Just recently, I found out that the Democratic nominee for State Senator in my district, Michael Rush of West Roxbury actively sought and has received the endorsement of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. He has also received the endorsement of “Mass Resistance”, the opposition of Mass Equality.
I cannot seperate his conservative stands on social issues that I as a Democrat hold dear from his alledged pro-union stands. Therefore, I will not be voting for him and I am encouraging other socially liberal Democrats in my district to do the same.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sincerely,
Wayne J. Wilson, Jr.
Roslindale
Please share widely!
Guess no votes for Joe Moakley, Tip O’Neil, Pat Monyihan, Teddy Kennedy pre-1976, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, or Hubert Humphrey then. Even George McGovern was pro-life in 1972 and was criticized for taking the then ‘leftist’ position of letting states decide. Its a strong tradition and not antithetical to liberal values. We should care about every vulnerable person, especially the unborn. That said the opposition to gay rights is antithetical to the liberal tradition, I am confident Martin Luther King and those other great fighters of the social justice position would be in favor of gay rights. That is sorely disappointing. What positions does his opponent have?
<
p>
but it’s not 1976 or 1972 anymore. Rush should know better.
I would agree that opposing equal rights for gays is wrong at any time, particularly 2010. We can forgive those politicians like Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone who embrace the movement late, remember homosexuality was considered a psychological disorder well into the 80s. But to attach oneself to the democratic tradition and oppose marriage equality in MA is to abandon a strong component of that tradition-mainly equality and particularly equality of opportunity. Job security, hospital vistation, the ability to raise a family, those are fundamentally American goals and dreams that any American should be able to enjoy. Another strong component of that tradition, however, is protection of those our society has forgotten and those that are most vulnerable. I would include the unborn in that mixture. Am I favoring a repeal of Roe v Wade and am I arguing progressives should? No, but I think progressives and liberals can disagree on this issue in good faith and the tent is big enough and it is not enough to disqualify a vote. I think to take a laissez-faire position is the conservative response to the abortion question. It is not enough for a progressive, in my view, to step aside and let someone make a choice. In this arena above all others, we require an activist and compassionate government to guide women towards making the right choice and to support them so they can enjoy the rights and responsibilities of parenthood.
You wrote:
<
p>I fundamentally disagree with your premise and with the direction you propose based on it.
<
p>You’ve just finished writing that “progressive and liberals can disagree on [abortion] in good faith.” How then is an “activist” and “compassionate” government to determine what the “right choice” is, never mind “support them” in enjoying the “rights and responsibilities of parenthood”?
<
p>You have, in essence, given the finger to those of who disagree that the choice should be anyone’s except the woman. You’ve offered the pretense of tolerance — and in the same paragraph explicitly stated your intent to steamroll your opposition to abortion, calling for an “activist” government.
<
p>Oh, and please — spare me the sanctimonious garbage about “compassionate” government. We saw how an “activist and compassionate government” works in the Terry Schiavo debacle.
<
p>Abortion is a private, not public, matter. That’s why the government should stay out of it.
Again nowhere have I advocated overturning Roe v Wade, I think the government can and should take a side on the stance, and say abortion is a choice we do not condone, and here are the alternatives. In no way does that coerce a woman to bring a pregnancy to term under existing law nor does that propose new laws to do so. What I find ironic is that you are a typical example of an activist liberal, and I mean that as both a compliment, since we do agree on a host of issues, and have occasionally used that in a critical sense, particularly when it comes to your insensitivity towards the freedom of religion, but that is another debate entirely. Yet what I find surprising, not just from you, but from a host of supposedly good natured social justice supporting, activist, compassionate government liberals, is that on this one issue, you become complete individualistic libertarians. Let the woman handle this and lets not dwell on it.
<
p>The vast majority of women who have abortions to do so for economic reasons, they would like to raise children, but feel scared, feel threatened by the realities of the responsibility, and are looking for a helping hand not an invisible one. And the same liberal political theory that would extent active helping hands in the economic sphere can and should do so in the social sphere. Already we have seen many, on this site and elsewhere, support high taxes on tobacco, alcohol, even fatty foods and soda pop. Pro-choice politicians from Hillary Clinton to the late Teddy Kennedy to our own president have all said abortion is not a good choice and a choice the government should have a hand in averting through alternatives. So I see that as the direction we can go forward, a middle ground, and one that does not abandon the social justice tradition of the party.
I simply disagree with you.
<
p>You make the distinction between our views easy to see: you “think the government can and should take a side on the stance, and say abortion is a choice we do not condone.”
<
p>I disagree with you, strongly, about whether the government should take any position. Further, I think abortion is frequently the best choice available.
