If you recall, this issue was a self-proclaimed defining moment during the primary between Martha Coakley and her closest competitor Mike Capuano, Martha said she would have voted against the health care reform bill in the house becuase of abortion service access.
She has changed her position now (with regard to the Senate bill) in a way that puts into question whether she meant what she said. Did Martha mean what she said when it comes to abortion service access? Jeralyn at TalkLeft says ‘no’, that despite Coakley’s firm position before about not passing health care at the expense of abortion services access, Coakley would in fact do so:
…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.
BMG reader BrooklineTom offers some more specific critcism of this move by Coakley:
It seems to me that this confirms the hollowness of her original attack on Mike Capuano during the campaign. I see no reason to change any aspect of my initial assessment of her. She took a gratuitous cheap-shot at Mike Capuano, scored when he blundered his response, and landed with him at a posture promising to vote against any bill that extends anti-abortion provisions. Now she supports the exact same position that she opposed when she initiated the chinese fire-drill. She made one drive-by comment here, with zero followup. This candidate has zero substance. ZERO.
While her aides mouth empty support for public option, her behavior makes it clear that she is no fighter and no political strategist. She has, once again, chosen to roll over and play dead – and she isn’t even elected yet.
David Dayen comments on abortion access in the Senate health care bill in his article called “Potential Pitfalls for the Health Care Bill as It Moves to Conference”:
Here’s the statement from Reps. Diana DeGette and Louise Slaughter on the Senate bill:
“As the Co-Chairs of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, we have serious reservations about the abortion provision included in the U.S. Senate’s health care bill. This provision is not only offensive to people who believe in choice, but it is also possibly unconstitutional. As we have maintained throughout this process, health care reform should not be misused to take away access to health care. The more than 190-member Caucus will review this language carefully as we move forward on health care reform.”
“Possibly unconstitutional” is a strong statement. And virtually every choice group, from Planned Parenthood on down, has expressed strong opposition to the Nelson language. At issue are two things: the segregation of funds, where women who receive subsidies on the exchange would have to give two checks to their insurance company to get reproductive choice coverage, which just comes off as humiliating. And then there’s the state opt-out, where states could ban coverage in their state exchanges. That may be where the constitutional issues arise (although five states currently ban private coverage of abortion services).
The Backstory
My newsreader said there was a story called
but it was nowhere to be found when I clicked in the link. A Google search told me it existed once, and that Jeryln at TalkLeft had written a post on it; her hyperlink to the Globe story was 404 too. I found this other story on Boston.com (quoted at the top of this diary) and presumed it was the same or similar story with the headline re-written
There’s no way to tell if copy was changed. What happened to the Globe’s story?
if anyone believed her righteous indignation at the house bill for a second, they were painfully politically naive and/or blind due to reasons of political insanity fanboy/girl ism (coughmenemshacough).
Think your accusation that the Coakley camp had anything to do with a Globe headline change is a stretch at best.
<
p>How do you explain her reversal from an absolutist position?
<
p>Care to?
Pretty easy.
meet the standard (the defining principled standard) she took when the house bill passed?
<
p>If not, what does her reasoning tell you?
I don’t see any such accusation in Neil’s post. Did the Coakley campaign have it removed?
Maybe they decided the new headline was closer to the facts. I’ve seen them do that with many news stories on Boston.com. I don’t think there’s anything sinister going on here.
<
p>This whole health care debate has been wrenching for the party, and it’s going to continue to be so as the House and Senate bills get reconciled. At this stage in the process, given how hard getting this thing out of the Senate was, I’m on board with Coakley supporting it. As a matter of politics and policy, passing a bill is still a net good, and there’s still a chance to fight for something better in conference.
it is just as likely that provision you dislike in the Senate bill will be part of the final bill as not, especially where Senators have told Reid they must be included the provision to get their final vote. The thing to do is to fix some of these problems in the Senate bill now.
<
p>About abortion service access, does it bother you that Coakley’s principled stand on abortion access, the single most defining moment in the primary turns out to be bullshit?
<
p>That in fact her commitment to abortion access as a priority in the health care reform bill was not anything more than a campaign stunt that lasted no longer than this very short campaign?
Neil I think this diary blaming the “Coakley campaign” for influencing a globe.com headline is pretty silly, and the poll belongs in another one of you excellent substantive posts on health care reform.
<
p>I’m very glad that Martha Coakley is on board with the Senate version, and I am assuming she came to it based on a careful reading of the bill and in close consultation with her closest policy advisers.
