"The conventional wisdom about the Stupak bill among the male-dominated media:
Why won't these women just sit down, shut up and let the men folk do their
political bidness? What is all this talk about "rights"?
Instead, ask yourself these questions: Why is it that the conservatives always
get their way at the expense of liberals, and of alleged Democratic party
values? Why is the compromise always on our end? Why aren't people like Bart
Stupak being told to "put on their big boy pants" and swallow compromise to get
health care reform?
And why isn't some progressive politician introducing a bill to cut off funding
for special education or any other services at Catholic schools? After all, how
is providing the services from a trailer at the far end of the school parking
lot not an "accounting trick"? Why aren't liberals aggressively challenging the
tax-exempt status of the Catholic church?
I was under the impression we had freedom of religion in this country.
Apparently, I was wrong.
WORCESTER Opening up a major fissure in the US Senate race, Attorney
General Martha Coakley said yesterday that she opposes the landmark health care
bill approved by the House Saturday because it contains a provision restricting
federal funding for abortion.
Coakley, in her boldest gamble of the campaign, said that fighting for
women's access to abortions was more important than passing the overall bill,
despite its aim of providing coverage for 36 million people, establishing a
public insurance option, and prohibiting insurers from discriminating against
patients with preexisting conditions.
"To pretend that now the House has passed this bill is real progress it's
at the expense of women's access to reproductive rights," Coakley said in an
interview, after making similar comments yesterday morning on Boston radio
station WTKK-FM.
[...] Coakley's opposition to the bill put her squarely at odds with her
three rivals for the Democratic nomination, including US Representative Michael
E. Capuano, who voted in favor of the plan and blasted Coakley's stance
yesterday, calling it "manna from heaven" for his campaign.
"I find it interesting and amazing, and she would have stood alone among
all the prochoice members of Congress, all the members of the Massachusetts
delegation," Capuano said in an interview. "She claims she wants to honor Ted
Kennedy's legacy on health care. It's pretty clear that a major portion of this
was his bill."
He went on: "If she's not going to vote for any bill that's not perfect,
she wouldn't vote for any bill in history. She would have voted against
Medicare, the Civil Rights bill. . . . Realism is something you have to deal
with in Washington."
Why is it that "realism" is always and inevitably at the expense of women, gays
and minorities? Is that the new Democratic value?"
"Sit Down and Shut Up"
Suburban Guerrilla
Nov 10th, 2009 by Susie
http://susiemadrak.com/2009/11/10/08/55/sit-down-and-shut-up-2/
Video: Coakley on Stupak: Defending Women's Rights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cJun6xJtvw
