A former Kennedy staffer explains the difference between Kennedy and Brown

[karynnj]

While Ted Kennedy was pro-choice in all his policy positions, he really did oppose abortion as a personal matter. Still, he would not permit his own beliefs to dictate the decision made by any individuals. Similarly, he felt that individual physicians, nurses and facilities who delivered medical services should not be compelled to provide services against their religious or moral beliefs. And still, he adamantly protected the right of every individual to get the medical care they wanted for themselves.

By contrast, Scott Brown's legislation would permit any employer and health insurer to deny coverage for any essential or preventive medical service to which they morally object, thus creating a real economic barrier for many individual workers, as well as a host of new ways for employers and health insurers to skirt the consumer protections in the Affordable Care Act. Brown wants to allow powerful employers and insurers to dictate their choices and preferences to individuals.

That is where Brown and Kennedy are worlds apart.

Kennedy's priority always was consistent: protecting the rights of the individual. Brown's priority is the protection of the prerogatives of powerful institutions against the individual.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/health_stew/2012/02/sen_brownsen_kennedy_the_essen.html

[Vincardog]

1. That is what the difference between the Democratic Party and the GOP used to be.

[Inuca]

2. You mean it needs to be explained?

I know what yo mean, it's just the firsy thought that popped into my head when I saw your post. It's night & day.

[ProSense]

3. Brown did

it again, compared himself to Kennedy:

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.

As a husband and father of two daughters, I believe insurance companies should have to cover services that many women want and rely on. But I also recognize that there are some people who, based on their deepest moral and religious convictions, don’t agree with me regarding some of those services. We must seek to respect their rights, too.

My predecessor, the late Senator Ted Kennedy, believed just as I do. In a 2009 letter to Pope Benedict XVI, he expressed his support for a conscience exemption: “I believe in a conscience protection for Catholics in the health care field and will continue to advocate for it.’’

- more -

http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/02/24/bill-supporting-exemption-matter-fundamental-fairness/52QLFwoDyNQdOumAdbMoDO/story.html

Elizabeth Warren called him in a counter op-ed

MAYBE YOU saw the pictures. Five middle-age men seated at a congressional hearing table to discuss freedom of religion and contraception. And not a single woman was on the panel. Unbelievable. Do you think Congress would ever have a hearing on prostate cancer and only have women speak? Of course not.

Washington is so out of touch with what’s happening to families across this country that the Senate is about to vote on an amendment that would allow any insurance company or any employer to claim a vague “moral conviction’’ as an excuse to deny you health care coverage. Here’s the really astonishing news: Senator Scott Brown is not only voting for this amendment, he is fighting to get it passed.

What does this mean? 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.’’

- more -

http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/02/24/denying-women-coverage-under-any-guise-big-step-backward/HLh4hEudmKIJGgShv8NeTL/story.html

[karynnj]

4. I'm beginning to wonder when Vicki will respond

I'm thinking that the staffer's excellent oped was essentially informing Brown and everyone else that Kennedy would not have supported this. Not to mention, he keeps calling it bipartisan when the only Democrat is Ben Nelson. I don't remember a whole lot of times where Teddy and Ben Nelson stood against the rest of the Democrats - especially on an amendment that would ultimately gut healthcare reform.

I suspect that it will be a while before we hear from Vicki (or Kerry). The more times that Brown has the chutzpah to take a dead man's reputation to use politically against the main cause of the man's life, the more this sticks to him. He is a creepy demagogue here. To go as far as to say "it borrows language" from a Kennedy bill is sick - especially as the Kennedy staffer already identified how different the two objectives are.

This goes beyond someone like Kerry being able to use the Benson line - that Brown is no EMK - this has to offensive to the people who really loved Ted Kennedy.

[MBS]

5. I suspect that we will hear plenty from both of them

(that is, from JK and Vicki) when it comes time for the general election.
Granted that Warren is the presumptive Dem nominee, still: Sen. Kerry seems to have a general (and, to me, wise) principle (with some exceptions for veterans) of not getting involved in primaries, especially not in Massachusetts. So my theory is that they are holding their fire until September.

[Inuca]

7. Offensive is the very first word

that came to my mind as well.

[Mass]

6. Surprise, surprise. The Boston Globe jumps to Brown's rescue in an editorial this morning.

They do not go as far as saying that Kennedy would have sided with Brown, but they chide the Kennedy family for saying that Brown misunderstood the late senator.


http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2012/02/29/kennedy-family-isn-only-interpreter-senator-legacy/LvUPlXdFrcnhmQUqJLRpMK/story.html

Kennedy family isn’t only interpreter of senator’s legacy

...
Kennedy’s words were open to interpretation: When he referred to “conscience protection,’’ was he referring only to abortion? Or would he also extend “conscience protection’’ to church-affiliated institutions that oppose insurance coverage for contraception? While Kennedy family members have every right to express an opinion about how the late senator’s principle might be applied, so do others - including US Senator Scott Brown.

...

That assertion led Patrick Kennedy - Kennedy’s son and a former eight-term congressman from Rhode Island - to ask Brown to take down the radio ad and, beyond that, to refrain “from citing my father any further.’’

...
In fact, Edward Kennedy’s legislative record suggests he likely would have agreed with the Obama administration’s original contraception mandate, or at least with a subsequent compromise. Yet in demanding that Brown stop quoting Edward Kennedy, Patrick Kennedy is seeking to manage how others might construe his father’s decades-long legislative legacy. The more far-reaching a public figure’s work, the more it necessarily belongs to everyone.

This surely won’t be the last time Edward Kennedy’s name - like those of his brothers and many other larger-than-life figures - will be invoked in ways that rankle his immediate family. Massachusetts voters may conclude that Brown is misappropriating Kennedy’s memory. But that, ultimately, isn’t for the Kennedy family to decide. The family went so far as to put the senator’s private correspondence into the public sphere. Now that it’s there, everyone, including Brown, is allowed to interpret it.

As usual, the Globe tries to find a defense for Brown, even though there does not seem to be one. Yes, you can interpret, but can you lie?