It seems apparent that Secretary Sebelius’ HHS mandate with respect to “prevantive services” is controversial.
I am aware of Senator Brown’s position. I do not know if someone has asked for Professor Warren’s position, or that of the other candidates seeking to challenge Senator Brown. At least, I was unable to find any responses to such question.
If the question has already been asked, please direct me to the response.
If the question has not been asked, I am now asking it: Candidate, what is your position on the “preventative services” mandate?
Please share widely!
Here’s the list of preventative services under the affordable care act.
Plus, what is Brown’s position to what you are referring to, please post the link.
Thanks.
as to pretend not to understand the question or the controversy.
Brown opposes the mandate.
crissakes, you can say contraceptives.
“Contraception” for ACA purposes includes “FDA-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling, not including abortifacient drugs (i.e. “morning after” drugs).”
And so I have modified the post to make the same inquiry of each.
ha ha
Warren is a good politician. It is neither advisable nor required for a candidate to weigh-in publicly on every hot topic of the day.
Later, today it is widely expected that the President will offer a new “compromise” on this issue. (see e.g.: http://nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/white-house-to-announce-contraception-compromise-as-early-as-friday-20120210 )
If Warren weighs in at all (why should she, you think?), it’ll wisely be after the President’s first trail balloon fails to find it’s way back safely and a new position has been announced.
As a Warren supporter, I’m pleased to see wariness in ny candidate.
Yes, it appears that the meek climbdown I predicted the other day is underway, such that (i) the right wing will feel vindicated; (ii) the moderates who found the policy objectionable will remain suspicious; and (iii) the left wing, which has been at battle stations all week, itching for a fight with the Catholics, will feel disillusioned. Overall, quite an unforced error by the administration which, three years in, still can’t shoot straight.
Nevertheless, as someone with a question, it would be disappointing if the candidates simply choose to hide from the question.
and there are a lot of Catholic organizations that provide coverage, so this so called religious freedom id debatable. I’d rather than a person have medical services provided and covered by health care organizations. Especially since they are funded in part by the government. Kind of stupid, huh?
I understand that some are eager to see this as an error. I don’t.
The right wing won’t feel vindicated, the bishops won’t feel vindicated (one has already said something to the effect of “too little, too late”), and I think most Americans join me in being happy to see the government reining in — or at last calling out — the relentlessly rightward movement of the Catholic church.
When the bishops and the Vatican use similar political machinations to halt or slow down executions in the US, then come talk to me about “religious tolerance”. Until then, I view this as just another failed over-reach by an institution that is totally obsessed with “issues” of sexuality — most of which it manufactures by itself to serve its own very material purposes.
You may tolerate what you may choose, and neither I nor anyone else need care, except maybe the people who must deal with you on a regular basis in person. The government, however, presents a different issue:
Your views, and their seeming popularity in certain circles, do serve as a reminder of the need for robust constitutional restraint on the powers of government.
I enthusiastically agree that with you that we need “robust constitutional restraint on the powers of government” (which we had until relatively recently). High on my list of those is restraint of the government’s ability impose any theocracy on the rest of us.
I actually don’t think we’re very far apart on this. I find the “compromise” that President Obama landed on perfectly appropriate. I agree with Christopher that I am happy to see him articulate a strong position that I agree with, and — in the face of what I view as self-serving and politically-motivated opposition — then fall back to a posture that preserves what he set out to do and simultaneously moots the spurious objections of the religious right and the Catholic bishops.
Meanwhile, surely a religious institution committed to advancing the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth can identify more substantive issues to address in 21st century America.
It’s time to move on.
Well, when they don’t, they lose voters like myself. I’d rather vote for someone with whom I disagree on specific issues than someone who makes a habit of avoiding takes strong stances. And this is becoming a habit.
Here’s Marisa De Franco’s statement (prior to “compromise” announcement):
I stand by my earlier statement. DeFranco made a mistake in weighing in here and shows weakness as an undisciplined candidate. I still believe almost all voters are poorly informed. Therefore, it’s wiser for a candidate (even in a primary) to avoid taking strong stances on developing, hot-button issues lest they say something that a voter actually remembers on Election Day. Only an infinitesimally small number of voters are actually paying attention enough to even notice when a candidate fails to take a position on something. Then only a fraction of that already small pool of voters, cares so much that they would therefore rather vote for someone with whom they know they disagree.
Taking a position is evidence of a lack of discipline?
Politicians should avoid taking strong stances on “hot button issues” because voters might remember them?
You can have your great politicians. I’ll take the ones who are willing to speak their minds.
If anything has recharged my batteries. it was reading this. Seriously, I’m totally flummoxed.
Being flummoxed and with your batteries recharged, I seriously hope that you’ll join Ms. DeFranco when she endorses Elizabeth Warren in the campaign to unseat Scott Brown. It really doesn’t matter whether that happens now or later.
