We have a lot of great statewide candidates running this fall, but in the aftermath of the leaked conservative majority draft opinion on Dobbs enabling states nullifying Roe v Wade and as Terry argued on another thread, eventually federalize an abortion ban as soon as they get a Republican trifecta, I think it is paramount that Massachusetts sends a signal to the rest of the country that we will not only continue to be a beacon of women’s rights but that we will become the first state (that I know of and I’m happy to be corrected) with all women statewide officeholders.
I mean no disrespect to Eric Lesser, Adam Hinds, Scott Donahue, Brett Bero, Quentin Palfrey, William Galvin, or Chris Dempsey. I am more than happy to vote for any of these qualified men in the general election and (with the exception of Galvin*) as their abortion politics are in line with mine and with the Commonwealth.
It is time to fight back and finally elevate a woman to the corner office and elect another female Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Auditor, Treasurer, and the first female Secretary of the Commonwealth. This is a rare opportunity for the state to have an all women lineup of statewide officeholders who will make a great bench for years to come. I am still undecided in some of these races, but I know that it’s high time to give women a turn at the wheel up and down the ballot.
*AFAIK Galvin is anti-choice, but afaik his office has no bearing on securing reproductive rights. Happy to be corrected on either or both facts.
I’m sympathetic to your reaction and encourage you to remain open to different perspectives as we learn more about what must be done — locally and nationally — in the next few months or years.
The pipedream that congress can fix this disaster through “simple” legislation is a dangerous red herring. The fundamental issue is that the Supreme Court is about to TAKE AWAY a fundamental right that Americans have enjoyed since our founding — the right to privacy.
This matters because — in the absence of a constitutional amendment establishing a right to privacy — any federal legislation allowing abortion can be followed by federal legislation banning abortion the next time Congress changes hands. Any state-level legislation protection abortion can be overruled by federal legislation banning it.
Abortion is the Trojan Horse. A host of things we take for granted are under attack. The deep blue states like Massachusetts and New York are the targets of the American Apartheid now taking control. We can expect immediate attacks on at least the following:
It therefore seems to be me that we must collectively address at least the following:
My view is that the ability and passion to address these urgent and immediate needs is more important than the gender of the candidate.
I hope that each and every one of us understands that the American Apartheid regime now taking power views every resident of MA as an enemy. The closest America has come to this kind of sweeping attack on personal freedom and liberty is the “red scare” during the McCarthy era.
We are in uncharted territory here. This Supreme Court is COMPLETELY off the rails, and America has never in our history had to face the consequences of a corrupt, lawless, and highly partisan Supreme Court.
All bets are off.
I think you are scaring yourself with doomsday scenarios again! Even an explicit right to privacy won’t absolutely protect abortion rights because some court can always start with the premise that a fetus is a separate individual whose life trumps the mother’s privacy. We survived the McCarthy era because he overplayed his hand. That is the part I believe we are witnessing again. There is no appetite for bans on birth control or specific sex acts behind closed doors. I suspect even abortion bans won’t last very long; the public won’t stand for it.
There’s a less than or equal to 50% chance we lose abortion rights in Massachusetts in the next four years. It’s not a doomsday scenario when the court is likely to overturn Roe this term, the House is likely to go Republican, and the Senate if it does not go Republican this cycle, does so next cycle and nukes the filibuster. Then it just takes a coin flip loss of the White House, and we are screwed.
Just like we were sure the ACA was toast when that happen. I still say politics prevents this.
We’ll see. David French (admittedly an anti abortion never trump conservative) had a worthy argument for why Alito’s decision does not erode other privacy rights and Andrew Sullivan seems to think it’ll backfire since most people will vote in a middle of the road regime (ban on 3rd, restrictions in 2nd, and on demand in 1st).
The big thing is just that we need to elect more Democrats and if it means moderating on other issues (immigration, crime, redistribution) in order to save our democratic institutions and individual rights, it’s a worthy trade off. Ron Johnson is running away from this decision as fast as possible. Probably helps us in the Senate races.
Also all those Nader and Stein voters really helped the left win policy victories, didn’t they?
Still don’t like Galvin, do you? I think Zakim’s challenge lit a fire under him and am sticking with him this time. Zakim did try to distinguish himself on choice, but that doesn’t matter for a Secretary’s race. Palfrey is my choice for AG, but others are women (not that I would ever choose on that basis).
I believe AZ once had a full slate of women statewide officers.
I think I’ve said elsewhere I like Galvin now and think he’s moved to the left on almost every voter rights issue I can think of, I’m glad he’s got a pro-choice challenger though so I’ll elevate her in the primary. Even though I don’t think she’ll win nor has Galvin really been a foe of abortion rights during his tenure in office. Where this helps me narrow down my decision is really the LG race to Tami or Kim. I was already for DiZoglio and leaning Campbell.