Why McCain is going so negative, so often
By: Jonathan Martin
September 13, 2008 10:42 AM EST
It’s hard to imagine a more unlikely perch for John McCain to be shamed for his increasingly hard-edged and truth-stretching campaign than the middle seat on “The View.”
Yet on Friday morning, there sat the Republican nominee — a politician who has built an all but saintly reputation for “straight talk” over the years — caught in a vise between Joy Behar and Barbara Walters and getting a lecture from each on honesty.
“They’re lies,” Behar said of two recent lines of attack from the McCain campaign.
“By the way, you yourself said the same thing about putting lipstick on a pig,” Walters interjected as a defensive McCain struggled to respond.
The two daytime talk show hosts are hardly alone.
McCain’s tactics are drawing the scorn of many in the media and organizations tasked with fact-checking the truthfulness of campaigns. In recent weeks, Team McCain has been described as dishonorable, disingenuous and downright cynical.
A series of ads — including accusations that Barack Obama backed teaching sex education to Illinois kindergartners and charges that Obama called Sarah Palin a lipstick-wearing pig — have provoked a cascade of criticism of McCain’s tactics.
The furor presents a breathtaking contrast to McCain’s image as a kind of anti-politician who plays fair, disdains politics as usual and has never forgotten how his 2000 presidential campaign was incinerated by a series of loathsome dirty tricks in the South Carolina primary.
The defense from the candidate himself — heard only on “The View” because he hasn’t held a news conference in more than a month — is to essentially assert that he’s savaging Obama because the Illinois senator wouldn’t agree to the series of town hall meetings McCain proposed at the end of the Democratic primary season.
“If we had done what I asked Sen. Obama to do, because I’ve been in a lot of other campaigns where I have appeared with the opposition with the people and listened to their hopes and dreams and aspirations, I don't think you’d see the tenor of this campaign,” he said.
That’s the candidate’s public answer — and one that a former adviser suggested that McCain may have convinced himself to believe is true.
Current campaign aides and other Republicans who’ve closely watched the race, however, have a very different response to the media elites and good-government scolds: We don’t care what you think.
McCain seems to have made a choice that many politicians succumb to but that he had always promised to avoid — he appears ready to do whatever it takes to win, even it if soils his reputation.
“We recognize it’s not going to be 2000 again,” McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said, alluding to the media’s swooning coverage of McCain’s ill-fated crusade against then-Gov. George W. Bush and the GOP establishment. “But he lost then. We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it.”
Rogers, who hung tough with McCain through the dark days of the primary and has lived through every high and low of this turbulent and unpredictable race, argues that they tried to run a high-ground campaign and sought to keep the candidate in front of the media in the fashion he enjoys. His point: No one paid any attention.
“We ran a different kind of campaign and nobody cared about us. They didn’t cover John McCain. So now you’ve got to be forward-leaning in everything,” he said.
Rogers concedes that they were understandably overshadowed by the historic Democratic primary through June, but contends that even after the general election began they could get attention only when McCain committed a gaffe.
“When he’s sitting in back of a bus and getting questions about Viagra, I think we understand at that point you’ve got to make some tactical adjustments,” he said, recalling a particularly awkward gotcha-of-the-day moment on McCain’s bus in early July.
A senior adviser to the campaign echoed Rogers’ point: “Some of the traditional tactics we did for a long time weren’t working, so we adjusted.”
So instead of doing things the traditional McCain way, they tried out the Steve Schmidt way.
Turning to the playbook of a campaign manager who has been running take-no-prisoners campaigns for years brought immediate changes. It meant ending McCain’s anything-goes sessions with reporters on his bus that had become politically untenable in the Internet- and cable news-dominated, 24/7 modern media age. And it meant embracing, rather than fighting, the notion that Obama was the star of the race.
When the August “celebrity” ads cut through the clutter and, for the first time in the campaign, put Obama on defense, McCain aides felt they’d gotten their answer about whether tougher was smarter.
Similar affirmation came when Obama first suggested McCain would bring race into the campaign — and the Republican side smothered the tactic by countering that it was Obama who was playing the race card.
