In MA Race, Martha Coakley Opposes Health-Care Bill Over Stupak Amendment
By Susie Madrak Tuesday Nov 10, 2009 4:00pmThe conventional wisdom about the Stupak bill among the male-dominated media: Why won't the women just sit down, shut up and let the men folk do their political bidness? What is all this talk about "rights"?
Instead, ask yourself these questions: Why is it that the moderates conservatives always get their way - at the expense of liberals, and of alleged Democratic party values? Why is the compromise always on our end? Why aren't people like Bart Stupak being told to "put on their big boy pants" and swallow compromise to get health care reform?
And why isn't some progressive politician introducing a bill to cut off funding for special education or any other services at Catholic schools? After all, how is providing the services from a trailer at the far end of the school parking lot not an "accounting trick"? Why aren't liberals aggressively challenging the tax-exempt status of the Catholic church?
I was under the impression we had freedom of religion in this country. Apparently, I was wrong.
WORCESTER - Opening up a major fissure in the US Senate race, Attorney General Martha Coakley said yesterday that she opposes the landmark health care bill approved by the House Saturday because it contains a provision restricting federal funding for abortion.
Coakley, in her boldest gamble of the campaign, said that fighting for women’s access to abortions was more important than passing the overall bill, despite its aim of providing coverage for 36 million people, establishing a public insurance option, and prohibiting insurers from discriminating against patients with preexisting conditions.
“To pretend that now the House has passed this bill is real progress - it’s at the expense of women’s access to reproductive rights," Coakley said in an interview, after making similar comments yesterday morning on Boston radio station WTKK-FM.
[...] Coakley’s opposition to the bill put her squarely at odds with her three rivals for the Democratic nomination, including US Representative Michael E. Capuano, who voted in favor of the plan and blasted Coakley’s stance yesterday, calling it “manna from heaven" for his campaign.
“I find it interesting and amazing, and she would have stood alone among all the prochoice members of Congress, all the members of the Massachusetts delegation," Capuano said in an interview. “She claims she wants to honor Ted Kennedy’s legacy on health care. It’s pretty clear that a major portion of this was his bill."
He went on: “If she’s not going to vote for any bill that’s not perfect, she wouldn’t vote for any bill in history. She would have voted against Medicare, the Civil Rights bill. . . . Realism is something you have to deal with in Washington."
Why is it that "realism" is always and inevitably at the expense of women, gays and minorities? Is that the new Democratic value?
UPDATE: Apparently Capuano has since changed his position, saying he'll vote against the bill if Stupak amendment stays.
Login or Register to post comments.
Oh really?
Perhaps some uppity womenfolk talked to him? and let him know it's not acceptable?
Again, what about women who are carrying fetuses that have no chance at life? Are they supposed to just wait until the fetus is dead and hope they deliver? Praying all the while that there's no infection?
Or should they be able to consult with their doctor and determine the best course of action for themselves?
Because once we start letting insurance companies decide they can opt out of covering medical procedures, they will find ways to opt out of more of them.
Some of them might even effect men directly!
Famous, important men weigh in with their thoughts...
They're just saying that it's important that we foster the discussion of whether women should be forced to wear the veil so that the marketplace of ideas can determine what women should and should not be forced to do. We can then vote on exactly what rights women should or shouldn't have. The first issue to be determined, of course, is whether women should be able to vote on the other issues....
Isn't that what freedom and democracy are all about?
All leftists/progressive/liberals should at this point be aggressively challenging the tax-exempt status of the Catholic church!!!!
The late Ted Kennedy was not called a "Liberal Lion" for nothing. Kennedy more than just supported a woman's right to choose, but, also, was at odds with the Catholic Church over this issue. He never wavered or flinched on this abortion issue, either.
It is too bad that so many Democrats are so spineless today unlike Kennedy was in the Senate--standing up for his liberal beliefs no matter the cost to his reputation or standing.
I am glad that Martha Coakley has shown so much courage on this issue. I think Martha Coakley would be a fine replacement to the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy.
Let's give Martha Coakley the support she so needs and deserves!
...it looks like congress is gonna make me pay for a $15,000 per year insurance policy (that I don't want)...
I have little sympathy for someone who has to come up with their own money to pay for their abortion...
...at least an abortion doesnt cost 15,000 dollars a year!
out through your nose, you condescending asshole.
to address a member of "The Ron Paul Revolution"(tm).
... didn't you hear? They are all "independent" conservative liberals or somesuch.
LOL
I should have said "boys and girls"
...after all it does take "two".
Again.
I'm gonna have to agree with Milquetoast except for the sympathy part. And the paying for your own abortion part...Okay, so the only part I agree with is the government forcing me to buy insurance from an already rich as shit health care organization. Fine me, put me in jail but I wont buy. I'll go to the emergency room. I have been waiting 25 years for health insurance reform I can wait another eight hours in an emergency room. Hell, if they put me in jail, I'll get better health care than I'm getting now.
That's what pissed me off.
teabagger, so I'm not surprised.
Wanna borrow my boots?
Cowboys?
but when you're wearin' em, they'll be cowgirl boots. :)
"cowwoman."
.
so glad you said that. Hate to get ass kicked by my own boots. lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B5_lneZSts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRzahsThIIY&fe...
What an appropriate name! If Savannah doesn't kick your silly balls, there's a line behind her and you are a Neanderthal.
Mary J. Ruwart, Ph. D. is a libertarian speaker, writer, activist and was a leading candidate for the 2008 Libertarian Party presidential nomination.
"When campaigning, I would state my personal position (pro-choice), but advise my listeners that some libertarians of good conscience think differently." --Mary J. Ruwart, Ph. D.
Single payer: off the table;
Bush Impeachment: off the table;
War crimes investigations: off the table;
Prosecuting/investigating illegal wiretapping: off the table.
Pelosi/Reid prevent progressive issues or arguments from even being heard.
Yet:
Condemn MoveOn for Betrayus: Moved to the front of the agenda;
Resolve that Christians are Wonderful: Moved to the front;
Patriot Act renewal: Moved to the front;
Telecom immunity: Moved to the front
Further limits on the Right to Choose: Moved to the front of the agenda.
The Pelosi/Reid agenda simply is a conservative agenda - regardless of how they eventually vote.
...why do conservatives hate Pelosi and Ried so much? Pelosi I can understand, she supports Teh Gays, but Ried sits there while Lebeirmann fucks him up the ass without doing a damn thing.
I don't know about you fiver but I voted for change in more than just who held the power but how it was used. I don't care how wasted my vote goes next year but I'm with Kucinich in 2012. I hope he runs.
And I'll be right behind you. Doing the same.
It's time to get Kucinich in the White House. Fuck these phonies like Reid, Pelosi and Obama. Let's get someone in to kick ass.
.
Because I think that I've been shortchanged.
four makes a movement. Let's get something going to get Kucinich in the White House.
Let's get a real movement going. Kucinich 2012
http://kucinich2012.com/
Folks, there are only sixty people signed in. No money needed, just a little persuasion and support for the man.
So far he's done little more than go through the motions in the hopes of getting his message out there.
I'm seeing a lot of agreement here for Kucinich people. Let's do something!!!!!!
rather than for their potential to do something...
His entire career, he always had a lot of potential.
Then they grow up to be nothing. Potential is for kids and athletes, not for politicians.
Potential only goes so far. Actions baby, actions. I have the potential to be the best baseball player in the world. But my actions prove otherwise.
down! Remember, there is always next year... and you just said how you have it in your heart to be the best player ever, so that is all we need as proof.
My potential. I have the best slider ever but no fastball and can only go six innings.
we won't those get in the way of your assesment.
I wont get in the way of yours either.
has helped them every step of the way. He has blocked every attempt at even discussing many of these issues, which is an insult, considering he said during the election, "No one is above the law"
I would add to your list --
Reform of the financial system: off the table
Fair labor and workplace practices: off the table
Pro-environmental policies: off the table
Economic polices to address an unemployment crisis: off the table
More progressives need follow Martha Coakley’s example and rip that “Kick Me” sign off of their behinds, plant their feet, stand their ground and fight. I think the voters were clear in the 2008 election. We wanted action on the issues listed above and our concerns dealt with seriously, not simply to have lip service paid to us while the moneyed K street crowd continued to pull the strings. President Obama ran on a platform of “Change You Can Believe In.” That slogan is quickly being reduced to a cruel joke.
... but the list just goes on and on:
Banker bailout: Moved to the front of the line;
Insurance bailout: Moved to the front of the line;
Telecom Immunity: Moved to the front of the line;
...
All this time, universal health care was the biggest carrot dangled in front of us to keep us from complaining too much. Well, we can see that carrot better now and it looks rotten at it's core.
It's throbbing.
The Junta was televised. That stoooooooooopid, chimp with the coke habit, you remember that don't you? That was it. Now, you live in a FASCIST state. Habeus corpus gone, so, when you piss them off next, you disappear. The women will be lobamized to produce the next generation of soldiers, the wars will be forever more, so, HealthCare is just not necessary.
Why is the Catholic church in this country tax exempt? Pelosi met with these catholic Bishops to shape this health care bill. The Catholic church is involved in politics. The Supreme Court ruled for the separation of church and state allowing them a tax exempt status. This is so obvious that they have crossed that separation line along with the Mormon church and gay rights. Why are these organizations still tax exempt? Almost every bill that a conservative brings to the floor has something to do with Evangelicals yet Baptist churches are still tax exempt!!!!!!
IT'S TIME TO TAX THESE FUCKERS!!!!
Will it make a difference? I don't know, but at least they'll realize that if they wont to be involved in our national debate they'll have to pay for it.
is to be spent on or not? No one elected them to make these decisions. They need to all get out of the way. Take your personal views of God right to hell with you. Now.
"I would like to call your attention to ... an evil that, if allowed to continue, will probably lead to great trouble.... It is the accumulation of vast amounts of untaxed church property."
the frakkin' Vatican.
If Muslim Saudi Arabia was weilding that sort of influence in USA politics, the Rapepublicans would..they would...
aww - never mind.
They are an American group with tax exempt status in the US of A. With them dictating American politics, they should no longer be tax exempt. But every good politician knows, you cross the catholic church, you don't elected. Laws mean shit.
:P
authority do they get to dictate how tax money is spent? Fuck them and the alter boys they rode in on. Enough! You are not welcome in this debate, pious gasbags. Go!
.............sewer AIPAC.
Just what I thought.
Poison pill or Stupak Amendment
Isn't this what legislators do to kill a bill? Put a poison pill in it? That was how they managed to get the DC voting rights bill quashed earlier this year - by tacking on the handgun carry provision. The C Streeters know this is the way to do things and Pitts manipulated Stupak into carrying the water so that the provision had a "D" attached to it.
And when health care goes down, the Republicans get to cheer and say it happened because a Democrat did it.
It's brilliant and evil and it is hard to believe that Stupak could be so stupid.
I haven't been able to decide who should replace Teddy but Martha has just put herself at the front of the line in my book....so far.....She may have just won my vote
That's the good `ol pragmatism people gush over. The celebrated abandonment of principles.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Guess tard-boy got a dose of reality, huh?
Republican family values.
http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/ar...
Miss your own son's wedding to vote against a healthcare reform bill you know will pass
Plan B's to kill HCR. I think that this one is fairly brilliant...Have women and progressives kill it for them.If not the Stupid Amendment there will be another and another.Just give the Democrats enough reasons to kill the bill on their own and it's done.That's what Bi-partisanship gets you. Squat.
whittle it down so that all that is left benefits only the insurance companies. They want us to be grateful to have anything. They also seem to be trying to take advantage of BHO & Co. who want to appear to win at any cost just for the bragging rights. How can anyone who is being honest say that this offering is good. Unless they have major changes planned before the final bill is ready for a vote, this thing has to be killed. It's ridiculous and just plain awful.
I say let the Repubs kill the bill. They're already 90% of the way there, with help from so-called "democrats" like Lincoln, Bayh, Nelson, etc.
Just don't fight. Let the Republicans kill it, and hang the "do nothing" sign around THEIR necks.
