Second page of rape mailer is correct

[ Coakley's campaign didn't make the mailer, but one page of it is correct anyway. ]

The second page is substantially correct (except perhaps for the fine print which I can't read).

"Scott Brown would allow hospitals to ban emergency contraception birth control even after women are raped."

His 2005 amendment did allow a hospital to refer all rape victims wanting emergency contraception 'to another facility'.

"sponsoring a law to let hospitals turn away rape victims in need of emergency contraception"

That is what his 2005 amendment allowed: refer 'to another facility.'

The text in the image may be misleading about the time frame if it is referring only to Brown's failed 2005 amendment. If Brown is currently sponsoring such a law, I haven't heard about it.

The picture is quite appropriate imo. It shows a woman in a hospital gown and wheel chair who would have difficulty and discomfort being transferred 'to another facility.' Actually the picture understates the mailer's case. It might have shown the woman on an x-ray table or in a hospital bed connected to tubes and in traction. No matter the woman's condition, per Brown's amendment the hospital could still insist that if she wanted a morning after pill she would have to be taken 'to another facility.' In fact of course this means she would be confined in the first hospital with no access to the morning after pill till she was well enough to get out, by which time it would be too late.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/rapemailer11.JPG

A 'rape' mailer not written by Coakley's campaign (nor by the Dems either?)

Politico posted about an 'over the top' rape flier at

h/w

politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/Over_the_top_in_Mass.html#

One link from Politico leads to Sargent's blog at

h/ no w

theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/saturday-roundup-clinton-robocalls-for-coakley/

which says:

Meanwhile, the state GOP sends over a statement ripping the Coakley campaign (which didn’t author the memo) as “negative,” “flailing,” and “malicious.”

Poltico's earlier source link, "Via Sargent" leads here:

h/ no w

theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/dem-mail-scott-brown-wants-hospitals-to-turn-away-all-rape-victims/

where two pages of the ad are shown. The blog says that the ad was "paid for by the Massachusetts Democratic Party" but I have not seen any admission from the MA Dem Party or any evidence that it really was.

If the GOP sent it to the press, and the GOP benefits from it, then the most likely suspect for printing it is the GOP themselves.

The first page of the mailer is so far out that no one could take it seriously. For the GOP to pretend to take it seriously is ... suspicious. ;-)

ETA: Hm, the second page is more accurate. Maybe it was just some frat kids who are sincere about not wanting rape victims to get pregnant.

Debunking a crazy story

Here's an answer to a crazy story going around about Coakley and an old case where she had to try several times to get an indictment. I'll put it as a comment to this post.

Coakley against Stupak

there are important distinctions between what was passed in the House and what was passed in the Senate. [...] the House provision would effectively bar any insurance plan accepting government subsidies from covering elective abortions. The Senate bill, on the other hand, would allow such insurers to sell plans covering abortions, but would require women to pay for that portion of the coverage separately.

This is the key passage from the long letter I posted yesterday from Coakley's campaign.

House version vs Senate version

Here is a letter from Martha Coakley's campaign explaining the difference between the House bill (which she rejected) and the Senate bill (which she "reluctantly" accepted):

Thank you for being in touch with the campaign, and for sharing your thoughts on health care reform. It is true that Martha would reluctantly support the Senate healthcare bill. As a feminist and a

person committed to true reform with a public option and one that does not compromise women’s rights, she certainly understands your disappointment in this decision. However, she is unwilling to let Republican obstructionism thwart reform altogether. She has long said that she would vote for a reform bill only if it greatly expands coverage, improves quality and contains costs. While far from perfect, Martha believes the Senate bill takes significant steps toward

reaching these goals. She understands that the fight for a better healthcare system will not end with the January vote. Rather, once the bill is passed, Martha will continue fighting for the progressive improvements that we agree would achieve the most affordable and comprehensive coverage for all Americans.

To your comment, Martha finds the abortion language in the Senate bill troubling. As Attorney General, she fought hard to ensure a woman’s right to choose, defending legislation that would create and expand

buffer zones around reproductive healthcare facilities and, earlier this year, filing lawsuit challenging Bush administration provider conscience regulations that jeopardized a woman’s ability to access reproductive healthcare services. That said, there are important

distinctions between what was passed in the House and what was passed in the Senate. As you note, the House provision would effectively bar any insurance plan accepting government subsidies from covering

elective abortions. The Senate bill, on the other hand, would allow such insurers to sell plans covering abortions, but would require women to pay for that portion of the coverage separately. While this

is a disappointing, added administrative burden, the Senate bill will still allow people to buy this coverage, provided that they pay for the portion covering abortions separately.