In the meantime, I like it that more and more progressives like those who support Ms. DeFranco and Ms. Warren are getting fired up. It takes more than one election cycle to address the systemic evil that besets us.
A politician who is “willing to speak their minds” on whatever some small segment of the electorate desires is a fool and an undisciplined candidate.
Alternatively, a good, disciplined candidate (one who can get elected statewide) stays on message. They talk about only a few leading issues, day after day after day.
Ask them about contraceptive coverage and they talk about the need for health care for all (not “women’s health”). Ask them about “The People’s Budget” and they talk about the importance of Social Security and Medicare (definitely not income tax rates). Ask them about Instant Run-Off Voting and they talk about Citizen’s United (not the Cambridge City Council). Ask them about Ethanol subsidies and they talk about investing in renewable energy (ironically, not Citizen’s United).
And they should really only talk about any of these things to the extent necessary to avoid looking like they are dodging a direct question. Mostly, they should talk about jobs and the economy. Again and again and again.
Politics is not a high school debate club. Campaigns are about getting elected. Period. Candidates should only speak to issues when it is absolutely necessary or it reinforces the core messages of their campaign. Those who “are willing to speak their minds” about anything and everything may claim the moral high ground but rarely win elections. They certainly don’t beat incumbent U.S. Senators.
Actually, what you’ve just provided are in fact perfect examples of “dodging the question.”
What does CU have to with IRV?
I wasn’t aware that access to contraceptives was an issue oo interest appealing to only a “small segment of the electorate.” It seems to be making headlines most everywhere today. Huh.
But I’ll bow out of this now. I’m relatively jaded, but this level of cynicism–voters are dumb, don’t ever answer a question directly–is truly dispiriting. Actually, I find it downright distasteful.
But I know where it leads–to an electorate that gets all revved up, and only later discovers that their dream-candidate doesn’t really stand for what they decided she does.
Ever wonder why voters are deserting both the major parties in DROVES? I think you’ve just summed it up nicely.
I didn’t intend my answer to be a defense of the current two-party system, merely an examination. Certainly, I think the machinations of the political “game” are a reason why so few voters even care. (P.S. I never, and never would, say that “voters are dumb.” Most just have other identities – parent, employee, friend, etc – that are much higher priorities to them than engaging in politics on the micro-level you suggest is important.)
I agree that it’s all fairly dispiriting and even distasteful. And it certainly leads to a disappointed electorate (especially for those of us out on one of the wings). But we’re talking about an election not the political system. If one wants to get elected, it’s simply more important to stay on message (Hope!) than it is to tell the whole truth, so help you God.
They are both about “elections” and “democracy.” Most people have heard of Citizen’s United (and realize it was, you know, “bad”) but virtually no one has heard of IRV. Odds are, talking about CU will resonate with more voters than talking about IRV. So, you do it.
Today (and maybe even tomorrow). But that’s my point. By Monday, it’ll be virtually a non-issue for all but the virgin males running the Catholic Church and left-wing radicals who can manage to muster up outrage about a proposal to require insurance companies to provide no-cost coverage rather than force church-run institutions to pay for it directly.
A candidate for Massachusetts Senate – where we already have resolved this issue years ago – is “off message” in talking about this at all. And doing a disservice to those who want to see her elected to office.
I get that you don’t like where politics is today. Many of us feel the same.
When you say “voters are deserting both the major parties in DROVES”, where do you think they go? Who do you think they vote for? Who will you vote for? Will you vote?
I get that it’s easy to criticize comments like you do above. It takes more than that, though, doesn’t it? It seems to me that change requires discipline, and in my experience that ALWAYS comes back to self control.
So what are you going to do to change things? Enthusiastically supporting Ms. DeFranco is great. It isn’t what I choose to do, but so what. When Ms. DeFranco concedes and endorses Ms. Warren, what will you do? Pretending it won’t happen isn’t constructive — Ms. DeFranco will not win this primary, and she will surely concede graciously (as all the other candidates have done).
So when that happens, the choice will be yours. If you choose not to vote at all, then you yield whatever limited authority you have to those who do. If you vote for a third-party candidate, the best you can hope for is to “send a message” — however muted. How do you characterize Ralph Nader’s several presidential campaigns — was they a net positive or a net negative, all things considered?
The awkward, embarrassing, imperfect, and painful truth is that each of us will have to choose either Scott Brown or Elizabeth Warren to be our next Senator.
That choice is yours and yours alone.
Ah, if we could only edit our comments, the world would we be so improved …
for pegging how this issue would play out. I thought the Obama Administration must have done the math on their decision, it turns out some of his staff did the political math correctly, but were shouted down. Apologies for linking to Jake Tapper:
Earlier this week, CMD had Obama’s current moves mapped out. It’s a pattern of missteps that has become all too familiar.