In 1973, as women and allies around the U.S. rejoiced at the historic Roe v Wade decision that finally recognized the right to choose, Ed Markey began his political career in the Massachusetts Legislature as a staunchly anti-abortion state representative. Markey steadily climbed the ranks of the Democratic Party so that by 1983 he was a representative in U.S. Congress, and he launched his first campaign for U.S. Senate in 1984.
During the 10 years between between his election to the Massachusetts House of Representatives and his Senate bid, Ed Markey established a consistent pattern of voting for restrictions on women’s reproductive freedom. So much so that Republican lawmakers saw him as an allyfor their anti-abortion agenda. Markey supported numerous legislative provisions that threatened to strip menstruating people of their right to control their own bodies, even in cases of rape and incest. The most notable piece of legislation that Markey passed was the 1976 Hyde Amendment, a legal measure that prevents federal funding from being given to any organization that provides the full cadre of medical choices for people who can give birth,
including abortions. That means that Medicaid recipients who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy are forced to choose between carrying to term (inflicting undue physical, emotional, and financial strain, as well as possible damaging physical and mental health consequences), struggling to pay for an abortion, or resorting to dangerous self-inflicted abortions.
Markey changed his public stance on abortion in late 1983, which was coincidentally just in time for his 1984 Senate race. (This is not the first time Markey has had a sudden change of heart just before a new campaign, but I’ll leave that for another day.) Claiming he
had a change of heart regarding imposing his religion on others, Markey started
to vote pro-choice.
Maybe Markey’s reasons for changing his public position on abortion were not politically calculated, but I’m not exactly convinced. He professes his support for the right to choose, but I was stunned to see Planned Parenthood’s support for this Democrat who has never offered
full-throated support for the bodily autonomy and reproductive freedoms of women and all who can give birth. Seems like a pro-incumbent move on the part of Planned Parenthood, rather than real support for Markey.
Simply voting in favor of pro-choice policies (and arriving at even that most basic support more than a decade late) isn’t enough. Markey hasn’t redressed the harm he inflicted on millions of Americans (not to mention millions around the world who suffer under the effects of the Hyde Amendment). If he truly regrets his anti-abortion past, or even if he just honestly had a change of heart, Markey would be at the forefront of the battle to appeal the Hyde Amendment. He would write legislation to expand women’s rights. He would introduce bills that restore resources to pregnant people. He would use his experience of switching from an anti-abortion booster to a pro-choice advocate to convince other conservative politicians to do the same. Unfortunately, he hasn’t done any of that. Instead of standing up for his supposed pro-choice beliefs by speaking out and being bold, Ed Markey has chosen to remain silent on the issue, hoping that we would forget the suffering his legislation induced on us. But we haven’t forgotten.
We haven’t forgotten the panic, terror, and shame that the Hyde Amendment has struck into the hearts of women and menstruating people. We haven’t forgotten that the policies Markey endorsed continue to deprive women and pregnant people of bodily autonomy, stripping
them of their humanity in the process. We haven’t forgotten that it directly targets poor people, specifically poor women of color, and perpetuates the socio-economic barriers that exist for this group.
Contrary to what he’d like you to believe, Senator Ed Markey is not the poster child of the pro-choice movement. Rather, he used to be the Right’s anti-abortion Democrat darling. He voted for a decade to rob pregnant people of their choice, even if they’d gotten pregnant under the vilest of circumstances. Once he changed his mind, he made no overt attempt to reverse the legislation he passed. Ed Markey is not an ally to menstruating people, he’s simply a politician who strategically chooses and changes his public stance on abortion.
Charley on the MTA says
Buried the lede here: Ed Markey just received the endorsement of Planned Parenthood Action Fund. He’s also received the endorsement of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
And then most of the rest of this post just isn’t so.
Here’s Ed last March defending Title X funding for clinics and providers that provide abortion services. This is, I would say, full-throated, as I’m sure a number of us on this site have heard from Ed over the years:
I’d also point out that two of the most reliable votes against Trump’s lousy judges and exec branch picks are E. Warren … and Ed Markey — even when most other Dems roll over.
