Dueling Op-Eds And the Great Divide

It will be a fine fight for the Senate seat in Massachusetts and the lead up is not disappointing.  The Horse Race is now turning into a duel at thirty paces.

Elizabeth Warren offered the first volley, making her position clear on the  contentious dispute over women’s access to contraception under the Healthcare Reform Act.  She stated in no uncertain terms that exclusionary waivers for contraception access were outrageous.  She supports President Obama’s compromise and expressed shock at Scott Brown signing onto the Blunt amendment that would allow employers deny coverage for ‘moral or religious reasons.’  Speaking to Greg Sargent last week she said:

This is an extreme attack on every one of us.  It opens the door to outright discrimination. It would let insurance companies and corporations cut off pregnant women, overweight guys, older Americans, or anyone — because some executive claims it’s part of his moral code. Maybe that wouldn’t happen, but I don’t want to take the chance.

Neither do I.

But even if the language in the Blunt amendment were airtight, I’d oppose it and find the suggestion totally unacceptable.  I pay taxes for wars for which I was never consulted and absolutely disagree with.  That’s against my moral code.  Can I get a tax refund now?  I also think giving vulture oil companies subsidies is a ludicrous and immoral practice.  Another refund?  Oh, and those Wall Street bankers, the greed, the fraud that American taxpayers got stuck for?  I want my money back, now.

We can all play this opt-out game.

So, where does Scott Brown come down on the question of women’s healthcare?  Quelle surprise!  He’s rubberstamping the irrational GOP position.  But by doing so, he takes a 180-degree spin from his 2002 vote, when he supported a mandate on contraception, the Church be damned!  Nonetheless, his answer to Warren?  Through spokesman, Colin Reed:

It’s elitist for Elizabeth Warren to dictate to religious people about what they should believe and how they should act. She wants to use the power of government to force Catholics to violate the teachings of their faith.  That is wrong. This issue deals with one of our most fundamental rights as a people — the freedom of religion. Like Ted Kennedy, Scott Brown supports a religious conscience exemption in health care.

Nice going, Mr. Brown.  It’s wrong today but wasn’t wrong in 2002.  The political winds must have been blowing differently a decade ago.  And we’re conjuring up the ghost of Teddy Kennedy?  Shame on you.  But what I really like is the word ‘elitist,’ which is the Republican/Fox News buzzword for ‘those snooty people, who are not real Americans.’  Real Americans drive a truck like Scott Brown–back and forth to a home in Wrentham valued between $1-2.3 million.

Yup, just like average folks!

Lest we forget, there’s a reason Scott Brown was named by Forbes magazine as one of “Wall Street’s favorite senators.”

To be fair, Elizabeth Warren is no financial slouch.  Both Warren and Brown have done extremely well for themselves.  They’re both lawyers, educated, well-heeled professionals, standing on either side of the Great Divide we call politics.  The issue of contraception has been put into play, an issue that according to all polls marks Warren’s position as the undisputed winner.

The Boston Globe ran Dueling Op-Eds on the issue.  Warren’s editorial is here.

She starts with that withering image of the Republican panel that Representative Issa managed to convene—a panel of five poker-faced, middle-aged men discussing contraception and religious rights.  In the optics department it was a devastating image.  Out of touch much?  A prime female health consideration and you fail to have women on the panel?  Says everything we need to know on the Republican mindset.  Elizabeth Warren then takes Scott Brown to task not only for supporting the proposed Blunt bill but fighting to get it passed.

If you are married and your employer doesn’t believe married couples should use  birth control, then you could lose coverage for contraception. If you’re a pregnant woman who is single, and your employer doesn’t like it, you could be denied maternity care. This bill is about how to cut coverage for basic health care services for women.

Let’s be clear what this proposed law is not about: This is not about Catholic institutions or the rights of Catholics to follow their faith. President Obama has already made sure religious institutions will not be forced to cover contraception – at the same time that he has made sure women can get the health care they need directly from their health care insurers. Carol Keehan, the president and CEO of Catholic Health Association, said that Obama’s approach “protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions.

And Scott Brown’s answer:  It’s a matter of fundamental fairness.  Really?

Here’s the beginning of Brown’s statement:

The new ObamaCare mandate forcing religious organizations to offer insurance coverage for practices that violate the teachings of their church gives the government control over the most personal aspects of our lives. It also erodes one of the basic protections of the Constitution – the right to practice religion without government interference.

The federal government is now saying to religious hospitals and charities, “Just do what you’re told, and leave the moral questions to us.’’ This over-reaching dictation from Washington is one reason I opposed and voted to repeal ObamaCare.

Which, of course, fails to answer the earlier question: why was a mandate A-okay in 2002, yet oh so wrong now?  Possibly because then it concerned RomneyCare.  The name makes all the difference in the world!  Interesting, too, that according to Think Progress:

Brown also voted for a 2005 bill mandating hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims, even after lawmakers defeated his amendment to allow religious hospitals to opt out of the requirement. Brown split with then-Gov. Mitt Romney on the matter and joined the legislature in overriding his veto.

And the American public?  The polling numbers on the issue of contraception and subsequent WH compromise are revealing:

Obama’s compromise takes this politically charged issue off the table for mainstream Americans, most of whom side with Obama. A Fox News poll conducted last week before Obama’s Friday announcement found that 61 percent of voters believe employer health plans should be required to cover birth control for women, while 34 percent disagreed. Among women, two thirds approved of the requirement.

Rush Limbaugh may scoff at the issue.  But for women?  This is a very big deal.  Because birth control means reaching this point in our lives:

When we’re ready.

And Mr. Brown?  You’re not only a hypocrite on the issue, you’re definitely on the wrong side of history.