Ladies, it’s time to pay attention to the special election in Massachusetts to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, no matter where you live. When voters go to the polls next week, January 19, women everywhere stand to either gain or lose a lot.
Democratic nominee and Attorney General Martha Coakley is running against Republican nominee and State Senator Scott Brown. There is a third candidate in the race, Independent Joe Kennedy (no relation to the late Senator), but he is not considered a contender.
Until recently no one really thought Brown was a contender either. How could the Commonwealth let “The Kennedy Seat” go to a Republican? Plus, Massachusetts has not elected a Republican senator since 1972.* As a result, the race has been rather dull and garnered very little attention outside the Commonwealth.
And then the Senate passed its version of the healthcare bill and suddenly, things got interesting. Conservative interest groups, fueled by a desire to elect Brown as the 41st vote against the bill, started pouring money and volunteers into the race. The American Future Fund, a group whose members are believed to be behind the Swift Boat ad and the Willie Horton ad that hurt John Kerry and Michael Dukakis’ presidential campaigns, launched a $400,000 attack ad against Coakley. Twitter users started flooding the social media site with pro-Brown tweets, many that reference the Tea Party. Brown even raised $1 million dollars in just 24 hours. And now, polls show the race is very close.
Brown’s million dollars came from across the country because right-wing conservatives want to help support and protect their interests. Women, concerned with protecting their rights, should get involved now too.
Here’s what at stake:
Healthcare: The healthcare bill, while certainly imperfect, removes gender-biased practices and stops insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions like rape and domestic violence. In Massachusetts, Brown filed legislation designed to ease regulations on insurance companies. Under his bill, companies may not be required to cover certain medical services including mammograms and cancer screenings.
Reproductive Rights: Coakley has a long history of supporting a woman’s right to choose and control her own body. She has the support of NARAL and Emily’s List. Pro-choice advocates are disappointed that Coakley supports the Senate healthcare bill which includes restriction on abortion. But her opponent’s record on reproductive rights is more disconcerting. He is backed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life. He co-sponsored the Women’s Right to Know Act, which would require a woman to wait 24 hours before having an abortion and view an ultrasound of their fetus. While Brown does say he supports Roe v. Wade, his campaign website reads, “I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area…”
Support for rape victims: Brown sponsored legislation that would allow healthcare workers to turn away rape victims from emergency rooms if they objected to providing those victims with emergency contraception.
Equal representation: Women represent 51 percent of the population but only 17 percent of the legislation. Until a group reaches critical mass, at least 30 percent representation in leadership, they are viewed and evaluated as “special interest” rather than representative. Every competent, qualified women we elect, brings us one step closer to critical mass. And, as we’ve written before,
“Women legislators bring much needed attention to so-called women’s issues such as childcare, elder care, fair workplace policies and healthcare. They serve as role models for young girls and increase women’s overall participation in government and civic issues. And women politicians work hard. According to a study from the University of Chicago and Stanford University, women in Congress, on average, introduce more bills and secure more money for their districts than their male counterparts do.”
No candidate is ever perfect ladies. But if we are going to work together to support our interests, we must remove the phrase, “I want to vote for a woman, but…” from our vocabulary and take action.
Here is what you can do:
Donate: Link here to make a donation.
Volunteer: Make calls to voters and help get the message out.
Vote: If you live in Massachusetts, get out and vote on Tuesday, January 19.
Support other qualified women candidates.
*Massachusetts has never sent a woman to the Senate.
I take it then that your banner slogan “Social Equality for BOTH Sexes” Means you would support equality in reproductive choice.
Currently, when a female becomes pregnant she has a choice as to whether she becomes a parent or not. Apparently this is a human right. So, assuming that men are human, when a man discovers she is pregnant and assuming it was he that actually impregnated her, then he should also have the choice as to whether he is a father or not with all the encompassing burdens e.g. not the right time in life or however otherwise it be too inconvienient at the time. Some would say that if he didn’t want to be a father then he shouldn’t have had sex. Which means, assuming you stand for “Social Equality for BOTH Sexes”, that a female’s only option is to abstain from sex and thus any right to abortion should be removed.
Ergo, one would say you would support repeal of any law which discriminates between either sex. You would support the repeal of laws which remove any choice a potential father may have and laws which impose a burden upon him if he chooses not to be a father.
I would also seek your opinion on the notion quoted by feminist psychologists that “not only does a child not need a father but is better off without one.” How would that fit your banner slogan of “Social Equality for BOTH Sexes”.
Would you please also equate your banner slogan of “Social Equality for BOTH Sexes” with the slogan “A Woman Needs a Man Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle”.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Valerie Young and Venus Evans-Winters, Hello_Ladies. Hello_Ladies said: Ladies, pay attention to Mass Senate race http://tinyurl.com/yjah5zw #masen [...]
As someone who has disliked Martha Coakley for a very long time I’m really torn on what to do here. Sigh. At least as a senator, she doesn’t have a prosecutor or an attorney general’s power to ruin lives. She won’t have to worry about little things like exculpatory evidence and can just be a politician.
Yeah.
I will go with that.
CC