Martha understands that a much better bill can be imagined, but she is unwilling to block reforms that Democrats and other progressives have sought for decades. We hope this information will change your mind about the upcoming election, and you will decide to vote on January 19th.

Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don't want to do that.

Martha Coakley: No we have a seperation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.

Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.

Martha Coakley: The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn't work in the emergency room.

http://www.redmassgroup.com/diary/6604/coakley-you-can-have-religious-freedom-but-you-probably-shouldnt-work-in-the-emergency-room

===================

And Coakley is damn right!

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2010/01/13/abortion_takes_stage_in_senate_race/?page=full

Abortion takes stage in Senate race

Coakley’s ad, released Monday night, accuses Brown of resisting tougher Wall Street oversight and favoring Bush-era tax cuts that favored the wealthy. [....]

Coakley, who is trying to become the first female US senator from Massachusetts, has made women’s issues a strong component of her campaign. Yesterday morning, she had five surrogates hold a press conference at the headquarters of the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus. Coakley, however, was not at the event.

“He seeks to erode our reproductive rights,’’ said Christina Knowles, state director for the Massachusetts Chapter of the National Organization for Women.

The 2005 amendment that Brown sponsored in the state Senate would have allowed a physician, nurse, or any other employee to deny rape victims an emergency contraceptive if it “conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief.’’ The facility would have had to have someone else who could administer the contraceptive or refer the victim to another facility at no additional cost to the patient.

The amendment, which did not pass, was attached to a bill that he ultimately voted for, which required emergency rooms to provide the contraceptives to rape victims.

In Coakley’s latest ad, a narrator says, “Brown even favors letting hospitals deny emergency contraception to rape victims.’’

Brown and his supporters have declined to discuss the underpinnings of his amendment, instead trying to focus on the fact that he supported the overall legislation. He also voted to override a veto by Governor Mitt Romney.

“This is the message: the message is that Scott Brown was behind that legislation and voted for it in 2005,’’ Angela Davis, cochairwoman of Women for Brown, said yesterday.

Brown has also declined to discuss his amendment proposal.

“It’s irrelevant; it’s a red herring,’’ he told reporters after Monday night’s debate, as an aide cut off further questions.

On WCVB-TV last night, he said he could not recall whether he had actually filed that amendment, although Senate records clearly say he did.

More on Coakley's pro-gay record (from Gayberkshires)

http://gayberkshires.blogspot.com/2009/12/opinion-general-coakley-vs-porky-brown.html

Coakley has received the endorsement of Mass Equality, an organization of more than 200,000 members that works to protect, promote and defend marriage equality and to advance lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. In the suit she filed in Federal Court seeking to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, Coakley called it “discriminatory and unconstitutional.” And that is only one action in a multi-pronged effort to level the playing field for lesbians, gays and many others.

She strongly supported the MassHealth Equality bill, which ensured that Massachusetts cover the cost of health care for same-sex couples who would otherwise be eligible for Medicaid; worked to obtain civil rights injunctions in numerous cases involving hate crimes against members of the LGBT community; and supported efforts to address domestic violence in the LGBT community. Her office also conducted trainings for police departments around the Commonwealth on how better to respond to hate crime

Coakley vs Obama

Coakley has a formidable track record on issues that have been thorns in the side for Obama, who has been accused of being soft on Wall Street and unwisely extending the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. As Attorney General, Coakley forced a huge settlement with mammoth investment bank Goldman Sachs and has called for increased regulation of the financial sector. Like all the candidates in the Democratic primary, opposed President Obama’s plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan.

Coakley also went to court to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce tougher emissions regulations, and challenged the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which imposes federal limitations on same-sex marriage.

http://www.hlrecord.org/news/coakley-cruises-to-victory-in-massachusetts-senate-primary-1.981238

Coakley for Senator Jan 19!

Martha Coakley stood by Hillary all through 2008 and voted for her on the floor at Denver. Bill Clinton is campaigning for Martha.

Martha is strong pro-choice and pro-gay. Her GOP opponent, Brown, is anti-abortion.

Here is Martha's donation page: https://coakley.zissousecure.com/contribute

And her website: http://www.marthacoakley.com/

Here is some detail:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/04/abortion_stances_of_brown_coakley_not_so_easily_defined/

Coakley, the [MA] attorney general, has used whatever position she is in to advance their cause - and that her work predates her time in politics. Before she joined the Middlesex district attorney’s office in 1986, for example, Coakley was a private lawyer who volunteered her time to help minors get court orders for abortions when they could not get their parents’ consent. [....]