<
p>I think your riffs about why women have abortions speak more eloquently than you imagine about your gender and about your staggering naivete and lack of insight into women, abortion, economics, and choice. If you think that the vast majority of women who have abortions “would like to raise children”, then you need know more women — specifically women who are not Catholic.
<
p>Frankly, you sound like yet another Catholic male repeating misogynistic self-serving paternalistic claptrap. The “economic reasons” that you cite spring, to a great extent, from a worldview and cosmology that values fertility of women above all else and whose ultimate goal, whether admitted or not, is to keep women firmly subjugated — through children — to the men who father those children.
<
p>The very fact that you view abortion as a woman’s issue, in spite of the biological reality of the need for sperm, says to me that you frame this from a paternalistic rather than gender-neutral perspective.
<
p>Here’s my suggestion: if you think that women who have abortions are driven by economic reasons, then work to solve the economic discrimination faced by women and leave abortion alone. Work hard to make contraceptives readily available to anybody who wants them, especially teenagers. Work hard to encourage pharmaceutical companies to make a male chemical contraceptive available.
<
p>I think sex is good. I think that anybody who has attained the legal age of consent should have the ability to have sex with anybody they choose without the fear of unwanted pregnancy and without the fear of disease.
<
p>I think that the very best way to avoid abortions is to make it easy for men and women to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and the very best way to accomplish that is to enable those men and women to have sex that won’t make babies.
Nowhere am I condemning the rights of women to have sex, or even their constitutional right to an abortion, I do think that when 70% of women polled who have had abortions have said they did so for economic reasons, than the hand of the state should not leave women alone, vulnerable, and desperate, it should actively try and help them, if they seek it. What I am saying is many women go to planned parenthood to seek advice, and immediately get bombarded with information to convince them to have an abortion and that it is the right choice. I am saying lets have the government let women know there are alternatives available, alternatives that might actually work for them.
<
p>Also I made no assumptions about you so I do not appreciate your assumption that all Catholics somehow shelter themselves off from the broader society. I have a mainline protestant girlfriend with both parents as pastors, both of whom have counseled women in crisis pregnancies, one of whom is a hospital chaplain at a secular hospital who has to deal with this issue on a day to day basis and not every woman, in fact the vast majority of them, facing this decision are quite frail, upset, and emotional and not always making rational choices. I have had two friends in college who have had to get abortions because they were unable to afford the children, one of whom also had parents that would have disowned them for having boyfriends let alone getting pregnant, and they both wanted to finish college. Both still feel they made the right decision at the time, but both also wish the circumstances were different so they could have made different choices.
<
p>Anyway to prevent this from becoming a rant, lets at least agree that the government can do a hell of a lot more to help women in general, and pregnant women in particular, and simply leaving vulnerable women alone is not a good public policy option, at least if you consider yourself a democrat who cares about helping others.
When that 70% that you reference (do you have a citation?) say “economic reasons”, I think government should address the economic reasons. It appears that you, instead, focus on the abortion.
<
p>When you speak of help from the “hand of the state”, I think that it should actively provide zero- and low-cost access to contraceptives and ob/gyns, so that women suffering from those “economic reasons” can choose to have sex without getting pregnant. I’m not sure you agree with me on that.
<
p>When you write of the “many women” who “go to planned parenthood to seek advice” and “get bombarded with information to convince them to have an abortion and that it is the right choice”, I think you haven’t been to a Planned Parenthood clinic yourself. Have you? What material would you make available to them that isn’t already in a Planned Parenthood clinic?
<
p>You write of your two friends who “had to get abortions because they were unable to afford the children”. What steps did they take to avoid pregnancy? What steps did their partners take? Were they raped? The friend whose parents would “disown her for having a boyfriend” — do you really think that saddling her with a baby is the answer to that tragic state of affairs? Do you think that perhaps she might have gotten more benefit from access to a supportive resource to help her deal with her overly-intrusive parents before she started having sex?
<
p>Will you at least consider that perhaps a trip to Planned Parenthood before they had sex might be preferable to somehow “helping” them carry babies that they don’t want?
<
p>What is your posture towards the significant number of women whose unplanned pregnancy results from contraceptive failure? These are women who took steps to avoid pregnancy, and who got pregnant anyway. Are you proposing that the government should tell them that having their baby is the “right” choice for them?
<
p>We do, at least, agree that the government can a hell of a lot more to help women. We seem to have dramatically different ways of accomplishing that. You seem to mean “helping” them carry unwanted pregnancies to term and then “helping” them parent children that they don’t want and can’t afford. I think that “help” should mean helping them avoid pregnancy, helping them by ensuring that each woman has the same economic choices available to men, and helping them by ensuring that they have safe and affordable access to abortion when those efforts to avoid pregnancy fail.
