The latest is Alan Khazei, who issued the following statement:
If I were in the House, I would have voted with Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Capuano for Universal Health Care, which only passed by 5 votes. If the House Democrats listened to Martha Coakley, our best chance for Universal Health Care in 62 years would now be dead.
But I’m not in the House, I’m running for the US Senate. For anything like the Stupak amendment to pass the Senate, it will take 60 votes – a supermajority. We need to protect a women’s right to choose no matter their income level.
I will work hard to ensure that we don’t get 60 votes for a “Stupak amendment” in the Senate.
This House vote was the first vote, not the last vote. The Senate will now work on its own version of Universal Health Care legislation and we can make a number of improvements to the House bill as I outlined in my Universal Health Care policy that I released today (post on this coming shortly).
If the final bill that emerges from the House-Senate conference committee includes the Stupak amendment, I will reluctantly vote for it in order to achieve the important goal of Universal Health Care. I will then work day and night with pro-choice groups and citizen activists to change that legislation and elect members of Congress who will preserve a woman’s right to choose no matter their income level.Steve Pagliuca and Mike Capuano issued statements earlier today criticizing Coakley's position.
10 comments:
Of course all the guys would have- check out Dr. Nancy Synderman's outrage -it's on the video "Health care fight" she can't contain her anger- She says this is worse than the Hyde amendment- All of those years that we worked hard to make abortion safe, legal and rare- We are angry!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31388323/#33797079
Also read HuffPo:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/in-pelosis-house-64-democ_b_349769.html
In Pelosi's House 64 dems sell women out:
"There is no health care bill worth supporting that sells out women's civil rights.
Right now every woman who values her civil rights should understand how the gay community feels. Democrats just sold us out too.
Progressives in the House should have killed the bill.
Civil rights begin with autonomy over our own body. If we don't have that we have nothing. So, to hear Rep. Clyburn talk about "privacy rights" after passing the House bill was laughable.
But at least Mr. Obama and Speaker Pelosi's Democratic House got us closer to an "historic health care win." That they did it on the backs of women's civil rights isn't mentioned, though some of us will never forget."
I agree all those dems who favored that amendment should be...I dunno...voted out at least.
Interesting analogy with gay rights. Even now, though, as rights for homosexuals strengthen, they do so often at the cost of the transgendered. There is ALWAYS someone more marginalized.
For that reason I just don't agree with you that House progressives should have voted against the bill. The poor are the largest and most marginalized group in this country IMO. The bill, if written into law, will give them health care. I really do believe it's the right thing to pass it.
But poor woman are the most at risk with this. Unwanted pregnancies effect those who can least afford it the most. This was a maneuver that threw women under the bus. Perhaps our 17% representation isn't enough to assure a voice relating to our own bodies.
Definitely watch the Nancy Synderman video- She's as big an advocate of healthcare reform that you can get and she's is steaming mad.
I'll check it out. I'll especially like it if she can suggest a sensible, doable alternative. Anger and indignation are just not enough.
I watched it. I agree wholehearted. I cannot and would not dispute that the amendment is misogynistic and unfair. I still don't think voting against the total health bill would have been the right thing to do.
Let's say you are a very poor person. You can afford neither chicken, nor beef. Someone says to you, "I'll give you chicken every day for free. But a law will be written that says you will have to pay beef on your own. Do you want the chicken?" The answer will be yes. Similarly, no person without health care would turn it down because they won't be given something they couldn't access in the first place.
I'll note that Dr. Nancy is not advocating for the poor or poor women. She is advocating for women who already have health insurance. While I agree they need advocacy because of this stupid amendment, at least those people have health insurance.
Dear Alan:
If you claim that you will "reluctantly" vote to regress the reproductive rights and choices my grandmother and mother fought so hard for, then I will enthusiastically do everything in my power to make sure your ass never spends a day in any form of congressional seat. Ever.
Me and all the women I know.
The gentlemen in this race don't have the balls to fight the right fight. At the end of the day, this issue boils down to leadership. Anyone can follow the party line and ride the coat-tails of a coalition's success. It takes a real leader, the sort we need in the Senate for this very reason, to stand up and say no, two steps backward does not justify one step forward, no, the end does not justify the means, especially when the end was suppose to be health care reform that works for everyone, not just the male half.
Yo, Krodami, you are missing a very key point.
We're talking about the Senate, not the House. Because there are only 100 Senators, every vote is courted, every vote counts more than the 400 and some odd in the House. Right now Reid is wringing his hands trying to get Lieberman on board with reform, for example. Lieberman says I want X or I won't vote for it, Reid will try to bring him X (hopefully without giving away something like the civil rights movement or women's reproductive rights). Coakley, in the same way, by saying I won't support a Bill with reproductive rights and choice restrictions, is leveraging her power as a single senator to insure the horrendeous sort of legislation that is the Stupak amendment never surfaces in the bill.
Her firmly saying, as a senator, she'll oppose a bill with those sort of restrictions demonstrates that she has the fundamental leadership ships and is unfraid to stand up for the progressive values MA wants our senator to champoin.
She's readdy to go, Krodamai, she's ready to fight the good fight, what's it going to take to get you on board with her?
This is the sort of shit that is going to ruin the party. I don't care if it calls itself liberal, progressive, socialist, or fascist, if it will sacrifice the status quo on reproductive rights, which took DECADES to achieve, then what good does it do me? Capuano and the rest aren't progressives. They're stagnists. They wallow in the muck they created like happy pigs in the trough.
I'm disgusted.
Mike Capuano has a 10-year 100% voting record on women's reproductive rights issues. He is a member of the pro-choice caucus.
Saturday's vote was to move historic legislation providing health care for all americans, including millions of women and children forward.
That Martha would have stood in the way is totally out of touch with the needs of this country and pandering of the worst kind.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.