As a district attorney, she called on the Legislature to create a stronger buffer zone between protesters and abortion clinics. As attorney general, she enforced and successfully defended the law against a legal challenge. In 2007, she was also one of seven attorneys general who sued the Bush administration over regulations allowing health care providers to refuse to provide abortion or contraception on moral or religious grounds.

That same year, Coakley spoke out strongly against a ban on so-called “partial birth abortion,’’ a procedure used late in pregnancies now barred unless the mother’s life is at risk. Unlike Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court rulings, the ban did not allow an exception to protect the mother’s health, Coakley noted in an op-ed published in the Quincy Patriot-Ledger. [....]

In the primary race for the Senate, Coakley, typically a cautious campaigner, took an unusually bold campaign stance by declaring that she would rather vote down a national health care bill than accept new restrictions on abortion. Hailed nationally by abortion rights groups, she was cast as a leading crusader for their cause.

[Coakley's GOP opponent, Brown cosponsored a bill] which would require a woman to wait 24 hours before having an abortion and to review pictures and information detailing the developmental progress of her fetus.

[ Brown got ] the support of the Massachusetts Citizens for Life in this race, based on his position on issues including abortion, stem cells, and federal health legislation. He also opposes federal funding for abortion, supports strong parental consent rules for minors, and supports the ban on what opponents call partial-birth abortion. [....]

Brown sponsored an amendment to a 2005 bill on emergency contraception that would have let emergency room doctors or nurses turn away rape victims if they had religious objections to providing emergency contraception.

Healthcare nonsense -- cui bono?

Yes, rational debate is being shut down. Cui bono?

Look at some major supporters of 'Obama's reform.' Insurance companies and drug companies are spending and budgeting large amounts for ads (and for astroturfed organizations) supporting it.

Those companies have means and opportunity to do their homework and find out what is likely to actually be in the bill. They have motive to maximize their own profits, protect their own investors.

So -- if they're supporting Obama's bill -- is it likely to be real 'reform'? Or is it more likely a placebo, an opiate for the populists, a cowpox to vaccinate the nation against any REAL reform getting passed?

To keep the Left from looking at the issues, at what the bill is likely to include -- and to keep us from lobbying for things like a strong public option, continuing to allow drug imports from Canada, not cutting Medicare, etc ... we're kept distracted with accounts of the far out fringe of conservatives. If some Bad Rightwing Nuts are against the bill, the implication is, then the bill must be a Good Leftist Bill. Annoy a Wingnut: support Obamacare.

I'd rather annoy an insurance company by QUESTIONING the bill.

Look what's happening. We hear lots of people out shouting that the bill is socialized medicine, is far left, etc. So us Leftists, believing them, are supporting it without factchecking. Do we believe anything else the Right-Wing-Nuts claim? Why believe they are right about this, either?

Could the Reality Based Community please try Reality Basing our reaction, here?

Time: Pelosi is probably right [about CIA]

Is this an invented the internet thing? The same rightwingers and Obama may be using the same techniques that were used against Gore and the Clintons: misquote to confuse the issue and make it seem their target (in this case Pelosi) has said something terrible.

By this one charge against Pelosi, they take attention away from those who certainly did or commanded torture, and focus it on an opponent of torture [Pelosi], and damage an advocate for SS, family planning etc [Pelosi] -- and humiliate a woman [Pelosi].

h...../

swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/05/20/pelosis-probably-right/

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 at 3:40 pm

Pelosi's Probably Right

[L]ooking at the substance of the accusations, it increasingly looks like [Pelosi} was right. 

[....]

Bob Graham, who was theoretically in the room with Shelby, says he has no recollection of the meeting at all – this from a man who famously details his every waking minute. Perhaps the most astonishing response has been from the CIA Director Leon Panetta, who basically said: Don't trust our records. Which begs the question: what other issues have they kept questionable records on?

The site is thick with substantive quotes and links to sources.

UPDATE: see also http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/05/24/the-cias-history-of-bamboozling-the-congress/

Fact-checking an anti-Muslim video

Pumapac says:  The video is scary if we assume the facts presented are true. But how do we know they ARE true? [....] What do they say about anecdotes — that they don’t equal data? Very true. But research and analysis CAN make facts apparent. So,

Today’s ACTION goal is to Fact Check this short documentary

The video is very easy to follow. It presents fact after fact after fact. Here’s a starter list to check. Pick one and Google it. Share links to helpful research sites like the Atlas of the Real World, the International Database of the US Census Bureau [....]

