Obama Mandate Could Keep Massachusetts Senate Seat GOP

State   |   Andrew Bair   |   Feb 21, 2012   |   11:40AM   |  

Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat running to unseat Senator Scott Brown, has done what few thought was possible: move too far to the left in the deep blue state of Massachusetts. The Harvard Law professor and former member of the Obama Administration has come out in full force in favor of the recent HHS mandate, which violates basic conscience rights and lays the groundwork for a national abortion mandate.

Warren has not even tried to moderate her left-wing views in the race, even claiming last year to Samuel P. Jacobs of the Daily Beast to have “created the intellectual foundation” for the Occupy Wall Street movement. Warren also added, “I support what they do.” This “intellectual foundation” has resulted in countless sordid reports of sexual assault, violence, drug overdoses, vandalism and public defecation at Occupy sites. And yet, Massachusetts voters still gave her an edge over Republican incumbent Scott Brown in the polls. (And by the way, Warren has yet to condemn the movement.)

In December, a UMass Lowell/Boston Herald poll had Warren up by 7 points. A WBUR poll earlier this month again showed Warren with a lead over Brown. The race was relatively quiet for several weeks until the issue of the HHS mandate came to the forefront. Shortly after Brown took a stand against the mandate and Warren in favor, new polling data from Suffolk University/7News found Brown with a 9-point lead over Warren (49%-40% among 600 likely voters).

Warren was outraged by Brown’s support for the Blunt Amendment, which protects the rights of private insurers to abstain from covering services with which they are morally opposed. Despite the fact that these conscience protections were the law of the land prior to Obamacare in 2010, Warren told the Washington Post, “I am shocked that Sen. Brown jumped in to support such an extreme measure. This is an all-new attack on healthcare. Any insurance company could leave anyone without healthcare, just when they need it most.”

Warren may just be the second coming of Martha Coakley, the Democratic Senate candidate who lost to Brown in the 2010 special election primarily over the issue of healthcare reform. They say that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. A combination of Scott Brown’s charisma, Obamacare’s unpopularity and an out-of-touch Democratic candidate spelled electoral success for Republicans in January 2010 in Massachusetts. Similar dynamics seem to be taking shape.

Brown remains widely popular with the Massachusetts electorate with 52% of respondents in the latest Suffolk University/7News poll saying they had a favorable impression of the Senator. Only 28% responded that they had an unfavorable opinion. Warren, on the other hand, could only muster 35% favorable to 28% unfavorable.

Senator Brown, who earned the backing of Massachusetts Citizens for Life during the 2010 special election, has gone on to surprise many by taking several key pro-life votes. After decades of Senator Kennedy casting pro-abortion vote after pro-abortion vote, Brown has been nothing short of refreshing coming from Massachusetts. In fact, Brown has earned a 75% rating from the National Right to Life Committee. That is a huge improvement over the 0% consistently held by Kennedy and the 0% that would be held by Warren if elected. Brown’s support for the Blunt Amendment and consistent opposition to Obamacare is commendable and reminds pro-life advocates that elections have consequences. There are not always perfect candidates in every race, but we must vote for the candidate that will move the ball furthest down the field in the effort to protect each innocent human life.