Markey’s been pro-choice for a long time. Joe’s uncle Teddy changed his position too. I don’t know what it means if we reject people who have changed their minds towards our position — especially when it was 36 years ago. What’s he going to be like for the next six years? – is the relevant question.
Anyone can google this stuff. I’d encourage Joe Kennedy’s backers to find another line of attack.
(Incidentally Mike and Kitty Dukakis just endorsed Ed too.)
Charley on the MTA says
Ed Markey is a co-sponsor of the bill that would essentially nullify the Hyde Amendment.
Christopher says
First post as a hit piece on a strong Democrat for positions 35 years out of date – not a good look! Try a pro-Kennedy diary instead.
BKay says
I find this to be an interesting exchange, and respectfully disagree with the characterization of Anna S’s post as a “hit piece.” Yes, her words were strong. Yes, she had relevant data to back them up. Some of the information was new to me, and I appreciate her raising it. I didn’t know about Senator Markey’s pro-abortion historty when I voted for him, and as a 48 year old woman, a politician’s viewpoint on reproductive freedom in the 1970’s and 1980’s absolutely matters to me. Those were years when women were actively terrified of Roe being overturned, and when women were seeking advocates and allies in the fight for reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy. Senator Markey’s stance (including no exclusions for rape) at that time were painfully out of touch. I frankly don’t know that I would have voted for him in the past, if I’d known about this. That’s neither here nor there, but it is worth underscoring that bodily autonomy is critical to human dignity, and I would hope that even those who have never had to worry about it, could appreciate the passions that that would inspire. I do, and I share them. Let’s not undermine someone’s voice by dismissing it as a “hit job”.
I similarly appreciate others pointing out Senator Markey’s change on Hyde. That’s useful to know. Though I also wonder why it was news to me. As someone who is obviously watching this race very closely, I would have preferred Senator Markey to have that in message be more clear and consistent. I follow him on twitter and facebook, and haven’t seen a thing about it . Makes me wonder where in his list of priorities this lies.
Lastly, much of the point of Anna S’s post, as I understand it, was to describe her shock at the endorsement by Planned Parenthood. So I don’t really understand how it makes sense to use that very endorsement as an argument that Anna S is wrong, Her point is that Planned Parenthood is wrong. Given both candidate’s stance on reproductive rights (even if we just focus only on today), I agree with her. I see no discernable reason by Senator Markey would get that endorsement, except for his status as an incumbent.
Christopher says
Incumbency is often a powerful reason to endorse to maintain relationships as long as a voting record is satisfactory. Keep in mind that when I call something a hit piece I am not necessarily disputing it’s accuracy or suggesting that it is dirty or about irrelevant personal details or something like that. Even on policy issues I do not like diaries that are entirely about how bad the other candidate is. If I had my way it would be all positive, all the time.
jconway says
That’s a huge deal all things considered. He has seniority and he’s already had experience attacking anti-choice judicial nominees. There are no issues I can think of where Kennedy is more progressive than Ed Markey, if anything, making this a progressive pissing contest will only highlight the incumbents advantages. Especially on climate (where Kennedy could not even debate him) and choice (1983 was a much harder time to be pro-choice and Catholic). .
Far better for Kennedy to just be blunt about why he is running. He wants to be a national progressive leader with a national microphone. Unlike Markey, who is largely invisible to voters inside and outside the state, Kennedy is already a well known face for the future of the party. Unlike Markey, Kennedy has decades of potential leadership ahead of him. Unlike Markey, Kennedy could run for President someday. Those are all the reasons I wanted to vote for him. Distorting Markey’s record is not the way to go about winning this thing. Joe would be wise to make this a race about the leader we want for the next generation, not votes taken over a generation ago.
SomervilleTom says
I’m totally confused by this comment.
