Regarding Affordable Care Act: Most ACA benefits require an implementation period and won't be available until 2014. My family has benefited from ACA. I have 2 sons that remain on my family health plan - a huge benefit. My elderly parents fell into the donut hole and can now afford their medications. My family, friends, and neighbors have pre-existing conditions and will no longer be denied coverage or forced out of the system by higher premiums. I am a woman and very much appreciate that insurance companies can no longer charge me more for my policy than my male colleagues. I will also appreciate it when I no longer have to pay higher premiums to cover expenses incurred by uninsured people that have the resources to pay for insurance but choose not to. That is not liberty. It is freeloading.

Regarding Elizabeth Warren: I believe it is possible to relate to people of different means and that Warren has long been a champion for the middle class. She grew up in a family of modest income. She had her first child at 19. As a mother, she attended the University of Houston and Rutgers, both public universities.

Warren's work throughout her life has focused on how our middle class family income shifted in the last 40 years from being able to support a family on one income to barely able to meet needs on two incomes and therefore forced to rely heavily on credit. Warren is courageous in her advocacy and speaks up to lenders eager to profit on our misfortune.

Regarding Brown and his co-sponsorship of the Blunt Amendment: The Blunt Amendment doesn't just apply to women. It would have allowed any insurer and/or employer to deny coverage for any service based on a "moral conviction". As I said earlier, that's a slippery slope that can be used to deny men and women health coverage. Carol Keehan, the president and CEO of Catholic Health Association, said that President Obama’s compromise
approach “protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions.’’ This amendment wasn't about the Catholic Church. It was another example of the Republican Party appeasing the far right by further restricting women's reproductive rights as well and denying health coverage to both men and women.

Women pay the same amount or more for their health premiums. It is not a "handout" to expect that we can get our prescriptions filled. FindBalance - $10 is a co-pay rate (and a low one at that) - not the amount women pay if they are denied coverage.

Women also expect to be paid the same rate as their male counterparts when performing the same job. Again, not a handout. Scott Brown voted against equal pay for women.

Hi Anne - It is not up to the govt to mandate that someone provide a particular service - if you want that service, find a provider that will provide it to you, and meet their criteria. Govt involvement is the easy road, but leads to more govt control and you become more dependent on govt.

Since health insurance doesn't pay for condoms, is that a war on men. Condoms help prevent the spread of AIDS, so then wouldn't that be a war on people? Take responsibility into your own hands and don't rely on govt intrusion.

RE Women's salaries for doing "the same job". Again, if you are a women and think you aren't getting the same salary as a man doing the same job, don't rely on govt intervention, go find another company that values you at the rate you believe for your ability. That's what men do when they are passed over for promotions and/or feel they are not being compensated as well for doing "the same job" as a co-worker. And I question what "the same job" is - there are so many other factors that have greater influence over compensation than just male/female - like how well the job is done, what is the dedication to the job, are you willing to put more time in on a consistent basis to do more in a particluar position? If a woman is truly superior to man in these regards, then make the case to your employer, and if they don't listen, go find another employer who values you to the degree you believe you deserve. That's what a job market is all about.

Scott Brown's voting record demonstrates his lack of support for women or middle class families. He was a co-sponsor of the Blunt Amendment which would have allowed employers to deny birth control AND other services based on religious or moral convictions. That is one slippery slope. Do you want to have to explain to your boss why he/she should not morally object to any medication or operation you may need?

Brown voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act to support equal pay for women doing the same work as men. He voted against several job bills that would have put MA residents back to work. Brown's support for Wall Street and continued deregulation puts our families at risk but rewards him personally as the top beneficiary of Wall Street tycoons. Warren, on the other hand, fought for a federal Consumer Protection Agency. We now have mortgage documents that are simple to read and protect us from legal jargon that previously led to foreclosures. Credit card companies are required to state their lending terms in a way that borrowers can understand. These practices are in place to combat the lies and deceptions of big business.

