Search
Close this search box.

Murphy Seeks Daylight Over Ultrasound Mandate

It’s an issue that’s not likely to be an issue; the ultrasound mandate has stalled in Harrisburg and is unlikely ever to pass into law. But Patrick Murphy has pushed to demonstrate differences on the issue between himself and Kathleen Kane, the other Democrat running for Attorney General.

The candidates echoed each other during a recent interview with the editorial board of the Philadelphia Inquirer (the video is worth watching for entertainment value alone):

“We’re both against it, but I would go a step further,” Murphy said. “I would not enforce that bill. It is unconstitutional. It is that egregious.”

“In and of itself, that bill is unenforceable. It is a disgusting bill. It should never make its way out of the legislature,” Kane said. “And if elected Attorney General, there is no possible way that that bill could be enforced, and nor will it because it is a violation of constitutional rights.”

Both candidates essentially agree on the substance of the measure, but Murphy’s campaign is working hard to highlight the daylight between them. “She’s pledged to defend Gov. Corbett’s ultrasound bill,” a recent Murphy campaign email asserted.

It referred to, among other statements, a recent appearance by Kane on PCN when she said that the Attorney General didn’t have discretion over which laws to enforce.

“The Attorney General does not have the right to pick and choose which laws he or she enforces,” she said. “The attorney general’s office by law is an independent agency.  You need to make sure you enforce the laws or else you are just playing politics.”

Earlier in the same PCN interview, in late March, Kane explained the unconstitutionality of the mandate.

In an email response to Murphy’s assertion that she pledged to defend the bill, she sidestepped the enforcement issue and said the following about the bill itself:

“I have NEVER supported this bill, and any attempt by my increasingly desperate opponent to insinuate otherwise is utterly reprehensible.  Simply put, Murphy has engaged in a bald-faced lie.”

Murphy certainly engaged in a bald-faced exaggeration – Kane said the AG can’t pick and choose which laws to enforce but specifically criticized the bill – but not a lie.

And Kane has indeed shifted her message on the issue. The word “unenforceable” from her Inquirer appearance is her effort to reconcile her with her defense against Murphy’s attack.

17 Responses

  1. Murphy is just pandering to get the “woman’s vote”. It is clear that he is desperate to find an issue that will get women to turn away from Kathleen Kane.We need to finally get a qualified woman into statewide office and Kathleen Kane meets that criteria. She is smart and tough and knows the ins and outs of the PA system. Patrick may be a nice guy but he doesn’t have the credentials necessary to be in this job and he certainly can’t measure up to the Republican opponent in the Fall. Democrats need to get smart and nominate a STRONG candidate that will appeal to Independents and Republicans, instead of picking a nominee because of his liberal views, especially for this office which Democrats have never won because voters want a tough LAW ENFORCER, not someone who won’t enforce a law he doesn’t like.

  2. As a member of the PA bar and someone who graduated from college with Murph, I can say Pat is a nice guy, but is not the sharpest lawyer. He is a politician who should be sitting on Pelosi’s lap. He did not take the PA bar because it is more difficult than the one he took. In addition, the JAG corps is not akin to being a county prosecutor.

  3. Dude,

    Rob is still correct. If the Attorney General does not enforce the law, then it will eventually go to the Office of the General Counsel. However, this is still a good thing. Any delay in the enforcement of such an obscene law is a good thing in my book. Kathleen Kane has pledged to defend it from day one.

  4. Let’s all vote for the guy that says he won’t enforce a law. That’s what this state needs, an AG that will pick and choose which laws he will enforce! Liberalism, Yeah!

  5. Rob,
    Please listen to what Murphy said – he didn’t say he would punt to the General Counsel’s office. He said he would refuse to enforce the law. Not simply allocate resources to other enforcement responsibilities, but a flat out refusal to enforce it. Both you AND Patrick Murphy should read both the Commonwealth Attorneys act AND the Rules of Ethics.

  6. In what Kane said yesterday, it is clear that she fundamentally misunderstands the duties of the PA Attorney General. Of course the AG can’t decide which laws to enforce, but a huge part of the job is determining where best to focus your finite law enforcement resources. In fact, had Gov. Corbett properly focused the AG’s office when he was running it, it’s likely that Jerry Sandusky would have been removed from the Penn State locker room years earlier than he ultimately was.

    This is why it is crucial for PA to have an Attorney General that follows the law, works efficiently and thinks independently.

    My vote is for Patrick Murphy.

  7. When Murphy committed voter fraud that wasn’t guts…that was entitlement and another example of Murphy thinking the law doesn’t apply to him.

  8. Great point Rob.

    Also, to enforce the ultrasound law would require violating a 4th amendment right to search and seizure; therefore, an AG could legitimately not enforce the bill.

    Murphy has guts, and he has my vote.

  9. I think Mr. Murphy may be running low on cash and is trying to pick a fight and get some free media!

  10. Not only does the Murphy campaign seem increasingly desperate, I think they are confused about the office for which he is running. I, for one, don’t like hearing that someone running for the chief law enforcement officer in my state declaring he won’t enforce a law he disagrees with. There are plenty of laws that I disagree with, but I still face consequences if I break them. Does Murphy think he is above the law?

  11. @dude — you don’t know what you are talking about. The Attorney General can refuse to defend challenges to an existing law in Pennsylvania, and the responsibility of such defense would be removed to the Governor’s Office of General Counsel. Please read the Commonwealth Attorneys Act before waxing authoritative.

  12. Murphy would enforce the law? HA Murphy broke the law when he was trying to keep his Congressional Seat. Hey Patrick, just use voter fraud in this race the same way you did in your congressional run.

  13. This is the difference between a politician and a practicing attorney – any lawyer knows a prosecutor cannot simply refuse to enforce a law he/she doesn’t agree with.

    Unless and until a COURT rules a statue unconstitutional, it is presumed to be constitutional and must be enforced.

    When “defending” the statute in court, the AG may be forthright with the court about his/her view that it is unconstitutional, cite case law that supports that viewpoint, etc – but the AG and the local DA’s must enforce the law.

    I’m amazed that people would give kudos to Murphy for boldly stating that he would violate his oath of office.

  14. Murphy has taken a strong principled position on this issue. I’m glad that he will stand up to the tea parties and refuse to enforce this bill.

    I can’t believe Kane initially said she would enforce it. But even worse she then denies it.

    Her campaign’s lies have turned into a pattern. Pennsylvania Progressive notes that “Kane Lies Abouts Attacks on Murphy Military Record”
    http://www.thepennsylvaniaprogressive.com/diary/4036/kane-lies-abouts-attacks-on-murphy-military-record

  15. This is exactly the difference between these 2 candidates.

    Murphy is aggressive, he has courage and he will fight for what is right.

    Kane’s response is exactly what you would expect from her. spineless. She doesn’t support the bill, but she will defend it.

  16. To be fair, she did say she would enforce the law; while Murphy said he wouldn’t.

    I give Murphy credit for this one… his stance is bold and that is exactly what we need from our next AG.

Email:
  • Do you agree that ByteDance should be forced to divest TikTok?


    • Yes. It's a national security risk. (60%)
    • No. It's an app used by millions and poses no threat. (40%)
    • What's ByteDance? (0%)

    Total Voters: 30

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser

PoliticsPA

To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen