home

Martha Coakley's Bait and Switch on Abortion

Can't say I didn't warn you about Martha Coakley. The latest: a Bait and switch. During her campaign to replace Sen. Ted Kennedy, she said she wouldn't support a bill with restrictions on abortion.

Today, she announced her support for the health care bill with its restrictions on abortion funding.

Coakley then:

Coakley’s stand was a major point of debate during the campaign; several of her opponents criticized her for being willing to sink the overall health care bill over a single issue, but she insisted that there were some things on which she would not compromise.

[More...]

“Let’s be clear on what’s principled here,’’ she said at the time of her opponent, US Representative Michael Capuano. “If it comes down to this in the Senate, and it’s the health care bill or violating women’s rights, where does he stand?’’

How much did she mislead?

Coakley used her stark position on abortion rights to appeal to supporters for donations; in an e-mail, she declared her decision to take her position “a defining moment’’ in her campaign.

Asked just last week whether she would vote against a bill that went beyond current law in restricting abortion coverage, Coakley said, “Yes, that’s right.’’

What's her excuse now?

Coakley said that although she was disappointed that the Senate bill “gives states additional options regarding the funding mechanisms for women’s reproductive health services,’’ she would reluctantly support it because it would provide coverage for millions of uninsured people and reduce costs.

Martha Coakley is not someone we need in the U.S. Senate. She certainly is no Ted Kennedy. (More here.)In my opinion, she's as unprincipled now as she was during the prosecution of nanny Louise Woodward.

< Sunday Night Blog Fights | Dems Get 60 Votes on Health Care Bill During 1:00 am Vote >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Coakley should fit right in with (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:11:53 PM EST
    the current Senate. Same high level principled approach and she already has the rhetoric down pat.

    I just checked Barbara Boxer's (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:16:58 PM EST
    official Senate website.  Nada re Senate HCR bill and/or Nelson's amendment.

    Parent
    Today I unsubscribed from Sen. Boxer's (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Spamlet on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:30:16 PM EST
    e-mail list and gave my reasons.

    Parent
    I'm so effin disappointed in her (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:34:50 PM EST
    and to think I'm moving back to her state. {sigh}

    Parent
    She supposedly was involved directly (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:17:59 PM EST
    in negotiation the Nelson compromise.

    Parent
    As was my ne'er do well, (none / 0) (#9)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:24:41 PM EST
    tennis shoe wearing, Patty Murray.

    Parent
    She's following the pack on HCR, but (none / 0) (#33)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 07:52:12 AM EST
    if you aren't aware of the work she's done on behalf of Veterans, Seniors, Boeing, etc., you need to do your homework.

    Patty is a solid democrat, but we've seen something change in all of them under this administration.

    Parent

    I have not been persuaded (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Steve M on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:18:38 PM EST
    that the Senate bill is worse than current law.  Not that I like current law.

    The best case I've heard (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:19:39 PM EST
    is that Hyde has to be periodically renewed.

    But what I would really like to know is whether people thought that Hyde was going to be abandoned before HCR.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:28:55 PM EST
    I musta missed something, but I didn't think anyone was looking for Hyde to be abandoned (although that would be nice). What I thought we were looking for is keeping it from expanding to private insurance in the exchange. It's one thing to say fed dollars/subsidies can't pay for it, another not to have it available in exchange plans and/or making women buy extra coverage in case they should need full reproductive health care.

    Parent
    And that's what we got in (none / 0) (#24)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 12:26:02 AM EST
    the Senate bill.  State already prohibit abortion covarage.  Nelson changes nothing.

    Parent
    Hyde did not cost women more (none / 0) (#14)
    by Cream City on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:31:04 PM EST
    for health insurance.  This bill will, if they wnat abortion riders, wait and see.  Or if they can't afford the extra, they will pay in too many pregnancies and poor health from those and from too many mouths to feed, and on and on the downward spiral goes.

    And when women already are making so much less than men, living closer to the edge, they also will be more likely to face the fines if they can't afford insurance.  Or just more likely to die.

    Thanks so much, Dem Party.  

    Parent

    Well, not exactly (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:32:58 PM EST
    Group health plans bought outside of the exchange (i.e., for most people insured through employers) are not impacted.

    The exchange just doesn't exist yet.

    Parent

    Not directly, but I have read (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Cream City on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:54:24 PM EST
    reasoned scenarios that suggest wider effects, based on understanding how insurance markets work.

    Parent
    It's possible (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:56:00 PM EST
    But there was probably no way around this in doing healthcare reform.

    I think the national OPM plan could be the backdoor way around this.

    Parent

    This gets to the reason for the unease (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Cream City on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 12:13:40 AM EST
    among so many now:  We don't know.  We're going into this not knowing if it going to abrogate the Constitutional rights of more than half of Americans, not knowing whether it is going to make health insurance -- and health care -- less accessible and affordable for even more Americans, including those of us who have health insurance at exorbitant rates that may go up even more now while we also are paying more taxes for the rest. . . .

    I don't think we ought to be committing to ungodly amounts of hundreds of billions of dollars and not know.  I certainly don't think we ought to be potentially abrogating Constitutional rights and not know -- not us, not U.S. Senators, not a president who boasted of being a Con law prof.

    Parent

    Well, the next step (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 12:24:18 AM EST
    is to get either a Congress or a Supreme Court that agrees with you that there is such an abrogation. I honestly don't know which will come first.

    Parent
    The Supremes have not ruled on FISA (none / 0) (#28)
    by Cream City on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 12:55:09 AM EST
    or the Patriot Act or so many incursions on my rights, but I don't need them to tell me it is so.

    You're thinking like a lawyer, understandably, so it isn't so for you until the Supremes agree.  I'm thinking like a historian.  Or, say, like a citizen.

    Parent

    it should go without saying (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 01:01:34 AM EST
    that I think it's unconstitutional. But my opinion is neither here nor there.

    Parent
    Oh. Then why (none / 0) (#32)
    by Cream City on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 06:51:09 AM EST
    get in