I think you are confusing several different issues. I am not against contraception, or state sponsored contraception, or sex education, or the morning after bill, etc. Just because I am Catholic does not mean I agree with the Church’s stance on every issue, and here I feel that while they set an admirably principled stance at saying ‘life begins at conception’ I think it is an overreaction to sexual liberalism and is not nuanced, particularly as a response to the crises of AIDS and unwanted pregnancy. What I am saying with the 70% quote, which came from a Time/CNN poll, is that 70% of women who have abortions want to keep the children but feel that economic circumstances prevent them from doing so. I think we can both agree that it is not enough for the state to say, ‘its your choice do what you feel is best’ but rather for the state to come in, as Obama, Kennedy, and Clinton and other liberals have argued and say “how can we help you have this child?”. I do not think that it is a radical position to help women keep children they want to have.
<
p>Similarly the 95 in 10 initiative is a great proposal that would reduce 95% of abortions in 10 years through a series of increased aid and incentives to ensure the state proactively acts on behalf of pregnant women and their unborn children without restricting the law and language of choice in the slightest. Ideally if I was czar of abortion policies (though “Abortion Czar” would be a terrible title) I would provide universal pre-school, free daycare, paid maternity and paternity leave, and universal health care for kids (at least, ideally for all adults), and then restrict abortion to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. The irony is such a position marks me as both a ‘radical conservative’ on the issue, even though its the position of most European countries, agnostic scientists like Dawkins and Sagan, is perfectly aligned with Roe v Wade which only provides a federal right for the 1st trimester and leaves states free to restrict it beyond that, and is aligned with science which shows that babies can independently survive outside the womb after 20 weeks, showing that the point of viaiblity is a lot sooner than we thought back when Roe v Wade was decided. Liberals should want the law to be backed by scientific reasoning, and here is a prime example where the law has yet to catch up with science on the left, (and we have an unending list of examples on the right from global warming to evolution to stem cells). The other irony is such a ‘conservative’ position would still put me way outside the guidelines of my church and most pro-life activists. So I see it as a moderate position that alienates extremists on both sides of the issue. Additionally I would support parental notification laws, and would add a requirement that women see their doctor first before going to an abortion clinic (call me a radical if you want but the Roe V Wade authors relied on this for abortion to pass legal muster in their view). Abortion facilities are some of the least regulated medical practices in the country, and many Planned Parenthood facilities have been caught telling outright medical lies to incoming patients. There are many severe health risks involved with abortion, even in a safe facility, particularly in the later terms, and that information ought to be regulated by the FDA like any other medical information. The Informed Choice Act, if anything, enhances a woman’s right to choose, it does not hinder it. And we preserve the Hyde Amendment which has had consistent bipartisan support. Also there should be health exemptions at every stage, even at partial birth (which is not currently the case, and favoring those exemptions again puts me to the left of the Church and most pro-life activists).
<
p>So can we agree on that? Philosophically it is my view that abortion is rarely a morally justifiable position, and philosophically you take an opposing view, but when it comes to public policy I recognize that prohibition only closes our hearts and minds to these women and forces them to get medically unsafe procedures. I also agree that abortion is not the problem, it is economic inequality that is the root cause and abortion is merely one of the symptoms. Ensuring that all women have greater access to healthcare, education, and employment is universally recognized as part of the liberal project. I would argue that reducing abortion is not just the icing on the cake for that project, but a key component of it, and a component that Democrats should be a lot less afraid to sell. I am not sure if you have canvassed outside of MA, and I am not presuming you haven’t, but I have met so many voters out here in the heartland who are in favor of labor, in favor of a public option, in favor of more spending on schools, jobs, and education, but who simply cannot vote for the Democratic party over the issue of abortion. Taking the hands off approach does not cut it anymore, we need to actively look concerned over this issue. We can’t dismiss abortion opponents as irrational fundamentalist yahoos, but sincere people of faith that value social justice just as much as we do, and can be won over to our side if we just embrace a more moderate position on abortion and link reducing abortion to the greater values of economic justice the party is in favor of.
I voted for the first time at the age of eighteen in 1982, so these suppositions do not apply to me. It is not 1972 or even 1976. This is 2010, and The Massachusetts Democratic Party Platform supports as womans’ right to choose regarding abortion and equal rights for all of the citizens of the Commonwealth.
Rep. Rush is deeply involved in the Probation Department patronage mess. Scott Leigh says DeLeo needs to clean his house. Too bad if the House gets cleaned by having the dirt swept under a rug in the Senate.
<
p>
alternative to a lousy Democrat that snuck through the primary process. Civil rights is an area where I draw a line. I’ll never vote for a Republican, but I’d never vote for someone who would seek to strip me of my civil rights — and I’d never ask anyone else to do so either.
It’s too bad Michael Walsh lost the primary to Rush. He was a solid guy, had a pro-choice stance, and stood for the community values that the majority of the Suffolk and Norfolk district represented.
