Obviously I haven't read the bill, but the New York Times reports that it, "would not go as far as the House bill in limiting access to abortion."
This morning, Massachusetts Attorney General and Democratic candidate for Senate Martha Coakley released the following statement on Reid's proposal:
“While we continue to review the details of this bill, I am encouraged by the Senate’s proposal and believe it represents great progress toward our goal of assuring quality, affordable health care coverage for all Americans. It incorporates the fundamental tenets that we can and must include in any meaningful health care reform, including a public option, additional cost controls, and strong consumer protections that prevent insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. I am hopeful that with this proposal we will reach our goal of passing landmark health care reform that will make a difference in the lives of millions of Americans.”
10 comments:
Is it just me or is it a stunning decision for the Coakley campaign to have no comment on the provisions for abortion access in the Senate bill, when the passing of the house bill led to such a big campaign issue?
Hello Martha Coakley, where are you?
Interesting, I had found information saying it had a similar restriction as that of Stupak-Pitts on the Globe's website I believe.
Are you sure, Martha? It's not 100% pro-choice. Maybe we should give in to Emily's list and can it.
Is she even campaigning anymore or just releasing a statement or white paper every once in a while?
These are obviously jealous opponent supporter comments above.. I really don't know if any of the four candidates have had a chance to read the bill which, as everyone knows, will be revised.
Martha is doing what she should be doing -meeting with the voters- I heard she'll be in New Bedford tomorrow when the rest of the guys will be sucking up to a bunch of rich guys at the Kennedy Center. Sorry, this race is about the constituents, not the media's need for a horse race.
There will be two more debates so the noise from the others should quiet down a bit. Their candidates would be doing the same were they ahead in money and ahead in the polls. Nice try to trash Martha but she's pretty squeaky clean and on the right side of the abortion debate-has been from the start. When you speak with the courage of your convictions it's not to hard to keep it straight.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA hilarious. Martha is now the responsive candidate out amongst the people. Amazing.
Has she done 50 events similar to Capuano's "Open Mike" events where he talks unscreened questions from voters? Nope. Not even close.
Also - why won't she answer questions about her views on drug policy?
"There will be two more debates so the noise from the others should quiet down a bit. "
Yes, but Coakley has only agreed to attend one of them (the NECN debate on December 2), whereas all three other candidates have agreed to both.
What do you mean by the right side of the abortion debate?
Is that right side being the one that would have supported having no Senate bill whatsoever because the House bill would have failed? If that is the right side, then no thanks.
Heard one of Martha's reps speak on campus today, and I wasn't impressed.
It seems that no one has really put together all the research out there on Stupak-Pitts. It is no new restriction, it is status quo- no government funding for abortion except in cases of mothers life/health, rape, and/or incest.
It would be a shame to leave 30 million plus people out in the cold just because Martha wants to kill babies.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.