In recent days, women's advocates have been strikingly hushed. It seems that women's health is under assault and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. Even feminist leader Ellen Malcolm resigned from the organization she founded in seeming disgust as her candidates acquiesced. All this has left me to ponder: who will be our modern day Eleanor Roosevelt?
Could it be Martha Coakley? Coakley has an impeccable list of accomplishments, to accompany her character and courage. And in a strange twist of political fate, might Coakley need to be Women's One in order to salvage her political career?
As we enter 2010, the only political certainty is uncertainty. Last month, when Coakley won the Democratic primary in Massachusetts' special election to fill Ted Kennedy's open senate seat, conventional wisdom was that she was a shoe in to be senator. Yet, as the January 19 election approaches, USA Today reports that Republicans are looking for an upset. Why? A "no" vote for health care reform from this Massachusetts' senate seat would take away Reid's magic 60.
As we know, unlikely bedfellows are uniting in opposition to Obama's health care reform. Independent bloggers who oppose health care reform see MA Republican candidate Scott Brown as their best hope to shoot it down. Former Hillary Clinton supporters who were pro-Coakley last month, now are signing up to phone bank for Republican Scott Brown here and here in an effort to defeat health care. Even a lifelong women's advocate informed me this week that she was backing Brown to shoot down Stupak/Nelson. Strange days indeed.
Which is why Martha Coakley should seize on this moment. Coakley should change her position and run against health care reform. In doing so, not only will she cement a win in Massachusetts, but also establish herself as a modern day Eleanor Roosevelt at a time when women are desperate for leadership.
Without an Eleanor, women's health is in danger. Threats to our health are quickly becoming a reality. Mammogram coverage for women in their 40s has already been chipped away. This week, a group of nine Republican Congresswomen sent an Open Letter to President Obama which states:
In California, the eligibility age for state-subsidized breast cancer screening has been raised from 40 to 50 by the state government, which will also temporarily stop enrollment in the breast cancer screening program.
For thousands of struggling women in California, the task force recommendations have quickly metastasized from a suggestion to an edict.
That's just the start. Pap smears (cervical cancer) guidelines are also under review. And if health care reform passes, the Democrats will deliver us the biggest setback to Roe v. Wade since it became the law of the land.
So here's a plea Martha: Lead us. And if you do, we will have your back!
We know you have the character. You stood by Hillary Clinton when she tried to make history. While Kennedy, Kerry and Patrick backed the "agent of change", you stood by the voters of Massachusetts until the bitter end.
We know you have the courage. You've been fighting for women and children throughout your career. You've had to make tough choices that have defined you and led you to this moment.
We know you have the credentials. An impeccable resume of schooling, public life and volunteer work.
And now, save yourself and save the women of this country. As Eleanor would say: As for accomplishments, I just did what I had to do as things came along.
Follow Amy Siskind on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AmyTheNewAgenda
This is an amazingly astute analysis of what ails Washington and Martha, if she were to follow your advice, would single-handedly SAVE healthcare and her own principles, not to mention the pro-ROGUE principles of the so-called "Washington Democrats" who seem to have put the "mock" into Democracy by pushing through this shameful Insurance Reform bill of futility....and woman-bashing....
Yes to Amy's phenomenally inventive analysis and solution. If Martha Coakley comes out and says: The healthcare reform that the Senate cooked is really just Insurance Reform!
I am against it and let's put a Public Option in it to benefit people. Obama was bought by Pharma and Big Insurance and didn't want the bill to go to Congress for Reconciliation!
But it will, if Martha loses and this will expose the lack of progressive positions in Washington. Their 60-seat majority caved to Stupakistan. They didn't have to cave in the Republicans' neanderthal schemes. But cave Obama did--and goodbye Senate majority!...
Losing the 60 votes in Senate will bring reconciliation in Congress and then the progressives can instal the Public Option that the Obama administraiton sold out this summer.
Amy Susskind has the solution!! Aye, there's the rub...for in that lethargy of elected power who has the estrogen to pull it off?
