The latest attack on Mitt Romney’s abortion conversion narrative involves his signature healthcare plan — which he now is distancing himself from. The question, raised by Red State and The Prowler and based on more information from Mass Resistance, is whether the healthcare plan expanded publicly funded abortion, which Romney was on record supporting in 2002.
There are several problems with that.
First, that isn’t Romney’s position anymore. Remember. He converted? No one would take "I won’t change the law" as a credible pro-life position. Now Romney’s position is:
As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life.
This is the standard that Romney should be held to, not his pro-choice position. This is especially important because, again, this took place in 2006, about 18 months after Romney’s supposed conversion.
Second, this does change law. This law requires everyone to have health insurance and creates a subsidy for those who cannot afford it. Therefore, it subsidizes the insurance of poor women. Since Massachusetts law requires abortion to be covered, this creates a new subsidy of abortions by the state government. I think that most Republican pro-life advocates would consider creating new entitlements that subsidize abortions expanding abortion rights.
Third, when Romney talks about the over-regulation of Massachusetts health insurance, he explicitly gives the example that the law requires that men have coverage for in-vitro fertilization. And he worked to repeal that requirement. But he did not work to make sure that abortion wasn’t covered.