I updated the post.
<
p>
<
p>One of the things we want in an elected official is accountability. Rather than assume she has exhibited that here, dig in a little and see how the specifics of her position on abortion service access when the house bill passed jibe with her current position on the abortion access in the Senate bill.
<
p>Finally, we have a real world example of the analysis and decision making with regard to principled issues.
<
p>Don’t ignore it. Study it.
if Capuano had won the primary. Gosh golly, since he didn’t, we have to deal with some ne’er-do-well with a strangehold on the Globe’s headlines. THE HUMANITY!
Perhaps Neil can edit the post to put rather more emphasis on Martha Coakley’s shift and rather less on how the Globe reports it.
<
p>It seems to me that this confirms the hollowness of her original attack on Mike Capuano during the campaign. I see no reason to change any aspect of my initial assessment of her. She took a gratuitous cheap-shot at Mike Capuano, scored when he blundered his response, and landed with him at a posture promising to vote against any bill that extends anti-abortion provisions. Now she supports the exact same position that she opposed when she initiated the chinese fire-drill. She made one drive-by comment here, with zero followup. This candidate has zero substance. ZERO.
<
p>While her aides mouth empty support for public option, her behavior makes it clear that she is no fighter and no political strategist. She has, once again, chosen to roll over and play dead — and she isn’t even elected yet.
<
p>Martha Coakley repels me. I will write-in Mike Capuano in the January election.
might be the 2nd most ridiculous one ever. Short of the GOP mailer: “What is your opinion of President Obama’s agenda?”
<
p>A) It sucks
B) It really sucks
C) He’s not my president because he’s a foreign born, Muslim, terrorist.
Are you happy with the new corporatism where Americans w/o health care insurance MUST buy health care costing 20% of their income and still face large deductibles and co-pays?
<
p>If the facts are wrong, challenge them.
On Coakley:
<
p>I think this shows why she is more Kerry than Kennedy, she is a flop flopper, someone who governs by polls, and a politician who only thinks about her career advancement and has no core principles. It is why she won’t have my vote, not that it matters anyway.
<
p>On ‘corporatism’:
<
p>Again, corporatism is a term that to me refers to a fascist style of government that Mussolini proposed. A fusion of industry and labor with government. This is not what we are living with. Perhaps a better phrase would be, corporate welfare. And on the policy merits, I certainly oppose the government steering my money to corporations. But the term needs to be clarified. Sorry its just the History major in me coming out.
good point.
corrections are always appreciated, plus I think that terminology really spells out the basic facts that this is a big giveaway of government money to big business, something that should make true lefties AND true righties upset. Not to mention any decent America loving patriot.
It originated in the American Progressive movements of the late nineteenth century.
<
p>For reasons too lengthy to go into here, there was a certain tension (particularly in Massachusetts) between progressives and populists because the former were not particularly democratic in their beliefs, preferring administrative elites to popular sovereignty.
is misleading
301% of Poverty Level: $66,370
<
p>
<
p>401% of Poverty Level: $88,420
mybarackobamatax
This issue was arguably the defining issue of the Democratic primary and the issue that drove the most coverage here at BMG of all the issues covered, including many post by the editors on the topic. That said, it doesn’t merit being on the recommended readers list?? which by the way it was for a short time this morning.
It was the only spark in an otherwise very boring pre-determined race. Coakley had a significant lead and never lost it. You got to let it go.
and I would like to think that any liberal would want to know their Senators’ position is on the issue. Do you know her position? (It is her signature issue, right?)
<
p>Do you know what she values more than (and less than) abortion access becuase it used to be the case she valued abortion access more than health reform. Do you know what her plans are to fight for abortion access? And beyond that what her plans are to fight for to fight to end the Hyde Amendment? I would like to think that any liberal would want to know their Senators’ position is on the issue.
<
p>If this wasn’t the defining issue, what was? Regardless, if its in the top 10 it’s worth discussion.
<
p>And about this comment, “You got to let it go” the kids would say you’re not the boss of me but I would say, what kind of a liberal are you?
your choices are Coakley, Brown or the Libertarian candidate Kennedy.
<
p>Coakley said that she would not vote for the health reform bill with the Stupack amendment, that amendment has since been removed and replaced.
<
p>She now says that she’ll reluctantly vote for the reform bill with this change.