It's a hell of a lot better than Dems taking the "credit" for the watered down piece of crap we've got now + the fury that's going to erupt as Americans realize
** nothing goes into effect for years;
** there are no cost controls;
** you are REQUIRED to buy expensive, crap insurance;
** the IRS will hound your ass if you don't buy said insurance;
etc.
Dems would be in a lot better position to be able to say, "we tried, but those Neanderthal Republicans blocked everything. Now throw them out of office and elect some folks who support REAL reform." It's a bit of a lie, of course [as mentioned, most Dems don't give a damn about reform], but it would work.
If you can afford insurance but don't purchase it, you would be taxed an additional 2.5%-5% on your Federal Adjusted Gross Income. If, when you file your return and attempt to defraud the people of the USA, you can be tried both civilly and criminally, and, if found guilty penalized by up to $250,000 and up to 5 years in prison- the same penalties you'd face for cheating on your taxes for any other reason. If you can't afford insurance, you won't have to pay the extra taxes (there's also a loophole for religious objection to health care coverage- let's call it the Christian Science Rule).
There's good reasoning behind this. A portion of the uninsured population that swears they'll never EVER need to go to the hospital end up being completely wrong. When they run up medical bills and, for whatever reason, fail to pay those medical bills, the health care providers write off the losses on their taxes- so the rest of society ends up footing the bill. The additional tax hedges the losses the rest of us incur because some jackass who swears he'll never need the health care system plows into a tree at 40 mph, or gets cancer.
There are many good reasons to oppose this health care bill. I side with Kucinich against this bill and I do not believe people will be better off if this thing passes -- the insurance industry will simply have another windfall on their pockets w/o any controls on costs. Yes, many poor might be given some coverage they currently don't have but I am very skeptical that even they will be better off given the shoddy state of our medical system.
***"And why isn't some progressive politician introducing a bill to cut off funding for special education or any other services at Catholic schools?"***
I've got a better idea: no funding for Viagra or Cialis. No funding for prostate cancer screening. No funding for anything related to male reproductive organs.
Because boners cause pregnancy, which only leads to abortions.
It's despicable, but it's also a time tested strategy of divide and conquer. Republicans aren't a very diverse group and they have very few goals in their political agenda. Democrats are very diverse and they have many more obligations to uphold. It's easy to force Democrats to make consessions and compromise while Republicans always seem to get their way. It's easy to feel like this is a dealbreaker when you care about the group that will get squeezed. But is it worth getting zero human rights because you couldn't accept anything less than two for the price of one? I'm not an optimist. If the ammendment stays, it will be another 20 years before the issue comes up again. But think about it this way - at least those unwanted babies will have health insurance into adulthood.
In 2001, the average charge for a surgical abortion at 10 weeks’ gestation was $468; but since most abortions in the United States are performed at low-cost clinics, women on average paid $372 for the procedure.
Some 74% of women pay for abortions with their own money; 13% of abortions are covered by Medicaid, and 13% are billed directly to private insurance. Some women who pay for the procedure themselves may receive insurance reimbursement later.
http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/cost.html
This is a question of principle, not dollars. Many if not most women are paying for abortion out of their own pockets now anyway. IF the bill actually does lower premiums and expand coverage, the average woman will still be ahead financially even with the amendment from where they are today.
public money for abortions. Where do you think Medicaid funds come from? This new nonsense will preclude women from buying private coverage if even one public dollar is involved in any manner. Where are you pulling your figures from?
That many of those women are traveling to another state where they have to stay overnight (because of the 24 hour "counseling" period required) and pay for a hotel room. Not to mention the two days' pay...
Well, the Democratic candidates for Kennedy's seat were all pretty close in their political views and I was leaning towards Capuano, but his remarks may have just made my decision and I'll go with Coakley. She seems to be the only one who understands the undertone of that amendment or at least the only one who cares. Why do so many men think they have a right to tell any woman what she can or can't do with her body regarding a legal medical procedure? The 33 year old Hyde Amendment which will stand already prohibits public funding for abortion. This amendment (authored by C Streeters, no less) goes way deeper by including women who are paying for their own insurance! Way to go Martha!
Login or Register to post comments.