Dear MoveOn member,
With "tea party" money pouring into the fight for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, the airwaves full of outside ads, and the polls showing a tight race, Democrat Martha Coakley needs a massive get-out-the-vote effort between now and Tuesday.
Special elections are won by the campaign that does the best job getting its supporters to the polls. Organizing for America has an online tool where you can call likely Democratic voters in Massachusetts and remind them to vote on Tuesday. Can you make a few calls right now?
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=86037&id=18606-3024395-f5KEvcx&t=1
Right-wing smear merchants are spending $1 million or more on attack ads, and the tea partiers are out in full force for Republican Scott Brown. They would like nothing better than to stop health care reform by winning this race. We can't let them.
Martha Coakley's vote is needed to pass health care reform and the rest of President Obama's agenda. As Massachusetts' first female senator, she will fight to advance Sen. Ted Kennedy's legacy.
Martha Coakley is fighting to hold onto the seat Ted Kennedy held for 47 years. Letting the tea partiers win this race is simply not an option. Please sign up today to help get out the vote in these critical last few days:
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=86037&id=18606-3024395-f5KEvcx&t=2
Thank you.
Adam, Stephen, Carrie, Kat, and the rest of the team
Remember, Obama campaigned on big dreams and hope, and now....!
You seriously think that Martha Coakley is going to go into
the Senate and vote against Ted Kennedy's fondest wish?
I seriously hope she makes it. The polls have her at 50%.
She won 47% in the primary. There are not *that* many
Republicans in MA, and more than 50% of the electorate
are women. If they can't get Martha elected, shame on them.
single-payer bill is *way* better, but, seriously, Massachusetts had
better not be electing a Republican over this. The horror! The horror!
'Texas Darlin', 'No Quarter', and particularly 'Hillbuzz' are all essentilly birther pretending to be born again tea-bagger sites, peddling (particularly hillbuzz), the most vile accusations against Obama.
If Scott Brown is happy to have those people supporting him, I hope it comes back and bites him on his Cosmo a$$
Amy, this is another one of your stretches of imagination to trash the Obama Administration and the Democrats because you want Sarah Palin to become president.
Many other 2010 Americans will have to act as advocates for Mrs Roosevelt's concerns.
That makes no sense:
"Former Hillary Clinton supporters who were pro-Coakley last month, now are signing up to phone bank for Republican Scott Brown here and here in an effort to defeat health care. "
But my oh my, do we need some leaders in family planning and reproductive health. (I've just come across television commercials for a group called PregnancyLine.com. It comes across as a public service/referral for unplanned pregnancies, but actually it is a Christian pro-life group, under the umbrella of Virtue Media and its parent organization, United for Life Organization.) Why should Christian groups be driving our reproductive health conversation? Please, it is time for some strong leadership again. Though I vacillate on which approach would be best, I certainly wouldn't complain if the bill was shot down to prevent Stupak, and to go in again for a stronger bill.
Here are the links on PregnancyLine; don't be fooled by these guys.
http://www.channels.com/episodes/7259048#/ajax/feeds/show/190812/unitedforlifefoundation
http://www.pregnancyline.com/
http://www.unitedforlifefoundation.org/United_for_Life_Foundation.html
And more shame on you -- and on anyone who buys your nonsense -- for calling the attempt to extend health care coverage to millions of women and their families as an attack on women'd health. Or are the women who will be able to afford pre-natal care, diabetes care, high blood pressure medications, etc,, etc, less important than the few well-off middle class women who might benefit from early screenings but don't want to have to pay for it!
There are millions of unnecessary screenings and tests and procedures done every year, and one can only hope the commission will go on evaluating the scientific evidence and making solid recommendation, no matter who stands to lose revenue. As a country, We pay more and are less healthy by it thatn anyone in the developed world. It's time we started giving up marginal and unnecessary care as an entitlement for the well-off so the destitute can at least have the basics.
I don't know the answer to this, but I hope you will understand that the person to whom you replied was not attacking you (and neither am I).
The mammogram is the best low cost tool we have available today but it is not a great diagnostic tool. It is recommended because it is low cost not because it is the best diagnostic option available.
We need women to establish relationships with a primary care physician to help them manage their healthcare over time.