McCain strategists now have became even more sure of themselves after the picture-perfect reaction — in the GOP’s view — to the decision to put Palin on the ticket. The choice provoked derision from elites, jubilation among conservative voters long skeptical of McCain and uncertainty from Obama about how to respond. If you are a McCain staffer, it doesn’t get better than that — so who cares that the candidate had met her only once and her chief foreign policy credential seems to be that she lives closer to Russia than other Americans.
With polls moving in their direction and a unanimous view in the political world that the fundamentals of the race have changed dramatically in the past few weeks, McCain aides aren’t about to drop a flood-the-zone approach that they believe has worked. “Most people would have been afraid to have called him out on race,” boasted an adviser. “And we’re not going to let sexism or denigration of her go unchecked now.”
On all three counts — their portrayal of Obama as a celebrity, outrage at his purported use of race and his flat-footedness and confusion on how to respond to Palin — McCain aides saw weakness and indecision.
It adds up to a campaign that is now unapologetically aggressive and aimed almost entirely at keeping Obama off-message, even if it means hitting him below the belt in the process.
“Clearly we intend to stay on offense,” Rogers said. “That’s what we need to do because the campaign is fundamentally about him. We feel comfortable about the ads we’re running and arguments we’re making.”
And, given their surge in the polls and Obama’s uncertainty about how to respond to the Palin phenomenon, they’re going to keep it up.
“Every day not talking about the economy, the war and how to fix a broken system is a victory for McCain,” said John Weaver, a former top strategist to the nominee who left the campaign last year. “They’re going to ride it as long as they can and as long as the mainstream media puts up every ridiculous charge.”
The negative and often exaggerated or misleading claims being made about Obama and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, especially those playing on Palin’s gender, are just too irresistible for the process-consumed online and cable news media that now drives the campaign conversation, Weaver said.
“Unless there is a hurricane, they’re going to cover it,” he observed.
Added Terry Nelson, McCain’s former campaign manager: “It works in part because Obama responds to it.”
The question now, though, is just how long McCain can keep riding the wave of process and Palin.
“If they don’t attack her, she’s going to go back to being the vice presidential nominee,” Nelson said of the Democrats. “And in the natural scheme of things, the focus will go back to McCain and Obama.”
At that point, “the biggest burden for the McCain campaign will be to convey a compelling, positive vision for the country’s future.”
A top McCain adviser said they’re hoping to keep the still-flowing momentum from their convention going as long as they can.
“But we’ve always been planning to get back on the economy, jobs and energy,” said this strategist.
And even if they weren’t, the campaign calendar would demand it.
McCain and Obama face off in three debates, beginning Sept. 26 at the University of Mississippi — events that will force a focus, at least temporarily, on issues rather than pigs and lipstick.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Newsday take
Newsday examined the positions of Obama and McCain on 10 key issues, first looking at the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, national security, energy and the environment/climate change.
Here are the next five issues.
WHERE MCCAIN STANDS
On health care: Opposes federally mandated universal coverage, saying competition will improve quality of health insurance. Pledges to reform tax code to offer choices beyond employee-based health insurance coverage. Every family would receive a direct refundable tax credit for $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families. Wants families to be able to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines and have their policy follow them from job to job.
On Social Security: Wants to supplement Social Security benefits with individual investment accounts. Prefers slowing growth of benefits rather than raising taxes. Asked about Social Security during a GOP debate, he said: "Every man, woman and child in America needs to know it's going broke and we've got to do the hard things. We've got to fix it for the future generations of Americans. ... It's got to be bipartisan."
On education: Favors charter schools, home schooling and voucher system -- when approved by local officials -- and giving parents tax credits to help pay for private schools. "We need to reward good teachers and find bad teachers another line of work," he has said. Voted for No Child Left Behind legislation, but says that is only the beginning of education reform. Wants to expand virtual learning in part by targeting $500 million in current federal funds to build new virtual schools and develop online courses.
On immigration: Co-sponsored a 2006 Bush-backed bill that would have allowed some illegal immigrants to stay in the country and would have provided a legal path to U.S. citizenship after learning English, paying fines and back taxes, and passing a background check. Supports construction of 700-mile fence along U.S.-Mexico border, and now says he would secure the border first.
On abortion: Opposes abortion rights, and believes Roe v. Wade is flawed and should be overturned by the Supreme Court. Voted for the Prohibit Partial Birth Abortion bill in 2003, and supports Supreme Court ruling upholding it. Voted for Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions amendment in 2007.
