Scott Brown's abortion problem

[Ian David]

Published Jan 04 2010, 11:20 AM by Adam Reilly


When the Globe profiled would-be US Senator Scott Brown last month, I asked whether the attendant description of Brown as "basically in favor" of abortion rights was correct. I also made multiple attempts to get an answer from the Brown campain, to no avail.

Now the Globe has followed up with a story that explores the abortion positions of Brown and his Democratic rival, Martha Coakley. And the description of Brown's stance might cost him the votes of people who like the idea of a Republican Massachusetts Senator--but also worry about the long-term prospects for abortion rights

...Brown, a state senator from Wrentham, picked up 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.

“We’re behind him,’’ said John Rowe, chairman of the group’s federal political action committee. “The pro-life vote is very important at this point. It can make a big difference.’’

<snip>

In addition to his sponsorship of the Women’s Right to Know bill, 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....

“There is nothing that I can see that demonstrates that he would support abortion rights,’’ said Dianne Luby, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, which also endorsed Coakley.


<snip>

UPDATE: Thanks to Steven Ertelt, editor of LifeNews.com, for linking to an item that elaborates on Mass. Citizens for Life's support of Brown. That item reads, in part:

Jack Rowe, chairman of the MCFL PAC, emailed LifeNews.com today to say that he is seeing movement in Brown's direction. "People are terribly upset about health care and asking what to do. Here is the very exciting part. We in Massachusetts can actually save the whole country from this awful health care. Our PAC has been supporting Scott Brown because he will be a pro-life vote in the Senate. Scott Brown will also vote against the health care bill. After the compromise bill comes out of conference, it must be approved again by each house. Brown will vote against the bill. That means there will not be 60 votes in the Senate. That means the bill will be defeated." That's a lofty goal but Rowe is encouraging pro-life advocates in Massachusetts to get involved in the special election. "Can we do it? We certainly can! Turn-out will be very small," he said -- adding that the pr-life movement could change the dynamics of the race of it gets mobilized.

More:
http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/dontquoteme/archive/2010/01/04/scott-brown-s-abortion-problem.aspx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PHXDontQuoteMe+%28Dont+Quote+Me%29

[Mass]

1. This is what the Boston Heral calls a social moderate in its endorsement.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view.bg?articleid=1224899&pos=breaking

[BayPatriot]

2. How is this anti-abortion?

Do you support laws that make people go against their religious beliefs? The abortion seeker is free to go elsewhere.

Freedom of religion is freedom FROM government interference w/ religion...

[PM Martin]

3. It is also about religions staying out of politics.

[BayPatriot]

4. agreed

It's meant to prevent the establishment of a state religion, but ultimately the founding fathers were concerned about the government exercising tyrannical control over the citizenry.

So, both of our interpretations are valid.

[Tesha]

5. Yeah. If they can't get an abortion in, say, Mississippi, well, there's always NYC. (NT)

[BayPatriot]

6. yeah, that's relevant

seriously, there's a real wide lane between asking doctors and hospitals not to compromise their religious beliefs and your 'example'.

[Tesha]

7. It IS relevant if there are limited medical resources around.

Remember, your boy is running for FEDERAL office and so will
have some jurisdiction over places that are rather less civilized
and less well-served by medical establishments than is Massachusetts.

Tesha

[BayPatriot]

8. so you agree that law should force someone to disregard their religion?

[Tesha]

9. Perhaps people with those sorts of strong religious beliefs need a line of work...

where'shere they won't have such moral quandries.

So, "yes", if you want to be a pharmacist, then you must
be willing to dispense pharmaceuticals, even to pregnant
women or women who are trying to avoid pregnancy. And
if you're going to be a gynecologist, you must be willing to
provide the full range of accepted medical services. And the
same for hospitals.

Ad if your god says you can't do that, find a new line of work.
(Many Christians seem to like military service where they get
to kill everyone, not just women.)

Tesha

[BayPatriot]

10. do u think a law like that should be passed?

should we bar Christians from being doctors?

should we close all the Christian-based hospitals? that seems like a far worse result to me, but sounds like that's what you want.



It also sounds like you equate abortion to war. I would tend to agree. Both are evil. thanks for helping make the point.

[Tesha]

11. Of course we shouldn't bar Christians from being doctors.

Relatively few Christians hold nutty beliefs about abortion
and contraception.

And with regard to abortion equalling war, you really are
irony-impaired, aren't you? Apparently it doesn't strike you
as the least bit odd that the Christians who are the "farthest
out" on their beliefs about abortion being murder are also the
folks who are most hot on "killing them all and letting God sort
them out."

Tesha

[BayPatriot]

12. wow, what a generalization

Besides your obvious distain for Christians, where's your proof for 'folks who are the most hot on'.

Prejudge much?

It's so great to see folks like yourself who talk about 'diversity' and 'tolerance' being the most bigoted and hateful.

In my opinion Christian beliefs instruct that ALL life is sacred. Both the unborn and the violent. I'm not beyond self protection, but how can one justify killing an innocent child?

This is all besides the original point, which is do you feel it's right to make someone compromise their beliefs by law? That's all Scott Brown was trying to protect.

Why is that so offensive and scary to you?

[Tesha]

13. Sorry friend, I'm all out of tolerance for those Christians who are intolerant.

And *NOTHING* you say will change my mind in that regard.

> In my opinion Christian beliefs instruct that ALL life is sacred.

You're seriously disconnected from a fairly mainstream branch of
"Christian" belief then.

Have fun voting for Brown on Tuesday.

Tesha

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AllieB]

16. Roe v. Wade is the law. If it is against your religious beliefs, tough sh*t.

A white doctor could use your argument to not treat African-American patients because its against his beliefs. Row v. Wade is the law of the land, and you can't comply with it, you should not be a medical professional. Period.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RBInMaine]

14. I'm from Maine and have donated to Coakley twice. Get out there and WIN this !

[OHdem10]

15. Brown is Pro Choice, his position on cultural issues reflect Guilliani

not the Republican Party. This is why Rudy campaigned with him,
distancing himself from the Party Rockribs.

Even Huckabee explained that they had to give consideration
to Republicans from Blue State like Mass.

[Mass]

18. Really? In this case, this is a perfect case of flip-flopping. He has been for years

a leader of the fight against gay-marriage, and has been supported for years by pro-life organizations.

I know the media have tried to paint him as moderate, but it does not reflect what we see here.