Anne - who received more donations from Wall Street than anyone ever - Pres Obama.

What were the jobs bills Brown voted against - they were govt spending bills that would have cost tax payers more, and would be unsustainable. Big diff between Brown and Warren - Brown believes that private sector creates jobs, Warren believes govt spending creates jobs.

Talk about twisted (I'm sorry - that's the only word I can use to accurately describe what you are doing) narration this war on women is. No one is owed anything by anyone else - you want to mandate that by govt intervention. By preventing the Catholic church from making a policy based on their religious tenets, they are infringing on freedom of religion. You're bickering over a $10/month birth control pill; let me ask - is there no handout for which you are not willing to ask? Go out and make yourself of value to some one or company that is willing to pay you at a level for you to pay for what you want; in other words, earn what you get. No one owes you anything.

FindBalance--we're still waiting for your credible sources on Obama being the biggest recipient of Wall Street donors ever. And as for nobody owing anything to anybody, that may or may not be true. But nice people looking for balance usually agree to at least pretend that they owe the people they are talking to a bit of courtesy. Your attack on Anne is REALLY inappropriate.

She found my hot button, David. There is some twisting in politics, but this Republican war on women narrative brings twisting to far greater heights - don't you agree? I do owe Anne a little courtesy - but that is not what I was referring to when I said no one owes her anything. Do I need to explain further?

FindBalance--we're still waiting for your credible sources on Obama being the biggest recipient of Wall Street donors ever:

Here are some:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/10/guess-which-president-has-raked-in-the-most-wall-street-bucks-in-a-generation/
Despite his rhetorical attacks on Wall Street, a study by the Sunlight Foundation’s Influence Project shows that President Barack Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years, including former President George W. Bush.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-20/politics/obama.goldman.donations_1_obama-campaign-presidential-campaign-federal-election-commission-figures?_s=PM:POLITICS

From FactCheck.org
During the 2008 campaign, Obama raised about $42.8 million from the finance/insurance/real estate industry -- far above McCain’s haul of about $31.1 million. (FactCheck.org wrote that Obama’s haul was more than George W. Bush’s in 2004 even when adjusted for inflation.)

Add up all the financial grpoups, and Pres Obama was supported by Wall Street more than any other President.

Now THIS, FindBalance, is fascinating! Your second link claims that despite the large investment by Goldman Sachs in the Obama campaign in 2008, Obama's government has NOT given them special treatment--in fact, he has not pandered to his donors, wherever they are from. Good for him! The first link, which any reader will recognize as rather biased, would seem to be counterBALANCED by the respected Christian Science Monitor's recent claims that Wall Street has "returned" to the Republican Party, and that RIGHT NOW, Wall Street is supporting Romney, not Obama. That is, ROMNEY is receiving the greatest number of dollars for his campaign, not the incumbent. Something to think about, no?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/From-the-Wires/2012/0202/Mitt-Romney-draws-more-Wall-Street-donations-than-Obama

Ooh, John, I used to like your style. So I take it you don't believe a word that Elizabeth Warren says? You don't accept that she was raised to believe she had Native Americans among her ancestors? And so she's a racist? And she's lying when she says that her employers never knew or cared about her self-identification? And they're lying if they back her up? And she "runs around masquerading" ... in order to "aquire money and land herself a professorship at a Harvard"? (That IS bad, acquiring money! And getting a good job, too! Are there no depths to her evil?) And she "stole recipes"? You certainly do describe a monster! But it is nothing like the Elizabeth Warrren I have heard on the radio, providing the public with accurate and useful and urgent information about the destructive practices of the large financial institutions which have done so much to prostrate this country, and which threaten every working American. But I get it, you don't like her. So you should probably vote for Brown.

Thank you again, Dan.

Dan, you must really be blind to miss the obvious!! The reason that a declaration of minority status and ethnic background are on application forms of any kind is because THEY ARE USED IN MAKING DECISIONS ON THE APPLICANT! Why, do you believe that they are on the form to fill unused space??!! Please.....