WHERE OBAMA STANDS
On health care: Would create a national health insurance program for people without employer-provided health care and who do not qualify for other existing federal programs. Program would be mandatory for children, but not for all adults. He hopes to achieve universal coverage by requiring employers to share costs of insuring workers and by offering coverage similar to plan provided to federal employees. Estimates costs at up to $65 billion a year after savings from making system more efficient. To help pay costs he would eliminate Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000.
On Social Security: Strongly opposes privatization, pledges to keep Social Security solvent and protect middle-class families from tax increases of benefit cuts. Believes way to strengthen system is through payroll tax system. Social Security payroll tax currently applies only to first $97,500 a worker earns. Wants to increase maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security. Pledges to work with Congress on reform package to keep the system solvent for at least next half century.
On education: Backs expansion of pre-K programs, pledging to quadruple Early Head Start with $10 billion-a-year injection and also increase funding for Head Start. Plans to reform No Child Left Behind, recruiting high-quality teachers and rewarding talented ones in part with higher pay not linked to standardized test scores. Proposes tax credit of up to $4,000 for college students who perform 100 hours of community service a year. Wants to make community college entirely free nationwide.
On immigration: Voted for the same 2006 bill, which also would have increased funding and improved border security technology and improved enforcement of existing laws. Supports construction of fence.
On abortion: Favors abortion rights and opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. Disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling to uphold the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Did not cast vote on Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions amendment in 2007.
Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.
Here are the next five issues.
WHERE MCCAIN STANDS
On health care: Opposes federally mandated universal coverage, saying competition will improve quality of health insurance. Pledges to reform tax code to offer choices beyond employee-based health insurance coverage. Every family would receive a direct refundable tax credit for $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families. Wants families to be able to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines and have their policy follow them from job to job.
On Social Security: Wants to supplement Social Security benefits with individual investment accounts. Prefers slowing growth of benefits rather than raising taxes. Asked about Social Security during a GOP debate, he said: "Every man, woman and child in America needs to know it's going broke and we've got to do the hard things. We've got to fix it for the future generations of Americans. ... It's got to be bipartisan."
On education: Favors charter schools, home schooling and voucher system -- when approved by local officials -- and giving parents tax credits to help pay for private schools. "We need to reward good teachers and find bad teachers another line of work," he has said. Voted for No Child Left Behind legislation, but says that is only the beginning of education reform. Wants to expand virtual learning in part by targeting $500 million in current federal funds to build new virtual schools and develop online courses.
On immigration: Co-sponsored a 2006 Bush-backed bill that would have allowed some illegal immigrants to stay in the country and would have provided a legal path to U.S. citizenship after learning English, paying fines and back taxes, and passing a background check. Supports construction of 700-mile fence along U.S.-Mexico border, and now says he would secure the border first.
On abortion: Opposes abortion rights, and believes Roe v. Wade is flawed and should be overturned by the Supreme Court. Voted for the Prohibit Partial Birth Abortion bill in 2003, and supports Supreme Court ruling upholding it. Voted for Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions amendment in 2007.
WHERE OBAMA STANDS
On health care: Would create a national health insurance program for people without employer-provided health care and who do not qualify for other existing federal programs. Program would be mandatory for children, but not for all adults. He hopes to achieve universal coverage by requiring employers to share costs of insuring workers and by offering coverage similar to plan provided to federal employees. Estimates costs at up to $65 billion a year after savings from making system more efficient. To help pay costs he would eliminate Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000.
On Social Security: Strongly opposes privatization, pledges to keep Social Security solvent and protect middle-class families from tax increases of benefit cuts. Believes way to strengthen system is through payroll tax system. Social Security payroll tax currently applies only to first $97,500 a worker earns. Wants to increase maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security. Pledges to work with Congress on reform package to keep the system solvent for at least next half century.
On education: Backs expansion of pre-K programs, pledging to quadruple Early Head Start with $10 billion-a-year injection and also increase funding for Head Start. Plans to reform No Child Left Behind, recruiting high-quality teachers and rewarding talented ones in part with higher pay not linked to standardized test scores. Proposes tax credit of up to $4,000 for college students who perform 100 hours of community service a year. Wants to make community college entirely free nationwide.
