Malcolm answered: “… It is very clear, it has been studied by academics for years, that when women are in office, they take leadership on issues that have been left out of the mainstream when it's just a roomful of guys … Given that we have a different life, and a different life experience, that's not surprising. Women take leadership on issues that affect children and affect families. Today … five women senators held a press conference to talk about the importance of health care reform and the impact of these health care issues on women, that are different from men. For example, women pay more for health insurance. They are often excluded for pre-existing conditions like C-section or pregnancy.”
Coakley agreed on health care, and mentioned public safety: “I've spent a lot of time as a prosecutor … working to prevent domestic violence and holding people accountable … On labor issues … [women] are often much lower paid than their male counterparts, and then they go home as single mothers to try and raise kids … They have to be treated fairly in the labor field, health care and safety issues. All of those are ones that I've either experienced or seen or worked with, as a prosecutor and as Attorney General. And many of the issues I think are so important to this country around education — early childhood education, particularly — those are often historically deemed to be women's issues. You know what? They're everyone's issues … and sometimes they get [put to] the back burner when men come to the table and are more worried about other issues.”
I asked Coakley about the currently-hot topic of abortion in the health care bill, and potential unease among Catholics with that. She said, “I believe that when we provide for a constitutional right, we've got to provide the funding for it. And as we look at insurance coverage for a range of issues that affect women and women's choice in reproductive health care, I think you will find that there are certainly even many Catholic Democrats who may understand that this is important … But I pride myself in being able to address the issues and convince people of the rightness of the decision, and if not, to bargain with them to get that result. … If we give … women the right to reproductive choice, then we need to fund that constitutional right.”
Malcolm takes the view that this controversy is simply another way to take pot-shots at health care reform. “In the House, there was an effort to come together and say, 'Let's not let this issue come in and make this into a political football' … and they came up with a compromise, [which] said: We're going to hold the line where it is, no federal funds for abortion … and now, others are trying to come in and upset the apple cart, and trying to make it broader … About half of [women] have coverage for this, and it would take away ultimately the coverage for those women, even that have private insurance.”
Apropos of nothing regarding the EMILY's List endorsement, I asked about Scott Brown's recent attacks on ACORN. Coakley wouldn't take the bait: “I know [Brown's] raised the issue … I'm sure that the investigation will take its course. It's a national issue in terms of accountability for that organization.” She says, “That's not my immediate responsibility,” and said she awaits the outcome of the governor's investigation.
I asked about family leave: Is there a possibility of expansion? Would Coakley propose such? Malcolm chimed in that there have indeed been attempts to pass legislation for paid parental (maternity and paternity) leave. They have passed in some states, she says, but not nationally.[Actually only California currently has paid leave, with Washington beginning in October 2009. More here.]
Coakley says, “We've come a long way in understanding it is parental responsibility, not just maternity or paternity leave. I've been an employer for a while, too, and I've always encouraged, in our staff, we've had a lot of folks, young men and women — to take FMLA take maternity or paternity leave. But we also need to change cultural ideas … that child-rearing is the woman's responsiblity, and how could she do both, etc.”
“Women have always been about making choices. There are plenty of women who come back to work afterwards; they should have appropriate leave, and if we need to extend benefits, we should. But I think the ideas of how you work or raise a family have always fallen unfairly on women. I'm speaking of double-edged swords here: The woman who leaves early because a child is sick is somehow shirking her responsibilities, and the father who goes to his son's soccer game at 3 o'clock is a good dad. … Women need to participate, not just in elected [positions,] but in jobs, in business, in law firms. And unless we have gofvernmenal and private policies that are family-friendly … then we're not making progress, and that is a place we need to push.”
I’m still not sure who to vote for, but anyone who follows me here knows I’m most passionate about migration policy. I don’t trust Capuano on migration policy, to be honest. If anyone get’s a chance to ask Coakley where she stands on migration policy I’d be extremely interested.
<
p>Using this logic the government should arm everyone for state militias right? I have an implied right to drink thanks to the 21st amendment should the government fund that as well?
<
p>Moreover it’s not a constitutional right, at least a right that is enshrined in the constitution, it is a right that has been created through precedence and jurisprudence, which agree or disagree is a lot less definitive than an amendment would be. Pro-abortion politicians should follow Cass Sunstein’s model and agitate for a constitutional amendment that secures abortion rights. Not only would that give the American people a definitive say on the issue it would also ensure that no Supreme Court in the future could overturn it and arguably provide Ms. Coakley with a better argument.
<
p>Until then with pro-choice SCOTUS majorities preserving the constitutionality of the Hyde amendment, which certain provisions within health care reform legislation are trying to gut, I see very little merit to this line of legal reasoning.
It’s a medical procedure. It’s legal. We should fund it when poor women choose it. We don’t have to fund it for everyone because not everyone will choose it.
<
p>As for this…
“Using this logic the government should arm everyone for state militias right?”
Everyone who chooses to join the National Guard is armed by the govt.
Currently Roe V Wade is the law of the land and I completely agree that under federal law women have a right to an abortion. Nowhere does it say in the constitution, in federal statues, or in supreme court cases that this has to be federally funded.
<
p>You got me back on the second amendment funding but dropped my other examples again should the government fund my beer since the 21st amendment gives me an implied right to drink? Should my freedom of religion be used to fund my church activities? Should my freedom of assembly be used to acquire federal funds to construct a meeting place for my political group? Should my freedom of speech lead to the government funding my newspaper or at least purchasing my NY Times subscription for me? Should the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment be used to justify redistributing wealth since it too is a constitutional right that ought to be funded?