Links are at the Pumapac.org site:

http://pumapac.org/2009/05/18/reckless-propaganda-or-provocative-facts/#comments

The video they're talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

FOCA - pro-choice: "Freedom of Choice Act"

The office of Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has made it known that not only is FOCA is among his priorities, but the bill will be reintroduced ( he introduced FOCA twice before) “sooner rather than later.” Barbara Boxer’s office confirmed that she will introduce the bill in the Senate.

http://jimblazsik.com/2009/03/10/obama’s-push-for-unrestricted-abortion-foca-is-coming/

Obama has said FOCA is not a priority because he wants to 'tamp down' anger or some such nonsense. Like he removed family planning money from the Stimulus to appease the GOP -- who refused to vote for the Stim anyway. See http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/obama-asks-congress-to-dump-contraceptives/

Prejean, Obama, Clintons agree. (I disagree!)

Prejean: ‘The president of the United States, the secretary of state, and many Americans agree with me in this belief.’

Prejean's statement at the Miss USA pageant when asked: ‘I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.’

Obama: “I’m a Christian, And so . . . I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”?

[ Cites at http://pumapac.org/2009/05/12/well-the-balls-in-your-court-now-obama/ ]

Prejean's statement was more qualified than Obama's (and the Clintons' statements were less quaified, sfaik.)

(Personally, I disagree with all four of them; I favor gay marriage and full rights to gays in all respects.)

Dr. Jack Wheeler Regarding Obama

"The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. "

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TVHANR2I0F7TN09QJ

In the opening post at this Topix thread, scroll down to an excerpt from Jack Wheeler -- very well written invective against Obama (from early 2008).

Here is Wheeler's website.

http://www.tothepointnews.com/

Unfortunately it is also full of well written invective against the Clintons, liberals, environmentalism, etc.

Also from Wheeler's site, http://www.freewebs.com/drjackwheeler/index.htm

here's Voltaire re Koolaid.

Barney Frank is a good guy...

... per this evidence 1. Last fall he tried to investigate where the bailout money was going. 2. In previous years defended Bair and iirc Born and perhaps some other women against sexism when they weren't listened to by the male experts 3. Now, with Carolyn Maloney, he is sponsoring a bill to help consumers against the credit card companies. Ref: NY TIMES BIZ SECTION: BANKS HOLD SWAY OVER DEMS nytimes.com/2009/04/22/business/22consumer.html

PUMA project triage

Say we have our top five issue list. Then we watch current events and look at what different Pumas are interested in. We pick a short term clear cut project that serves all five goals (and if it serves some more goals that’s okay too).

For example, Caroline Kennedy as Hillary’s replacement. Some people who are anti-Kennedy because the Kennedys opposed Hillary did their thing against CK. Some who wanted a woman chosen did their thing for Maloney and Gillibrand. Some who wanted media reform challenged the media bias for CK. Some who saw corruption in the IL appointments agitated for a special election instead of an appointment. Some LGBT supporters promoted Randy whatshername.

It all worked together. Almost every Puma did some kind of dig at CK and the media while they were pushing their own pet issue. And it worked!

Another project might be a recount situation. The focus might be election reform, but some Pumas would be drawn in by sympathy for a particular candidate, or wishing to deny the Dems their veto-proof majority, or caring about some pet issue of one of the candidates. Some might be debunking media inaccuracy. Whatever they are pushing, each statement would probably include some dig at the recount procedure problem. It wouldn’t even matter whether all Pumas supported the same candidate! They would still all be digging at the recount procedure.

Currently we might focus on media treatment of the Tea Parties. Some people would re-cap media treatment of Hillary and Sarah, debunking some of those slanders. Some might find a woman journalist to praise — perhaps Greta or Lynn Sweet. Some might show evidence that the protests against May 31 were bigger than reported, and explain the DNC election procedure issues that caused those protests.

Once we’ve narrowed down to say 5 issues, then it doesn’t matter which issue is the nominal focus on each particular project. We can choose projects by how much interest there is in them already in the general public (eg with CK there was a lot of interest). And by how achievable each particular small project is!

[ trying to post this at RD in "Puma planning", it's in moderation ]

background sources on superdelegates

Here is some backgruond on superdelegates.

google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_en-USUS299US303&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Ferraro+superdelegates+1972+McGovern+commission

superdelegates.org

Here is Ferraro's complete op-ed: nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25ferraro.html  

See also by Uppity Woman at NQ: noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/02/dispelling-the-obama-moose-poop-about-super-delegates/ 

Scroll down to the quotes from McGovern. Some comments by RD regulars too. This might be a good place to start for an overview of the whole issue.

LJ: Obama "allowed procedures to operate"

"He stepped back and let the professionals do what they are supposed to do," Johnson said. "Since the 1980s we've built national security doctrine for how to handle these matters, and Obama allowed these procedures to operate."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97HP1180&show_article=1