On immigration: Voted for the same 2006 bill, which also would have increased funding and improved border security technology and improved enforcement of existing laws. Supports construction of fence.
On abortion: Favors abortion rights and opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. Disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling to uphold the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Did not cast vote on Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions amendment in 2007.
Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
RNC Protests silenced
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2008/09/01/pepper.mpg
more:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/01/donna_brazile_hit_by_pepper_sp.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-dantoni/amy-goodman-violently-arr_b_123062.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/31/national/main4401941.shtml
more:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/01/donna_brazile_hit_by_pepper_sp.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-dantoni/amy-goodman-violently-arr_b_123062.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/31/national/main4401941.shtml
Friday, August 29, 2008
A Future of McCain and Palin on Women’s Rights
Today the news was broken that Republican Senator John McCain presidential nominee of the Republican Party picked Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his Vice Presidential nominee. Both are in support of Pro-life. John McCain is so against Abortion he hopes to over turn Roe vs Wade once in office, as well he offers no solutions as to prevent unwanted pregnancies like sexual education or affordable access to birth control pills. Sarah’s belief falls deeply in line with John. She is extremely pro-life and a reformer of welfare. Sarah has helped grow our overly populated world with her family of five her newest offspring was born in April who was born with Downs’s Syndrome. This obviously has no affect to Sarah’s family who is very wealthy. They have access to nannies, and care for her disabled child.
I would like to ask the McCain camp propose to do when they do not believe in pro-choice and do not support welfare. Perhaps we could be like India and have the problems such as: “Sonu, Toofan, Bobby and Bhagwan are skinny boys with impish grins and the mischievous ways of children everywhere. But for them, there has been no childhood. Wily and street smart, they live and survive in a homeless, hungry, lonely and often brutal world circumscribed by New Delhi Railway Station. They scrounge for leftovers from the garbage of incoming trains and dodge the kicks of angry porters as they hustle to carry luggage for a few cents. There are hundreds of others like them around the busy station, and millions more elsewhere in India, where the population is nearing 850 million. About 120 million children, including those helping their parents in farms and shops, are working more than 12 hours a day to earn their own bread, 55 million of them in slave like conditions”(CROSSETTE).
Or maybe we should become like China? Enforce the idea of one child per person? But, wait what Sarah Palin is beyond her limit! See we could tie women’s tubes as soon as they have that one child right there in the hospital. They got raped? What would you say “Oh too bad, one kid is the limit.” The baby was conceived out of incest? What would you say? “Oh too bad, one kid the limit.” But wait the baby has a genetic disorder, disease, the baby or mother’s health could be affected? What would you say then? “Oh that’s too bad!” Hey China is on to something. See John McCain and Sarah Palin what we could do if we could control all women’s bodies? We’d have them all off welfare, control population, and be just like China. Guess what though China would be a head of us in several ideas, and abortion is legal in China's and China provides education and support for alternative birth control methods. Look at that, they would be a head of the curve with you two in charge.
America does not need to turn back the pages to 1973 before women’s rights on Roe vs Wade, and we don’t need you two telling us we can’t have access to birth control pills or sexual education for our children with the high rise of teen pregnancies , STD’s , HIV, and AID’s in this country. Sarah Palin go back to Alaska and take care of your children and John McCain retire and enjoy your last days on this earth with your family and friends, not ruining our country!
Work Cited
CROSSETTE,BARBARA. “Homeless and Hungry Youths of India” .Dec. 23rd 1990. The New York Times. August 29th http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0DA1531F930A15751C1A966958260
I would like to ask the McCain camp propose to do when they do not believe in pro-choice and do not support welfare. Perhaps we could be like India and have the problems such as: “Sonu, Toofan, Bobby and Bhagwan are skinny boys with impish grins and the mischievous ways of children everywhere. But for them, there has been no childhood. Wily and street smart, they live and survive in a homeless, hungry, lonely and often brutal world circumscribed by New Delhi Railway Station. They scrounge for leftovers from the garbage of incoming trains and dodge the kicks of angry porters as they hustle to carry luggage for a few cents. There are hundreds of others like them around the busy station, and millions more elsewhere in India, where the population is nearing 850 million. About 120 million children, including those helping their parents in farms and shops, are working more than 12 hours a day to earn their own bread, 55 million of them in slave like conditions”(CROSSETTE).