I think the spotlight should stay directly on Martha Coakley. She chose to step into the public eye, she chose what to say and what not to say, and she is the Democrat on the ballot next month.
<
p>I am offended by the cavalier treatment voters like me receive from Martha Coakley. I think the train-wreck unfolding in the Democratic party right now demonstrates that it’s long past time we hold all of our leaders to a tighter standard. I suggest that this is precisely the wrong time to call for any motivated progressive to “let it go” — and not for just Martha Coakley, either. What the heck is Chris Dodd doing?
<
p>In my view, this community is about something more important than whether a race is boring or not. Perhaps if we can lengthen our collective attention span we might improve the performance of both our candidates and also our elected officials.
The only thing you are outraged about is that your candidate in the primary lost, hence the “let it go” statement. The same candidate that I voted for by the way.
<
p>Boring was obviously in response to the defining moment comment, any idiot could have figured that out. Please do not make up crap, do something useful with yourself instead.
While I appreciate your feedback, I’m reasonably in touch with my own feelings about this race and its outcome.
<
p>Neil characterized the issue this way:
<
p>You characterized the issue as follows:
<
p>I think Neil’s characterization is the more accurate, and I stand by my response to you.
Bottom line, Capuano votes for this bill too.
<
p>Again, save the BS and mock outrage for someone else.
It appears Ryan recommended this diary and maybe at the time there was space, but it has since been displaced by subsequent recommendations.
Some of your comments are pretty confusing. I think the recommendations are a piece of information editors use to decide whether to promote it to ‘recommended’ or ‘front page’. I don’t think there is any automation that does it. What do you think/know?
I’m not sure what the limit is on the number of recommended posts there can be at once, but I’m pretty sure what I said above is correct. Promotion, on the other hand, is in control of the editors. Clarification from the editors?
i think you’re right. it was news to me.
Here’s what it has to say about recomendations:
<
p>
Diaries that were FP’ed that weren’t recommended. Any reader can make a recommendation, but if one gets more, it gets bumped down. It also appears that ones with newer recommendations (if both have 1 rec, for example) get a higher priority.
<
p>Your diary does start a good conversation, but the logic behind your first argument: “How do you explain her reversal from an absolutist position?” Is flawed, as David pointed out. It’s not as if she changed her opinion regarding the exact same piece of legislation. If the language itself doesn’t prove it is a milder version of Stupitts, Bart Stupak’s attitude towards the amendment sheds some light on the differences.
<
p>If you can’t accept that, then why couldn’t the possibility of her “changing her mind” be acceptable? I’m not suggesting that is what she did, but all this flip-flop-politicians-can’t-change-their-understanding-BS is ridiculous. Especially since Congressman Capuano did something very similar during the primary.
<
p>You finish the diary by making this wild, yet subtle enough to feign ignorant, accusation that the Coakley campaign killed the Globe article.
<
p>I don’t think there is a conspiracy.
Really? A “wild” and “subtle” “accusation” about the “Coakley campaign”
<
p>How so?
<
p>The Backstory
<
p>Please point out he accusation if you would.
<
p>Just as Stupak rejects the Senate policy from the pro-life caucus, so do Reps. Diana DeGette and Louise Slaughter leaders of the pro-choice caucus, “As the Co-Chairs of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, we have serious reservations about the abortion provision included in the U.S. Senate’s health care bill. This provision is not only offensive to people who believe in choice, but it is also possibly unconstitutional. As we have maintained throughout this process, health care reform should not be misused to take away access to health care. The more than 190-member Caucus will review this language carefully as we move forward on health care reform.“
<
p>What is the space between Coakley’s approval of the Senates abortion access policy and Reps. Diana DeGette and Louise Slaughter dissatisfaction with it?
<
p>So what’s Cokaley’s position on abortion access?
<
p>Is it the same standard as before or has it changed substantively?
I am an active, registered, life-long Democrat. Martha Coakley is MY nominee, and she has an obligation to pay some modicum of attention to my concerns. Your suggestion that Neil “go campaign for Brown” is about as constructive as the Nixon-era hardhat’s infamous “Love it or leave it” mantra.
<
p>I’ve paid my dues, and Democrats like me are going to continue to keep the pressure on candidates and elected officials like Martha Coakley.
<
p>It would be more constructive for you to call for Martha Coakley to address the questions that have been respectfully and politely asked of her on this forum.
ten 6s to you.
