Coakley decries health care bill

Coakley, in her boldest gamble of the campaign, said that fighting for women’s access to abortions was more important than passing the overall bill, despite its aim of providing coverage for 36 million people, establishing a public insurance option, and prohibiting insurers from discriminating against patients with preexisting conditions.

“To pretend that now the House has passed this bill is real progress - it’s at the expense of women’s access to reproductive rights,’’ Coakley said in an interview, after making similar comments yesterday morning on Boston radio station WTKK-FM.

She said later at a campaign appearance in Worcester, “I refuse to acknowledge that this is the best we can do.’’

Coakley’s opposition to the bill put her squarely at odds with her three rivals for the Democratic nomination, including US Representative Michael E. Capuano, who voted in favor of the plan and blasted Coakley’s stance yesterday, calling it “manna from heaven’’ for his campaign.

“I find it interesting and amazing, and she would have stood alone among all the prochoice members of Congress, all the members of the Massachusetts delegation,’’ Capuano said in an interview. “She claims she wants to honor Ted Kennedy’s legacy on health care. It’s pretty clear that a major portion of this was his bill.’’

He went on: “If she’s not going to vote for any bill that’s not perfect, she wouldn’t vote for any bill in history. She would have voted against Medicare, the Civil Rights bill. . . . Realism is something you have to deal with in Washington.’’

A spokeswoman for Capuano, however, declined later to say whether he would definitely vote for the final bill if it includes the abortion provision.

Their dueling stances highlighted key aspects of their campaigns: While Coakley is counting on the backing of women, especially those who support abortion rights, in the Dec. 8 primary, Capuano has cast himself as the only candidate in the race who understands how Capitol Hill works.

The other two Democrats in the race seized on Coakley’s comments, as well.

“If the House Democrats listened to Martha Coakley instead of [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi, health care would be dead right now,’’ Alan Khazei, who released a health care plan yesterday in Springfield, said in an interview. “She’s going to be the person that prevents universal health care for every person in this country. This is a big deal. This was the cause of Senator Kennedy’s life.’’

Stephen G. Pagliuca said that “casting a no vote would be to side with [Senator] Joe Lieberman and the insurance companies that want to kill health care reform.’’

Coakley’s opposition to the bill put her at odds with Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership, who said that including the abortion provision was a difficult but necessary trade-off to win the votes of more socially conservative members, thus ensuring the bill’s narrow passage. US Representative Niki Tsongas, a Lowell Democrat who just endorsed Coakley, was among those who agreed to that compromise.

“I share Attorney General Martha Coakley’s strong objection to the amendment included in the bill that severely restricts access to reproductive health services for women, an amendment that I voted against,’’ Tsongas said in a statement. “At the same time, we have an historic opportunity to expand access to health care for nearly all of our citizens.’’

Still, liberals in the House are now facing a backlash from abortion rights groups. And Coakley appears to have some company: Several dozen House Democrats vowed in a letter to vote against the final package if it includes the abortion provision. Capuano has not signed it; Tsongas has.

At issue is the so-called Stupak-Pitts Amendment, opposed by everyone in the Massachusetts delegation except Stephen Lynch and Richard Neal, which would prohibit abortion from being covered in any plan subsidized by the federal government. All delegation members voted in favor of the final bill.

The health care debate now moves to the Senate, where the abortion provision will surely be a major point of debate.

Some women’s groups rose to defend Coakley’s position yesterday.

“Either we have full health care for women or we don’t,’’ said Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women. “If women are going to be relegated to second-class status, let’s say so. Mr. Capuano may want women to be in second-class status; maybe he’s happy with that. My guess is Mr. Capuano has never worried about missing a period.’’

But Coakley’s opponents and political analysts said that if the debate continues into next year and Coakley wins the election, she could be the deciding 60th vote in the Senate. If Coakley stands firm - and she said yesterday that she would - that could mean Kennedy’s successor could end up voting against a bill that might accomplish what he fought for nearly half a century.

Capuano argued that, while he, too, supports abortion rights, gaining universal health care was a more far-reaching goal.

“Am I supposed to turn to all the people who need health care and say, ‘Forget it; the bill’s not perfect?’ ’’ Capuano said.

Coakley countered that there are some things on which she will not compromise.

“Let’s be clear on what’s principled here,’’ she said. “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? If Congressman Capuano feels that he has to sell one set of constitutional rights for another, then he should say that.’’

The candidates also squabbled yesterday over how many debates should be held during the final four weeks of the campaign. Pagliuca and Khazei released a letter yesterday to media organizations offering to pick up the considerable production costs associated with staging a televised debate. There has been only one televised debate so far, and it was only broadcast in the Boston media market.

Much of the focus has been on Coakley, who, as the presumptive front-runner, has shown the least enthusiasm for more debates. Coakley said it was not “appropriate for one or more candidates to underwrite a particular debate.’’

She said there have been a series of candidate forums, but said it was the media’s fault there have not been more debates.

“At a minimum, we need one other televised debate before the election,’’ Coakley said. “If media can agree when and how to do it, that’s great. We look forward [to] that, and we’ll be involved in it. But frankly it’s been the media arguing amongst themselves as to who’s going to host it and what night.’’

A consortium of media outlets, made up of The Boston Globe, WBUR, NECN, and WGBH-TV, has issued formal invitations to the four candidates to take part in a debate in the NECN studios at 7 p.m. Dec. 2. The debate, according to the sponsors, will take place with any or all of the candidates.

Andrea Estes of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Matt Viser can be reached at maviser@globe.com.