Or maybe we should become like China? Enforce the idea of one child per person? But, wait what Sarah Palin is beyond her limit! See we could tie women’s tubes as soon as they have that one child right there in the hospital. They got raped? What would you say “Oh too bad, one kid is the limit.” The baby was conceived out of incest? What would you say? “Oh too bad, one kid the limit.” But wait the baby has a genetic disorder, disease, the baby or mother’s health could be affected? What would you say then? “Oh that’s too bad!” Hey China is on to something. See John McCain and Sarah Palin what we could do if we could control all women’s bodies? We’d have them all off welfare, control population, and be just like China. Guess what though China would be a head of us in several ideas, and abortion is legal in China's and China provides education and support for alternative birth control methods. Look at that, they would be a head of the curve with you two in charge.
America does not need to turn back the pages to 1973 before women’s rights on Roe vs Wade, and we don’t need you two telling us we can’t have access to birth control pills or sexual education for our children with the high rise of teen pregnancies , STD’s , HIV, and AID’s in this country. Sarah Palin go back to Alaska and take care of your children and John McCain retire and enjoy your last days on this earth with your family and friends, not ruining our country!
Work Cited
CROSSETTE,BARBARA. “Homeless and Hungry Youths of India” .Dec. 23rd 1990. The New York Times. August 29th http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0DA1531F930A15751C1A966958260
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Sunday, August 24, 2008
The Bush Administration officially backs the conscience rule
This is heavy, serious business.
The Bush Administration officially backs the conscience rule
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iEW9FYay0lFbUS4UMghrpSYEKE9AD92MU8IO0
For those who are unaware, this legislation states that all medical facilities that receive government funding would essentially need to promise that they wouldn't fire their doctors (or nurses or scalpel washers) for deciding that, based on "moral objections", they would not treat their patients. Officially, this is meant to apply to abortion, but the new legislation makes the definition of "abortion" so fuzzy that it would also allow health clinics to deny birth control prescriptions or emergency contraception to rape victims.
Please, do something. This is the rule, as it will appear.http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/08/20080821reg.pdf This will go into effect in 30 days. Here are some quick and easy ways to speak up:
--Write to your legislator.https://secure.prochoiceamerica.org/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr009=jyxke0wa26.app43b&cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3253 This is insanely easy. You fill in your name, address and state, and this site will automatically find your state legislator and send them an email. You can even choose for it to be a form email, if you're not feeling eloquent. Or you can write one of your own.
--Send an email to consciencecomment@hhs.gov (Make sure to put provider conscience regulation as the subject line
--Make a donation to Planned Parenthood, who is fighting this issue as hard as they can.
--if you're especially proactive, you can use congress.org to search for your state government officials (by zipcode) and contact them directly.
Please. I don't care if you're eloquent, witty, or whatever. This is not only just about abortion, either -- this is about being allowed to make your own choices about what is best for your own health.
I know plenty of women who take birth control for reasons other than preventing pregnancy, but even that aside, that choice should not rest in a stranger's hands.
Any doctor who would put their own mental comfort before the physical well being of their patient is not a doctor I would want, nor is it a doctor who anyone should have to be attended by. Any doctor who would make that choice is unfit for the position.
As patients, we are told that we can trust our doctors -- strangers! -- with our lives. We can trust that they will do their best to keep us safe and healthy. Allowing doctors to pick and choose which people they will help, based on their own moral leanings, completely destroys that trust.
I wrote a couple of letters, this afternoon. I got a response back from Senator Murray's office -- and while most of it is more or less c/p form, it at least acknowledges that my opinion was heard. It also states that she is a)aware and b)opposed and working against the legislation. These are positive things. Also provided is more information about the issue itself:
Thank you for writing me about the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) proposed rule regarding reimbursement to facilities that offer contraception. It is good to hear from you.
As you may know, on July 15, 2008, the New York Times reported that HHS is drafting a rule that would require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire health care professionals who object to abortion. This proposal contains an ill-considered, overbroad definition of abortion, defining it as "any of the various procedures.that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation." This definition would allow health-care corporations or individuals to classify many common forms of contraception, including the birth control pill and emergency contraception, as "abortions." This definition would allow these health professionals to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it.