<
p>Are you too cynical to realize Coakley played everyone who cares about government and is interested in politics in Massachusetts with her stance on the house bill during the primary? Because surely you don’t think she was so naive that she didn’t know exactly what she was doing.
<
p>On this entire thread only one person responded about this post by talking about the policy and Coakley’s evolving position. What happened to everyone who cared about this issue two months ago?
<
p>We still DO care about this issue. What is confusing about this to you? The Stupack/Pitts amendment is not nearly the same language as the amendment in the Senate. The main issue during the primary focused on this hypothetical question, Would you support a HCR bill that included a Stupitts like amendemnt. Coakley said no. The question is no longer hypothetical as a senate version of Stupitts wasn’t included.
<
p>If you were negotiating a price with a prospective buyer for your house, and you wanted $200,000 for it, how are you going to present that? Are you going to say something like “I want $200,000 for the house, but I’ll take something less if it’s the best I can do.” Hell no. You’re going to firmly stand at $200,000, do everything you can to get it, but know personally that you’ll take less if it’s the best you can do. While it isn’t the best analogy, it’s exactly what we do in politics. We firmly call for what we believe in, but at the end of the day sacrifice for the greater good. While Coakley would’ve preferred there be no amendment, the amendment we got wasn’t Stupitts; what is confusing about that? Isn’t that what Ted Kennedy did best?
<
p>You also choose to ignore the verbiage of the Pro-Choice caucus to make your own point.
While the caucus certainly doesn’t like the amendment, they aren’t suggesting they are going to urge defeat of a bill with it. If that is the case, how does that contradict Coakley’s position in anyway?
My nominee, right or wrong?
Aid and comfort to the enemy?
Coakley is being quite acrobatic with her positioning on this, to put it mildly. But is anyone really surprised? It was pretty clear from the beginning that she would either really have to stay true to her word and vote against health care reform, thus killing it, or do a quick flip-flop shortly after the primary.
<
p>Luckily she’s chosen the less-bad option of flip-flopping, but she shouldn’t have put herself in that poor political position in the first place.
At least we can still elect Scott Brown before its too late.
Actually, you probably can’t.
<
p>That’s no reason you can’t get fired up and ready to go, though.
What democracy is all about?
This sounds at least a little bit like primary campaign sour grapes. Coakley certainly didn’t invent the old run-to-you-base in the primary then run-to-the-center in the general trick. Besides, if she gets to vote on this at all it will only be the conference report which can’t be amended. We don’t know what exactly the language will be, but between Stupak and whatever it was that mollified Nelson there will be abortion restrictions. The only question for Coakley will be (with apologies to Howie Mandel), “Deal? or no deal?”
You wrote:
<
p>The practical effect of her comment is to make it easier for rightwing and anti-choice forces to impose draconian abortion restrictions in the final bill.
<
p>I’d like to remind you that she is not “running to the center” in this shift, she is running away from a clear majority of Massachusetts voters. Sour grapes or not (and I strongly disagree with that characterization), it is perfectly legitimate to observe that her behavior is entirely consistent with the objections several of us raised during the primary campaign.
<
p>When she wins this race — and she will — her term will expire on January 3, 2013. There is absolutely nothing wrong with reminding her and each other that we are watching her very carefully.
If you’re suggesting that Massachusetts voters do not support her voting for this HCR bill despite the restrictive abortion language, I would like to see the data to back that up.
I’m suggesting that a clear majority of Massachusetts voters oppose attaching additional restrictions on abortion (beyond existing federal restrictions) to the health care reform bill.
<
p>I think she moved towards that clear majority during the primary and is moving away from it now. The truth is that I think she’s attempting to align herself with the direction she sees from President Obama and the Democratic leadership. I don’t think she cares even a little bit what the voters think (so long as she wins the election). Her drive-by comments on this blog (especially in comparison to her Democratic primary opponents) and the unresponsiveness of her office during her tenure as AG are consistent with this.
<
p>I think she is once again ducking a principled fight and once again taking the route of political expedience. I think she is a follower (of political figures she deems more powerful), not a leader, and I think her entire political career demonstrates this.
<
p>I think this is what differentiated her from Mike Capuano during the primary, and this is why I think it is crucially important for us to continue paying attention in anticipation of the 2012 election for the seat she will presumably hold.
<
p>I would agree with that, but you are still ignoring the point. No longer is the question:
<
p>Do you support attaching additional restrictions on abortion to the health care bill?
