As Ellen Malcom, president of Emily’s List points out, we elected a pro-choice Congress and a pro-choice President, a President who has repeatedly told our nation that health care reform would not take away benefits from those who currently have insurance.
To protect women’s reproductive rights and preserve the accessibility to procedures currently covered by most private insurers, we need more than a majority toting the title Democrat (Bart Stupak, a Democrat introduced the amendment and 65 Democrats voted in favor of it) we need to elect a progressive Democrat dedicated to holding President Obama to his promise; we need an individual who will stand up to this sort of legislation and call it what it is: “disturbing.”
Martha Coakley is the right woman to do that, she’s the right person to do that; she's the best candidate to protect and advance women's reproductive rights as a Senator.
With only 17% women in the Senate (similar stats in the House) it becomes clear that having a candidate with the experience, intelligence, qualifications and commitment fortunately happen to be a woman is truly an exciting opportunity for our state and the country. With Martha Coakley’s record and this statement, it is clear that she again shows her strength and commitment to civil rights, human rights and women’s rights. She has certainly earned our trust and support.
<
p>I don’t look at gender as a qualification for or against a candidate running for elected office. It makes me wonder why you bring it up as the very first point.
<
p>Coakley would have voted the same way Capuano did on the Stupak Amendment if she were a member of the US Congress last Saturday night.
<
p>The issue that you do not address in your post above is how Coakley she would have voted on HR 3962 and whether her position offers a clear choice.
<
p>As a pro-choice liberal voter I too want to know that we can have health reform with a public option and without the Stupak Amendment. It is not clear how that will be worked out in the Senate or in conference.
<
p>If you ask me who I would vote for to be a part of that process in the Senate, it would be Capuano and not Coakley based on his experience in Congress and his record on Women’s reproductive right:
<
p>
<
p>More on Congressman Mike Capuano’s record on rights of women.
Is the gender of Coakley’s competition an issue for you? These are people you have described as “slick, slippery” and “a dishonest, used car-salesman” and “so slick, he fooled you into thinking he wasn’t slick at all” and “call it slick call it greasy, maybe its just plain “‘deceptive”?
The author of this diary has taken a statement from Martha Coakley (which you can find here) and twisted it into something it isn’t. The AG herself didn’t criticize Capuano or any of her Democratic rivals for the Senate seat and also doesn’t infer that any of them are happy with the fact that the amendment was included.
<
p>The most important point in Martha’s statement is this:
<
p>
<
p>I believe that all of the other candidates would agree with that sentiment. The question now becomes how would they go about making that happen? And it’s a very pertinent question given that (sigh) the Senate may still be dealing with the health bill after our new Senator is sworn in.
<
p>In the meantime, Joe Pitts has a primary opponent: Lois Herr. I’ve only given her web site a cursory glance and she seems to be in the right place on the issues. Have a look.
Since Capuano voted against the offending amendment then didn’t he do the right thing from your viewpoint? Also being a woman matters not a fig to me. There could be zero women in the Senate or 100 for all I care. The imoprtant thing is do they execute their office to the best of their abilities and stay connected to their constituents.