Coakley can’t even remember her position on *abortion* these days.

Bill Jacobson points out a minor detail with Martha Coakley trying to spin Scott Brown’s past support of permitting medical personnel to have a religious objection to the morning-after pill into being anti-rape victim: she’s on the record as supporting far more.  first, Legal Insurrection:

Here is the language in section 1302(a)(3) of the bill (at page 125) passed by the Senate on December 24 (emphasis mine), which Coakley says she supports:

PROVIDER CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS.—No individual health care provider or health care facility may be discriminated against because of a willingness or an unwillingness, if doing so is contrary to the religious or moral beliefs of the provider or facility, to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

The Senate language will provide protection for hospitals and doctors who, due to religious or moral beliefs (a broader exemption than Brown’s “religious beliefs” standard), refuse to provide abortions. This language is broad enough to provide an exemption even in the case of rape victims. This language also is not dependent upon whether the abortion service otherwise is allowed under the Hyde Amendment regarding federal funding of abortions.

Now – well, December – noted VWRC rag… TalkLeft:

Can’t say I didn’t warn you about Martha Coakley. The latest: a Bait and switch.  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.

As I noted at the time, when it came to abortion Coakley blatantly broke her word to the very progressive Left that she’s now trying to galvanize into action against Brown – for something that she’s hypocritically to Brown’s right on.  That’s politics for you: but if Coakley can’t even keep track of what she is and is not supposed to be supporting at any given time, well…

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.