Steve Pagliuca continues to take a stand on health care.

Steve Pagliuca held a press conference earlier today during which he reiterated his pledge to support health care reform in the Senate unconditionally.

"I believe unequivocal public support of healthcare legislation like the bill passed by the House is a minimum standard that voters have a right to demand from every candidate for this seat," said Pags.  I'll come back to that notion in a minute.

Pagliuca went on to criticize two of his opponents in the Senate race, Mike Capuano and Martha Coakley, for their respective pledges not to support a health care bill that includes abortion restrictions.  He also laid claim to the legacy of Ted Kennedy:

"I believe that Senator Kennedy would not take the position that Attorney General Coakley and Congressman Capuano have taken on this issue, and his own words are proof of that. My belief that he would not have done so is supported by two of the people who knew him best, his two sons. Congressman Patrick Kennedy last week made his position clear on this issue when he said 'for anybody running for especially my dad’s seat to condition their support on an issue as to whether they are going to vote for it or against it… to me misses my dad’s legacy of healthcare for all.'

...I also agree with what Ted Kennedy Jr. said just this week. He said his father 'wouldn’t have wanted to go backwards on reproductive rights, but he thought that perfect is the enemy of the good.' Ted Kennedy Jr. also said 'and if you have a good bill you should pass that and not wait for the most perfect piece of legislation.' I agree with Ted Kennedy Jr. and I'm sure his father would have agreed with that sentiment as well."

Pags went on to single out Martha Coakley:

"Recently a spokeswoman for Martha Coakley said, 'Steve Pagliuca is just wrong on this issue.' I’m here today to say that if I’m wrong, I’m in good company. If I'm wrong then Nancy Pelosi is wrong; then our ten pro choice Democratic Congressmen from Massachusetts, including Mike Capuano, were wrong when they cast that vote. And if I’m wrong, then Patrick and Ted Kennedy Jr. are wrong.  When you look at the facts and consider the real choice we are making ...its easy to see who is really wrong on this issue."

He then told a few stories about individuals he has met on the campaign trail, including a woman named Melody who wrote to Pags: “I can not understand the out cry over the healthcare reform… without my public option I know my life and the life of my husbands would be drastically different."

I need to find someone on the Connector Board to write me a guest post or something to clarify this issue: Massachusetts does not have a public option.  We have the Massachusetts Health Care Connector, which connects people who cannot afford or do not have health insurance with a variety options, including subsidized coverage, and we have the GIC, which provides health insurance to state employees.  These are not public options.

Getting back to Pagliuca, his speech then addressed women's health issues, laying out a variety of conditions that would be covered under the new law. Pags says these issues, such as "gender ratings," access to breast cancer screenings, and cervical cancer prevention need to be weighed the same as abortion.

He concluded:

"Healthcare reform has failed for generations because we’ve lacked the leaders in Washington who were willing to stand up and be counted and who refuse to be derailed. We are at the crossroads today, and we cannot detour and turn our back on women and families who need fundamental reform in healthcare to survive. I will stand with those women and families, and tens of millions more who desperately need help now, not turn my back on them. I will proudly cast a reliable 60th vote for healthcare reform."

What jumps out at me most is Pagliuca's call in the beginning of the speech for "unequivocal" public support for health care legislation like the bill passed by the house.  I doubt that voters themselves unequivocally support the bill, even those who are fighting for passage of reform.  There are a whole lot of proposed changes in the legislation, including some that will likely impact health care reform in Massachusetts.

What do readers think?  Putting Stupak-Pitts aside for a second, should Senators be unequivocally supporting any legislation?