(UPDATED: to keep focus on the central policy issue, abortion service access.)
Coakley accepts curb on abortion coverage By Lisa Wangsness Globe Staff / December 21, 2009
WASHINGTON - State Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee for US Senate, reluctantly threw her support yesterday behind the Senate health care bill, even though it contains restrictions on abortion coverage that abortion rights groups are calling unacceptable.
[...]
An aide to Coakley said there is an important distinction between the House and Senate versions of the abortion language: The House would effectively bar any insurance plan accepting government subsidies from covering elective abortions, while the Senate would allow such insurers to sell plans covering abortions but require women to pay for that portion of the coverage separately.
Abortion rights groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America say the Senate bill would go well beyond longstanding federal policy prohibiting the use of federal funds for elective abortions and impose undue administrative burdens on women. As a result, Planned Parenthood opposes the overall health care bill, and NARAL has withheld its support.
read more
If you recall, this issue was a self-proclaimed defining moment during the primary between Martha Coakley and her closest competitor Mike Capuano, Martha said she would have voted against the health care reform bill in the house becuase of abortion service access.
She has changed her position now (with regard to the Senate bill) in a way that puts into question whether she meant what she said. Did Martha mean what she said when it comes to abortion service access? Jeralyn at TalkLeft says 'no', that despite Coakley's firm position before about not passing health care at the expense of abortion services access, Coakley would in fact do so:
...During her campaign to replace Sen. Ted Kennedy, she said she wouldn't support a bill with restrictions on abortion.
Today, she announced her support for the health care bill with its restrictions on abortion funding.
Coakley then:
Coakley's stand was a major point of debate during the campaign; several of her opponents criticized her for being willing to sink the overall health care bill over a single issue, but she insisted that there were some things on which she would not compromise.
[More...]
"Let's be clear on what's principled here,'' she said at the time of her opponent, US Representative Michael Capuano. "If it comes down to this in the Senate, and it's the health care bill or violating women's rights, where does he stand?''
How much did she mislead?
Coakley used her stark position on abortion rights to appeal to supporters for donations; in an e-mail, she declared her decision to take her position "a defining moment'' in her campaign.
Asked just last week whether she would vote against a bill that went beyond current law in restricting abortion coverage, Coakley said, "Yes, that's right.''
What's her excuse now?
Coakley said that although she was disappointed that the Senate bill "gives states additional options regarding the funding mechanisms for women's reproductive health services,'' she would reluctantly support it because it would provide coverage for millions of uninsured people and reduce costs.
BMG reader BrooklineTom offers some more specific critcism of this move by Coakley:
It seems to me that this confirms the hollowness of her original attack on Mike Capuano during the campaign. I see no reason to change any aspect of my initial assessment of her. She took a gratuitous cheap-shot at Mike Capuano, scored when he blundered his response, and landed with him at a posture promising to vote against any bill that extends anti-abortion provisions. Now she supports the exact same position that she opposed when she initiated the chinese fire-drill. She made one drive-by comment here, with zero followup. This candidate has zero substance. ZERO.
While her aides mouth empty support for public option, her behavior makes it clear that she is no fighter and no political strategist. She has, once again, chosen to roll over and play dead - and she isn't even elected yet.
David Dayen comments on abortion access in the Senate health care bill in his article called "Potential Pitfalls for the Health Care Bill as It Moves to Conference":
Here's the statement from Reps. Diana DeGette and Louise Slaughter on the Senate bill:
"As the Co-Chairs of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, we have serious reservations about the abortion provision included in the U.S. Senate's health care bill. This provision is not only offensive to people who believe in choice, but it is also possibly unconstitutional. As we have maintained throughout this process, health care reform should not be misused to take away access to health care. The more than 190-member Caucus will review this language carefully as we move forward on health care reform."
"Possibly unconstitutional" is a strong statement. And virtually every choice group, from Planned Parenthood on down, has expressed strong opposition to the Nelson language. At issue are two things: the segregation of funds, where women who receive subsidies on the exchange would have to give two checks to their insurance company to get reproductive choice coverage, which just comes off as humiliating. And then there's the state opt-out, where states could ban coverage in their state exchanges. That may be where the constitutional issues arise (although five states currently ban private coverage of abortion services).
The Backstory My newsreader said there was a story called
"Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb"
but it was nowhere to be found when I clicked in the link. A Google search told me it existed once, and that Jeryln at TalkLeft had written a post on it; her hyperlink to the Globe story was 404 too. I found this other story on Boston.com (quoted at the top of this diary) and presumed it was the same or similar story with the headline re-written
"Coakley accepts curb on abortion coverage"
There's no way to tell if copy was changed. What happened to the Globe's story?
Poll
Are you happy with the new corporatism where Americans w/o health care insurance MUST buy health care costing 20% of their income and still face large deductibles and co-pays?