Ed Markey has been a strong advocate for women’s choice and for reproductive freedom since his primary opponent was a toddler. The endorsement from Planned Parenthood correctly reflects the enthusiastically pro-choice and pro-Planned Parenthood stance that Ed Markey has taken for as long as his opponent has been alive.
Who ELSE should Planned Parenthood endorse?: Will it better for women in Massachusetts if Planned Parenthood was silent? Are you sure you’re advocating on behalf of women’s reproductive freedom? I ask because it sounds to me as though you are attacking arguably the most influential voice about women’s choice in the entire state.
Yes indeed, the thread-starter most certainly IS a hit-piece. I once worked with an “Anna S.” — I wonder … heh. — nah, this isn’t like the Anna I worked with in Kendall Square in the late 1990s.
If this standard proposed by the thread-starter and the above response were adopted by the national party, then we would have no majority in either house of Congress.
Yes, the Hyde Amendment was and is abhorrent. Yes, it should be repealed — that’s why Mr. Markey is sponsoring legislation to do just that.
I am today firmly opposed to the death penalty. That was not my position in 1983. Is it good or bad that my opinion about that issue evolved as I accumulated life experience? Do we want elected officials who allow themselves to grow and evolve, or do we want men and women who steadfastly remain wedded to their current views? Are there ANY perfect candidates with perfect vision about what will prove to be right and wrong in 2060 (forty years from now)?
It is self-destructive lunacy to unseat legislators because of stances they took nearly FOUR DECADES AGO. People evolve..
sabutai says
Frankly, this is something that I’m finding more and more. It seems that candidates who have believed the same thing for four decades don’t have much mental flexibility to handle new challenges. Those who proclaim not having changed their mind since the 70s often struggle with what to do about what’s happening in the 2020s.
BKay says
As I’ve said elsewhere, I completely agree that it is best when people evolve and change. I also completely agree that I don’t want politicians (or anyone else) to stay stuck in an old opinion for fear of integrating new data and making a better choice with the new information available.
Also as I’ve said elsewhere, I am a different person with different beliefs and priorities now than I was 20 years ago or 30 years ago. I assume the same will be true in another 20 or 30 years. But here’s the thing — when faced with bad choices or hurtful decisions that I’ve made earlier in life (and there are plenty!), I do my best to own them. I don’t dismiss them with “who cares?” (as someone on another thread on this topic did). I don’t pretend it didn’t matter, or that the people I hurt weren’t hurt, or that somehow I’m not responsible for my previous adult choices.
I’m glad that Senator Markey has evolved in his views here, even if he came to it late. But I’m tired of him (or maybe just his supporters?) talking as if the unflattering side of his record doesn’t matter. I’d like to see him own the totality of his record, and I don’t think I’m alone in that.
SomervilleTom says
@…I’m tired of him (or may just his supporters)…:
For the record, JamesConway (who made the “who cares” comment about events 40 years ago) was an early and vocal proponent of JKIII here at BMG while Mr. Kennedy was making his decision to run.
Trickle up says
When I read stuff like this, about the man who was just endorsed by Planed Parenthood and NARAL, my takeaway is that the author does not really care about reproductive rights but is indulging the Right’s favorite tactic of attacking strength.
You don’t conscript the important stuff, such as reproductive rights or climate change, into mere tactics in service of a particular candidate. This diary runs diametrically opposed to the judgments of those in the trenches on this issue. We do not strengthen these causes by tearing down their champions.
This diary does not reflect well on the candidate, who has made similar moves, in a low-key way, about climate change, but I try to be fair about that—a candidate does not choose or police his or her supporters.
This really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
petr says
Using your… logic… one could attempt to say that Barney Franks’ present support of same-sex marriage is suspect because, in 1983, he was deeply closeted and publicly stated that he dated women.
No doubt you will counter with the charge of cultural forces being what they were at the time, what choice did Frank have in 1983–or before?