<
p>The question has become:
<
p>Would you urge your Senator to vote against the current health care reform package, HR 3590, because of the additional restrictions on abortion?
<
p>It would be unfair to miscategorize the response to the former question as the same as the later without proper evidence. The argument is no longer hypothetical. The bill is no longer up for debate. This is the bill. What matters know is the latter of the two questions I asked. We are no longer interested in their opinion regarding abortion restrictions, but curious as to whether those opinions run deep enough to tank HCR.
<
p>What’s clearly obvious is that you find Mike Capuano to be the superior candidate and potential senator. That is fine. However, don’t let your bias denigrate the thoroughness of your argument.
The argument is still hypothetical because the health care reform bill won’t come before the Senate until the House and Senate agree on its final form. That is the bill that soon-to-be Senator Coakley will have to vote yea or nay on.
<
p>By publicly announcing, today, that she will vote yea even if that final bill includes anti-abortion extensions, Martha Coakley invites their attachment.
<
p>I want the House and Senate leadership to have fear in the hearts when they contemplate a bill with no public option, no medicare extensions, and draconian restrictions on abortion.
<
p>There is nothing hypothetical about that.
<
p>Come on. She “invites their attachment?” You can’t be serious. You know just as well as I do that there is no wiggle room in regards to the senate bill moving to the left. So why are you pretending otherwise? This bill is going to pass without a single Republican vote. If we drop the language (for the senate bill) we lose Nelson. Won’t pass. If we drop it from the conference report, we lose a chunk of Blue Dogs and it fails in the House AND the Senate.
<
p>Beyond rhetoric for rhetoric sake, and taking into consideration the sad truth that we are facing, what other options are in front of Martha Coakley?
<
p>
<
p>Political expedience or playing with the cards she has been dealt?
<
p>You’re only asking for one of two things:
<
p>1) Empty rhetoric.
or
2) Her to kill the bill because of the language.
<
p>It doesn’t matter HOW much Martha Coakley and every other pro-choice Dem complains, the bill can’t pass without it. And that is the cold, hard, and sad truth. She has already shown that she is fiercely opposed to the language, so why now demand the empty rhetoric when she needs to vote for it if it’s going to pass?
<
p>If you want her to kill the bill because of the language, just say that. I can respect that. However, don’t pretend there is another route she could take that would lead us to a different solution.
I would have been happier if Martha Coakley had said she opposed the language and declined to answer (publicly) how she would vote on the final bill. In the same way that I expect a shortstop to be able to field a hot groundball aimed directly at him, I expect a would-be Senator to find an effective way to say something to the effect of “I am opposed to additional restrictions on abortion. I support a strong public option and increased medicare provisions. My immediate focus is on the upcoming election. If I am elected, I will wait until I see the final language before I announce what my vote will be.”
<
p>The “cold, hard and sad truth” is that legislation that started with the overwhelming support of the American public — and that contained a strong public option, significant medicare expansion, and was free of abortion restrictions — has now lost all three advantages and is now opposed by a large and growing number of Americans. This “logic” has killed the aspects of this bill that appeal to most Americans, and has preserved or enhanced the aspects that most Americans find most despicable about both the health insurance and health care industries and also congress.
<
p>So much for the “more liberal” Senate.
<
p>The Democratic majority that I worked hard to elect appears to be, on the field, a bunch of keystone cops who are now headed into the seventh-inning stretch behind by six runs. They’ve been committing errors right and left, and the hits have been few and far between. I think Martha Coakley is the third out, and she just whiffed her second strike. The count is 0 and 2 and this party is 1 strike and seven outs away from losing the game next fall.
Bob Stanley will still be on the mound.
Ain’t it the truth. 🙂
The American people don’t get to vote in the senate. So regardless of what the American people want/wanted, it became about what the Republicans and moderate Democrats wanted. There was most certainly a failure in using our public support to push for the “right” bill, but, that ship has sailed.
<
p>I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree regarding our next Senators language.
Both chambers restrict it so any conference wiggle-room is only between the two versions. It’s essentially off the table at this point.
Why has the thread starter disappeared? Why does it show no comments in the boxes on the right, when there are still 62 when the thread-starter is expanded?
<
p>Is this change intentional, and if so, can some explanation be offered on the thread-starter?
by which I mean, it was no longer listed in recommended and had scrolled off the bottom on the diaries list. So I created a new diary, with the same name, which had the sole purpose of linking to this one. Does that explain what you’ve observed?