<
p>I am not arguing against the idea of federally funding abortion with these examples, simply stating that using the logic that ‘if its a constitutional right we should fund it’ is incredibly faulty and she as a the states top lawyer should know better than to use it. That would not hold water in any court and there is no precedence I can think of that defends this. The only one I can think of is the government paying for court representation if I can’t afford it which, unlike abortion, representation is a right that is not ‘implied’ but written directly into the constitution and one landmark case (Gideon v Wainwright) takes it a step further and implies the funding.
<
p>The same courts that upheld Roe v Wade in Casey also upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment, a reasonable amendment that jurists and politicians from Sandra Day O’Connor to Joe Biden support upholding. These are not anti-abortion extremists these are sensible jurists and legislators that realize that the constitutionality of a right does not in any way shape or form imply that it must be funded.
As someone who went to hear Martha Coakley yesterday (and it was truly inspiring) I can tell you that she specifically mentioned how rewarding her work has been in regard to those who have no voice- making special note of immigrants. She has taken on employers who frighten their employees by telling them they will be deported if they report domestic violence or avail themselves and their children of emergency healthcare – I was touched by her obvious pride and love for the jobs she’s held and the ability it has given her to help those with no other champions- Martha Coakley is truly a shining example of an advocate that combines heart and head with the ability to fight for what is right. Having followed her career for years I am incredibly excited by the possibility of having the most qualified candidate, who, as a bonus, happens to be our first woman, represent us in the United States Senate-
It’s good to know she specifically mentioned migrants. I’m going to do some more digging on this, but this is very helpful.
Hi Charley,
<
p>I hate to quibble with you but Emily’s List does not focus on progressive women candidates. It’s mission and track record is of supporting pro-choice women candidates, period. They supported Melissa Bean, for god’s sake, a corporatist’s dream. I stopped giving to the list years ago because of this. Now I let Howie Klein of http://downwithtyranny.blogspo… do the vetting. He’s made a few mistakes, but learned from them.
<
p>Emily’s list was great early on when people like me didn’t know any better, but not so much any more. They’ve liked too many of Rahm’s candidates for my taste.
that Malcolm was enthusiastic about universal health care, which is decidedly a progressive position.
If it’s the Mass. Plan individual mandate with no strong public option, then NO THANKS. Our “landmark law” forces everyone to purchase a lousy over-priced (and going up) private insurance policy under threat of tax fines of $1,000. It also soaks taxpayers to subsidize private insurance (that includes steep co-pays) for people with lower incomes which is a rip-off for taxpayers and leads to enforced poverty for those at lower income levels.
<
p>Improved Medicare-for-All HR 676/ aka Medicare E (for Everyone)/ aka single payer is universal hc that puts people before profits and provides for responsible stewardship of hc spending.
<
p>This leads us to the question: How much is Coakley raising from contributors in health insurance and PHarma sectors?
<
p>Voters in Massachusetts have been waiting for the results of her office’s publicly announced “AG investigation into” the obscene $16.4Mil payout to the former CEO of MA Blue Cross and Blue Shield (a non-profit public charity) Bill VanFaasen a couple years ago. source: http://www.boston.com/business…
<
p>The AGs office was also supposed to be investigating–and doing something to rectify, one would hope–the exorbitant $3Mil current salary that non-profit public charity MA BCBS pays to its present CEO Cleve Killingsworth. MA BCBS CEO Killingsworth and BCBS VP Andrew Dreyfus also are executives in the national BCBS Federation. 44,000 people die each year due in the U.S. to not being able to afford health insurance. The state budget, not to mention family budgets, are being bankrupted by sky-high health insurance costs. As a nurse I care for the people who suffer more and then die prematurely. This has got to stop.
<
p>Maybe Martha Coakley hasn’t been interested in the MA BCBS investigation since she’s been gearing up to run for Senate. As we know running for Senate costs a lot.
And has been consistent about that.
Plus, as our state’s current Attorney General, Coakley has the duty to take corrective action over the abuses of MA BCBS, Partners Healthcare, Harvard Pilgram, et al. Not only are people being forced into bankruptcy over obscenely high healthcare costs, many people are dying prematurely due to lacking insurance (we still have a 9% Uninsured rate in Suffolk County MA). All this while taxpayers are getting ripped off royally by these health insurers “non-profit public charity” status. And now BCBS MA et al are raising their rates 10%!! Enough is enough http://www.funnyordie.com/vide…
As someone who helped work on her campaign and Tammy Duckworth’s let me tell you that those are the only Democrats who can get elected in those districts. Bean was running in Phil Crane’s district and that guy was a 30 year incumbent with a strong conservative record in an R+4 district. The district is full of Chicago streetcar suburbs and is incredibly wealthy so she needed to lean right on economic and security issues. Duckworth was even further to the right, she ran to repeal the estate tax and had some really conservative views on military service, but only she was able to come close to Roskam in Henry Hyde’s old district, one that has never elected a Democrat in its existence. Are these great Democrats and did it feel good to work on the campaigns? Not really. But they were the only Democrats who could win and the Republicans they beat or lost too are horrible people (Roskam sat next to Joe Wilson and laughed/smiled when he disrespected the President).
<
p>That said I agree that Emily’s List, Planned Parenthood, and NARAL are horrible organizations that are so focused on their single issue advocacy that they could care less about the Democrat party. They have consistently supported pro-choice Republican incumbents over pro-choice Democrats in every race. They have supported pro-choice Republicans over pro-life Democrats even when the Democrats by electing a Dem Speaker and Dem Majority Leader would do more than the Republicans to advance their cause. In contrast Democrats for Life of America only supports pro-life Democrats and has even endorsed some pro-choice Democrats that endorsed the 95-10 initiative over regressive Republicans every time and it is because they consider themselves loyal to the party first. Can’t say the same for the pro-choice groups.