No sooner did abortion activists Sandra Fluke declare a bid for Congress than she aborted the campaign. Fluke has opted to go with plan B and will seek a California state Senate seat instead. Fluke is best known for pushing the HHS mandate that forces religious groups to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs.
Democratic attorney and activist Sandra Fluke has decided against running for retiring Rep. Henry A. Waxman’s congressional seat, instead planning a bid for the state Senate.
“I am extremely moved by the outpouring of local and national support I have received since I announced that I was considering running for office. My entire career has been devoted to the public interest, whether representing victims of human trafficking or advocating for working families,” Fluke said late Tuesday night. “I am committed to continuing that fight in Sacramento, working to protect our environment, ensure our access to health care, and create the jobs that are desperately needed. While I strongly considered offering my candidacy for Congress, I feel there is a better way for me to advance the causes that are important to our community.”
Fluke said she plans to run for the state Senate seat currently held by Ted Lieu, who is running for Waxman’s congressional seat.“I believe that the families and communities of this district — from West Hollywood to West L.A. and from Santa Monica to Torrance and beyond — deserve to have a fresh perspective from a new generation of progressive leadership in Sacramento, and I am eager to get to work fighting for the causes that matter most to our future as a community, state and nation,” Fluke said.
Fluke’s decision not to seek the congressional seat immediately alters the contours of that race. In addition to Lieu, the other Democrat in the race for Waxman’s seat is former city controller Wendy Greuel. Political strategists had questioned whether Fluke and Greuel would attract the same set of voters.
Last year, Fluke had a rather odd view of the legal challenge Hobby Lobby and other plaintiffs are bringing to the Supreme Court against the Obamacare birth control mandate.
She thinks if the high court allows them the ability to engage in their First Amendment freedoms to not be forced to pay for birth control or abortion-causing drugs that other groups or companies will not want to pay for blood transfusions.
Fluke is so obsessed with the government forcing religious groups to pay for her birth control and contraception that she compared opposing it in an interview to opposing coverage for leukemia.
CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!
Never mind that opposing government spending taxpayer funds on forcing groups with religious objections to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs has nothing to do with supporting legitimate health care for patients suffering from the blood or bone marrow cancer that is deadly for adults and children alike.
“If you take a step back and think about that, you work at a restaurant or you work at a store, and your boss is able to deny you leukemia coverage or contraception coverage or blood transfusions or any number of medical concerns that someone might have a religious objection to,” Fluke said. “So the folks who are still objecting [to the mandate] have some very extreme ideas about religious freedom and employee health care in this country.”