And I’ll throw that right back in your face, asking why you expect a Jesuit trained Irish-Catholic from Malden in what was Massachusetts 5th, re-districted to the 7th, to be automagically superior to and–more importantly–effective against the cultural forces at work in his milieu? Heck, Barney Frank only succeeded in the 4th Congressional District because THE POPE ordered his immediate predecessor Father Robert Drinan, to step down.
You seem to be of the mind that Ed Markey was an outlier and some hypothetical J. Random Rep would have/could have/should have done better. Let’s take a brief tour of the Massachusetts House delegation in the late 70’s/early 80’s, shall we? Let us see if that ‘logic’ holds up:
Over in the Massachusetts 1st Congressional, at the time, there was Silvio Conte, Italian, Catholic, staunch opponent of abortion rights.
In the 2nd Massachusetts Congressional, at the time, there was Ed Boland, another Irish Catholic who was equally staunch in his anti-abortion fervor.
In the 3rd, Joseph Early. I don’t know how he voted, but can guess–since he was also Irish-Catholic.
In the 4th, as mentioned, Jesuit Priest Robert Drinan.
in the 5th district was, first, Paul Tsongas, who was decidedly pro-choice and went on to the Senate. Then James Shannon. I don’t know what Shannon’s positions were.
In the 6th was Nicholas Mavroules, Not Catholic, Greek Orthodox. Which is too bad because he was also a crook.
In the 8th Congressional, Tip O’Neill (prototypically Irish-Catholic) who was Speaker of the House and –despite facing public charges from the Curia of being squishy on abortion– also voted for the Hyde Amendment.
In the 9th Congressional, the beloved Joe Moakley (one of my favorite politicians of all time) Joe Moakley was the quintessential WASP from Connecticut –JUST KIDDING: He was Irish Catholic also.. (In fact, Henry Hyde –also an Irish Catholic– once accused Moakley of embracing ‘liberation theology’) . Guess how he voted on Hyde’s amendment?
In the 10th Congressional district was Margaret Heckler (nee O’Shaughnessy). She went on to work in Reagan’s Cabinet. The discovery of her abortion stance is left as an exercise to the reader.
In the 11th District a couple of whodats I don’t remember, James Burke (redistricted from the obsolete 13th) and Brian Donnelly.
In the 12th District Gerry Studds, neither (I believe) Irish nor Catholic, closeted until ’83, when scandal forced him to publicly acknowledge his homosexuality. (looks like we came full circle on this…)
Roe v Wade wasn’t a switch that was flipped, nor a Damascus road conversion for everyone, least of all the predominantly Irish-Catholic political scene in the CommonWealth in the late 70’s early 80’s. If it took Ed Markey ten years to come round on the issue, I call that double-quick-time compared to some…
petr says
Your argument (such as it is) rests upon the assumption that since proclaiming one-self, now, to be ‘pro-choice’ is a net positive it therefor always was a net positive. You elide tense: sliding between the present and the past as though the separate contexts are not inflexibly resistant to each other… There is a reason it was the Supreme Court in Roe, and not the Congress, to usher in the age of abortion rights.
You present no evidence that a pro-choice stance was a politically winning position in 1984. You do not even consider the possibility of a pro-choice stance in 1984 being an act of bravery… especially for a committed Irish-Catholic member of the CommonWealth political establishment.
You are to consider that Markey did not, in fact, win the 1984 Senate race. Markey withdrew from the race in the face of a (relatively) crowded field (not, however, as crowded as the ongoing 2020 presidential election… different times). And although you posit a cynical motive for a change in his public stance, ostensibly in pursuit of a seat he did not gain, you fail to account for why he has, since that change consistently and continually maintained a pro-choice position. In your imaginary political gamesmanship it’s likely that, having failed in a cynical gambit, he’d revert to what you underhandedly hint are his ‘true’ beliefs.
Your assertion that he changed position merely to win falls flat in the knowledge that A) he did not win and 2) having thus lost, he has, nevertheless and for decades, remained consistent in the position.