I am extremely concerned about this proposal's potential to affect millions of women's reproductive health. It is a poorly veiled attempt to rollback women's health care options before the current Administration leaves office. Instead of undercutting access to contraception and family planning services, the Bush Administration should be putting prevention first. You will be pleased to know that I have joined my colleagues in sending letters to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on two separate occasions, urging him to abandon plans to formulate such a rule.
Rest assured, I will continue to fight this misguided plan to put in place new obstacles for women accessing family planning services and as I do, I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind.
Again, thank you for contacting me about this issue. If you would like to know more about my work in the Senate, please feel free to sign up for my weekly updates at http://murray.senate.gov/updates.
Please, don't just sit there quietly. This is (y)our country. If you know any women at all that matter to you. Your mother, your friends, yourself. Please
The Bush Administration officially backs the conscience rule
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iEW9FYay0lFbUS4UMghrpSYEKE9AD92MU8IO0
For those who are unaware, this legislation states that all medical facilities that receive government funding would essentially need to promise that they wouldn't fire their doctors (or nurses or scalpel washers) for deciding that, based on "moral objections", they would not treat their patients. Officially, this is meant to apply to abortion, but the new legislation makes the definition of "abortion" so fuzzy that it would also allow health clinics to deny birth control prescriptions or emergency contraception to rape victims.
Please, do something. This is the rule, as it will appear.http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/08/20080821reg.pdf This will go into effect in 30 days. Here are some quick and easy ways to speak up:
--Write to your legislator.https://secure.prochoiceamerica.org/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr009=jyxke0wa26.app43b&cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3253 This is insanely easy. You fill in your name, address and state, and this site will automatically find your state legislator and send them an email. You can even choose for it to be a form email, if you're not feeling eloquent. Or you can write one of your own.
--Send an email to consciencecomment@hhs.gov (Make sure to put provider conscience regulation as the subject line
--Make a donation to Planned Parenthood, who is fighting this issue as hard as they can.
--if you're especially proactive, you can use congress.org to search for your state government officials (by zipcode) and contact them directly.
Please. I don't care if you're eloquent, witty, or whatever. This is not only just about abortion, either -- this is about being allowed to make your own choices about what is best for your own health.
I know plenty of women who take birth control for reasons other than preventing pregnancy, but even that aside, that choice should not rest in a stranger's hands.
Any doctor who would put their own mental comfort before the physical well being of their patient is not a doctor I would want, nor is it a doctor who anyone should have to be attended by. Any doctor who would make that choice is unfit for the position.
As patients, we are told that we can trust our doctors -- strangers! -- with our lives. We can trust that they will do their best to keep us safe and healthy. Allowing doctors to pick and choose which people they will help, based on their own moral leanings, completely destroys that trust.
I wrote a couple of letters, this afternoon. I got a response back from Senator Murray's office -- and while most of it is more or less c/p form, it at least acknowledges that my opinion was heard. It also states that she is a)aware and b)opposed and working against the legislation. These are positive things. Also provided is more information about the issue itself:
Thank you for writing me about the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) proposed rule regarding reimbursement to facilities that offer contraception. It is good to hear from you.
As you may know, on July 15, 2008, the New York Times reported that HHS is drafting a rule that would require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire health care professionals who object to abortion. This proposal contains an ill-considered, overbroad definition of abortion, defining it as "any of the various procedures.that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation." This definition would allow health-care corporations or individuals to classify many common forms of contraception, including the birth control pill and emergency contraception, as "abortions." This definition would allow these health professionals to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it.
I am extremely concerned about this proposal's potential to affect millions of women's reproductive health. It is a poorly veiled attempt to rollback women's health care options before the current Administration leaves office. Instead of undercutting access to contraception and family planning services, the Bush Administration should be putting prevention first. You will be pleased to know that I have joined my colleagues in sending letters to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on two separate occasions, urging him to abandon plans to formulate such a rule.
Rest assured, I will continue to fight this misguided plan to put in place new obstacles for women accessing family planning services and as I do, I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind.
Again, thank you for contacting me about this issue. If you would like to know more about my work in the Senate, please feel free to sign up for my weekly updates at http://murray.senate.gov/updates.
Please, don't just sit there quietly. This is (y)our country. If you know any women at all that matter to you. Your mother, your friends, yourself. Please
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
