The “referral” crap is unacceptable because it would cause some women to have to travel to places that may not be accessible to them in order to get the emergency treatment they need. This compounds their trauma, increases their risks and violates their rights to prompt treatment.
There is no civil right to violate someone else’s civil rights.
the MAP doesn’t even violate anyone’s religious rights in the first place. It’s not an abortion pill. If these zealots were at all informed, they’d realize that they’re not preventing any abortions, they’re only increasing the chance for unwanted pregnancies (pregnacies caused by rape), which in turn leaves the woman no choice but to get an abortion. It’s inane to say that it’s religiously preferable for a woman to have to become pregnant from a rape, and greatly increase the chances for an abortion, than to get out of the way of her right to prevent that pregnancy in the first place.
I’d like to ask why did the MA Democrats pick Coakley as their candidate? She has to be the most inept and politically tone-deaf candidate I’ve ever seen. The fact that it seems very likely she’ll lose to Dan Quayle-redux–a.k.a., Scott Brown–only underscores this. Weren’t there any better Democrats running?
I think it’s anybody’s ballgame tomorrow. You can’t trust the polls because no one can predict what the turnout is going to look like in a January special election in a state that hasn’t had an open Senate seat in a generation. I think all the attention will increase turnout, which is good for the Dems, so I’d have to give a slight edge to Coakley.
The saddest thing is that none of this had to happen. Kennedy should have resigned in 2008 after his diagnosis became clear. The special election could have been in November of that year, with Teddy campaigning (as his health allowed) for a hand-picked successor and the advantage of Obama’s coattails. It never would have been in question.
When that happens, its usually because there are at least two strong potential candidates with substantial backing, but each or all unwilling to concede to the other. The deadlock is then resolved by choosing a “vanilla” candidate that pleases no one but offends none of the antagonists as much as would another of the antagonists.
The same procedure was used to elect some of the Catholic Church’s more unfortunate Popes.
Short answer, NDP: no. There were no better candidates.
Coakley was the best of a bad bunch. Even in liberal Massachusetts politics is so corrupt, and the corruption is nearly all in the Democratic party–that this has discouraged people with character, principles and original ideas from running for anything, even town council or state representative. The end result is that we get bottom of the barrel politicians. This is a very sad state of affairs and I don’t see change coming anytime soon.
Why is there no C or D? The law passed in 2005. Option A was banned, and option B hasn’t happened. This isn’t some theoretical exercise, this is stuff from four or five years ago.
I don’t see any reason to disagree with Josh Marshall over at TalkingPointsMemo:
He’s my congressman, and I’ve never heard of any corruption involving him in the ten years he’s been in office.
Incidentally, elucidator, Coakley won the primary with 47% of the vote, enough that she probably could have beaten any of the other three in a head to head race. Of the 25% of the electorate that went to Pagliuca and Khazei combined, it’s reasonable to expect that at least 3% would have preferred Coakley to Capuano.
If Brown loses, is there any doubt the Republicans will cry “Shenanigans!” and file endless lawsuits to have the election overturned or prevent Coakley from being seated?
Guess that whole first ammendment thing is quaint and all. ((Sarcasm on)Plus you know, we’re so flooded with physicians in the ER that it’s no problem to ban any catholics that’s not down with this (sarcasm off))
I’m not so sure about Capuano. He’s more obviously to the Left than Coakley and a far better politician, however this would have made him even more than Coakley an easy target for conservatives, which isn’t to say he’d lose the general election but it would be (to turn a phrase) a horse race of a different color.
Capuano has a sterling reputation for constituency service and yet I had a problem with his office a few years back when I sent a thoroughly polite and reasonable e-mail to him urging him to vote against a bill that would grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. It took more than three months for a response, the opening sentence of which began “We are a nation of immigrants…”, the entirety of which ran four paragraphs, in pretty much the same condescending tone as what I just quoted. It was the most patronizing and insulting e-mail or letter I have ever received from a politician or any organization, period. I’ve received far nicer letters from collection agencies and people I was in debt to. It was almost certainly a form letter, yet it made me feel like a Klansman or militia man for just contacting the congressman about a piece of legislation. Because of this, I’ve never voted for him since, and I’m a registered Democrat. That said, I’ve heard that he’s a great guy to work for. Yet I felt he treated me, an American born constituent, like the illegal alien, was in actuality working for those who come here illegally, not for the American voters who elected him, who live in his district. Okay, this is way OT. but it made me wonder who this guy is really working for…
Anyhow, to return to the topic at hand, today’s special election for U.S. senator, it’s my sense that it wasn’t going to be a slam dunk for whoever the Dems nominated. This is a seat that they’ve held since 1952, without interruption; and Massachusetts hasn’t elected a Republican to the Senate since Ed Brook was reelected in 1972. It may simply be a time for a change. This isn’t to say that Brown will win, but if Coakley’s victory margin is well below landslide proportions, she’ll be vulnerable when she comes up for the six year term in 2012.
Surely we can expect this - it would be hard to name many Massachusetts political parties with a worse record than the Pubs for corruption, sleaze, nepotism, backroom deals, political hackery, and generally scummy behavior.
(HUGE SARCASM ON!!)
Wow, glad to know that not only are you a lawyer with vast expertise in constitutional law but you’re also a physician too and can correct that right wing and let us know emergency contraception must be given immediately even if that requires bending of ammendments.
Emergency contraception must be given as soon as possible to have the best chance of working. It is the right of a patient to receive immediate emergency treatment in an emergency. Those rights are not subject to the whims of religious zealots who believe they have the authority to give or deny treatment based on their personal moral judgement of the patient.
What part of the Constitution prohibits a state from mandating standards of care in emergency rooms?
Unisys weather for Boston today:
SNOW SHOWERS. SNOW ACCUMULATION AROUND AN INCH. HIGHS IN THE MID 30S. SOUTHEAST WINDS 5 TO 10 MPH. CHANCE OF SNOW 90 PERCENT.
