vote in next year's election. He'll probably give a speech like this:

"As one anonymous voter and my wife both said, I support women! I'm all about protecting women, as my sponsoring the Violence Against Women Act 23 years ago should clearly show. I may have voted against it on four separate occasions since then - as recently as last year - but try to forget about the recent and just remember the distant past. I also support equal pay for women. I may have voted against bills which would have made that easier for you, but I just didn't want to stress you out more on the job by getting paid more, you know? It's alright for guys to make more, right? You marry us, so it's not that big of a deal I don't think. I also support increasing cancer screenings and check-ups for women. I fought long and hard against the Affordable Care Act, which would have accomplished just that, but come on - it was part of Obamacare. You understand, right? So, please ladies, just know that I'm on your side. I may not act that way most of the time or even vote that way 80% of the time, but trust me - I mean it. So, please, give me one more chance. Who do you think will support women's equality more? My female Democratic challenger or me - a man, who, 23 years ago, fought to protect you, but has done little since that time? Thank you! God bless you and God bless the United States of America!"

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08/30/2557231/womens-event-mitch-mcconnell-touts-womens-law-voted/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...