<
p>I have to say that he gave Rush quite a few grey hairs, and then some. He pushed it farther than people thought he would take it, and garnered more support than anyone thought he’d get along the way. Eventually, the lawn signs were almost equal, and Walsh even got the endorsement of the Globe, who usually stays out of ultra-local elections.
<
p>This probation thing smells all over for Rush. He’s going to sullen the Suffolk and Norfolk District with his petty back door deals, unethical behavior, and rodent-like image.
<
p>I’m sorry, but even as a Dem, I’m going for Brad Williams. We can vote him out in two years anyway. As long as Rush is gone.
<
p>Oh, and it’s 2010 last time I checked.
Among other Repubs today.
<
p>Williams is a Republican, no question about it. I overheard him at the Roslindale parade telling a woman “…we believe it trickles down”. Although I had no context for the remark and only heard that small snippet of conversation, it sort of turned me off to him. I’m just not a fan of trickles and scraps as an economic philosophy. “The people thirst? Well, let them lap up the trickles!”
<
p>However, Rush has always aggravated me as well, so I’m not sure I care too much who wins this one.
.. like the the probation patronage mess and I’m sure other things.
<
p>This type of corruption is destroying the Democratic party in MA. Each year that we have guys like Finneran, DiMasi, Petrolati, DeLeo, Glodis, Wilkerson and Rush making headlines is a year where Republicans will make gains in MA.
I had occasion to speak with Mike Rush a week or so ago but not being from his area, I was unaware at the time of his stand on equality. How ANY parent can be against LGBT civil rights is beyond me. His baby is just a couple of months old. He does not know what the future holds for her. How will he explain himself if his daughter is a lesbian, bi, or transgender? Had I known of his anti-equality positions at the time, I most definitely would’ve raised the question.
Give me that old time religion….
<
p>Back in the church and not in government.
<
p>The only reason to oppose abortion or gay marriage is RELIGION. Opposing either of them is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as demonstrated by Amendment 1 and Amendment 14, section 1.
<
p>Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
<
p>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
<
p>Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
<
p>1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
<
p>I believe that abortion and gay marriage will remain as is, as there will be a FIREWALL in favor of the status quo in the legislature, even with people like Rush there.
<
p>What I would worry about is not having a strong enough program against anti-gay bullying in the schools. It is time to play HARDBALL and end the gay suicides, no matter what it takes.
<
p>Although is is advisable to keep would-be theocratic tyrants like Rush out of office.
Rush is hardline anti-abortion and hardline anti-gay. Even if he weren’t, I still would have voted for Mike Walsh because Rush is corrupt. I actually met both Walsh and Brad Williams at Geoffrey’s in Roslindale one night, and I saw Brad in there one other time. He a nice guy and pro gay rights. He told me that legislature needs to focus on creating jobs and not bring up settled issues. That makes him better than Rush in my book. Not as good as Walsh would have been, but better than Rush.
<
p>Emily, Roslindale
I think it depends more on when you think human consciousness and human life comes into being. At some point during the nine month period of pregnancy the fertilized embryo becomes a human being capable of feeling pain and experiencing other emotions and perhaps even some types of rudimentary thoughts. We all agree that a baby born at 7 months gestation (prematurely, as it were) deserves protection, because it is a human being. I’m not convinced that the premature baby is so fundamentally different from a four month old, potentially abortable fetus, still inside the womb, that it should be legal to terminate its life. I don’t see why it is necessary to be religious in order to have this opinion- personally I’m not even all that religious, though I admit that I was raised Catholic and still do believe in God.
Carl Sagan, an atheist and outspoken scientist, had a very reasoned essay in the early 70s outlining ethical opposition to abortion but supporting choice at the early stages. His own definition would limit abortion to the first 16 weeks, a proposal that today would be met by widespread opposition from the left and be viewed as a right wing proposal. There are active atheists and secular humanists for life who believe that abortion is simply wrong ethically and you need know God or church to tell you that. And there are plenty of pro-choice churches and organizations WITH a religious persuasion. For me, my religious convictions are important in this opinion, but I think my doubts regarding my belief in God are a lot stronger than my doubts are about the immorality of this action. Religion is part of it for some, not part of it for others, again broad generalizations usually fail on most issues and they certainly do here.
Plenty of atheists have opposed homosexuality as well, Nietzsche, Crick of Watson and Crick, Freud, etc. Many feel it is detrimental to the human race from a biological standpoint, Crick views gays as ‘failed organisms’, and Freud felt it was a disorder, and Nietzsche felt it weakened a man’s will to another. There are purely sociological rationales against gay marriage, ones that i view as profoundly wrong and poorly reasoned, but they do exist without alluding to religious convictions.