Martha Coakley Doesn't Serve Massachusetts' Interests
Posted on Tue, Nov 10, 2009
By Brian Whalley
Not often that I dig into politics here (In fact, this is the first time ever.) But I feel strongly on this subject. For anyone who doesn't know, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley is a front-running candidate to fill Ted Kennedy's empty Senate seat in a month. She announced today that she is with Joe Lieberman and against health care reform for America. (Coakley won't vote for health plan with abortion limits; rivals say stance is short-sighted)
It has nothing to do with the separation of church and state, it's a human life and the quality of that life. In 2004 I saw Ted Kennedy speak about how in the 1989, health care reform came up in Massachusetts and was around one vote away from passing here. He refused to vote for it because he felt the reforms "did not go far enough". As a result, hundreds of thousands of MA residents went without health insurance, dying, being ill, missing work, and going bankrupt, because he felt health insurance reform did not go far enough. His refusal to vote for a gradual step resulted in a tragedy for our state for over twenty years more.
The United States only has one chance to enact health care reform. If it doesn't happen now, it likely never will. Coakley is talking about letting 40 million Americans go without cancer treatments, to be forced to cut their AIDS and HIV medications in half, to force children to go without checkups and shots, in the name of free abortions. She should be ashamed of herself. The bill doesn't even suggest banning abortion, only that the Federal government should not subsidize abortion.
It is only once in a hundred years that the Democrats control the House, Senate, and Presidency simultaneously. If they do not do it now, it will never happen, and millions will go through agony and die.
I think the right to health care in America is more important than anything Coakley can come up with while stumping for votes at a homeless veteran's shelter.
Coakley is happy to make all the same mistakes her predecessors have made in the name of making a name for herself. We should not only learn from our own mistakes, but learn from those around us.
The Stupak Amendment (The item in discussion above):
"No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act or an amendment made by this Act may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity (including a state or local government) from purchasing separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section or a plan that includes such abortion, so long as
1) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and (etc.)"
So, the Stupak amendment prevents federal money from being spent on unnecessary abortions, but does nothing to prevent state, local, or private money from being spent providing unnecessary abortions. Massachusetts can offer separate "Choice Insurance" if they want to, Boston can offer further "Choice Insurance", and your local insurance broker can offer their own "Choice Insurance" plan if they also so desire.