Okay, Bob, now why not take apart your last post--try to understand that vague "for some reason" that you are so immune to Warren's appeal. Your description of her as "spewing" and "parroting"--and perhaps just channeling the Governor--that's all rough stuff, but you haven't presented anybody with your real reason for not caring about her record of working for the middle classes--of fighting successfully for the rights of middle class, working Americans, who are up against the vast and exploitative financial giants that work to distort our democracy. Anne has posted some very informative stuff on one of the related blogs on The Patch--not vague and vitriolic accusations, but sound and useful and demonstrable information about what Warren does and continues to do to help middle class Americans. And at some point I hope we can move beyond the Native American connection--1/32 is 1/32. Unless of course YOU have discovered evidence, unavailable to all the other angry, name-calling Warren-maligners, that she deliberately lied and benefited from lying about what she was raised to believe about her ancestors. Is that REALLY the issue you want to cast your vote on? "She works hard and gets things done for the working classes, but she thought she was Native American, so I am not voting for her, that so-and-so!" REALLY???

Ray, really? You've never seen a more phony politician in your life? You must be very young indeed. That would explain the scatological humor, I suppose. And though children tend to care about precision and accuracy, and knowing where things come from, it might also explain your absolutely unfounded assertion that you pay Elizabeth Warren with your precious tax dollars--you don't. And huge salaries are relative--both Brown and Warren do have impressive salaries. As far as being scripted, when you're older you'll see that so much of politics sounds scripted--in part for the protection of the politician from constant misquoting and attack.

No, Joe, they CAN be used in making decisions, and in some places, in filling quotas. But that is by no means automatic. If you say you have Native American ancestry on an application, and your application is subsequently successful, that does NOT mean that your Native American ancestry played any part--negative or positive--in your success. You really should familiarize yourself with the process (generally, and at specific institutions, and in particular situations involving specific individuals), before repeating accusations. Accusations which, by the way, Elizabeth Warren addressed calmly in the recent Patch Q&A, to which you are referred.

Why would Prof Warren chack the Native American box, if it was not her intent to get some kind of advantage?

As for Harvard answering the question of whether they hired her, their answer is suspect so as to save face. I am sure they used her status in their progaganda of how many minorities they hire.

If you don't think Harvard uses minority stats, you are naive, David. And yes, Harvard would lie to save face - it only makes sense.

And EW will be a smarter fighter for working Americans - all it will cost is your liberty, power, and choice, because the direction she will go in is that Govt knows best, and will provide for you...

No one, in law, is convicted on generalities and the assumptions of a third party. You are that third party here, FB. Claiming to know what the box is for (you've given us one example of what the box doubtless is for, but you haven't shown that it was used in this case for that purpose), claiming to know exactly why she checked the box (which you do not know--and there are numerous possible reasons for checking a box, including "to tell the truth"--I am still waiting for some evidence that she did not believe she was telling the truth. And think about it, I have seen and filled out many applications, and if I check the Caucasian box, am I doing that to get an advantage? If I choose NOT to check the Caucasian box, am I doing THAT to get an advantage? How do YOU claim to know, in either case?) As far as "proving" that Harvard "lied"--your string is even weaker. You can't convict an instititution by listing, as you have, "things that they do" without demonstrating that in this particular case specific individuals did these particular things. And in academic situations, by the way, students who receive special treatment (which can include scholarships, etc.) specifically based on heritage, are not usually kept in the dark about that. In other words, it would not be kept secret from the student or the public, and to actually receive tangible benefits, it is (and has been for decades, eg at Berkeley) necessary to produce written proof of a far closer connection than Warren's.

Keep drinking the Coolaid Dave. The rest of us with objective minds are moving on!

David - I am not a third party in this scenario, I am a juror, and I have seen enough evidence to convict both EW and Harvard. To you, this seems not to be enough evidence, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Yes, FindBalance--I agree with that!