a very strong bill.  I think it has all of the qualities we want in it — a strong public option, it covers pre-existing conditions — and frankly, it doesn’t have some of the things that you don’t want in this bill.

On creating jobs through innovation, Coakley said

…you need to have those public-private partnerships.  You need to work regionally with people in industry and elected officials, and you need to have the connection on when government can help and when it should get out of the way, as I’ve done with my Business Technology and Economic Division in the Attorney General’s office.

Coakley’s new ad shows that she understands the concerns of ordinary people who are struggling in this economic climate.  It touches on her newly-released jobs creation plan, which you can read here.  Coakley’s proposals include growth funding for existing local businesses, support for innovative start-ups, investment in green technology, tax incentives for hiring, and training for workers.

Before announcing her plan, Coakley was endorsed by a flock of executives who employ thousands of Bay Staters.  The executives represented industries ranging from fishing to high-tech to retail.  Dr. Sylvie Gregoire, President of Shire Human Genetics Therapies said of Coakley, “She will be an innovative leader who is not afraid to take on the challenges and do what it takes to help our economy.”

So, thinking this logic through:  In Pagliuca’s value system it’s fine to use and objectify women’s bodies for profit.  However, should any of those women’s bodies turn out to be not objects after all, but human beings in need of complete health care, please don’t bother him with that reality.

Don’t miss today’s Globe column by Joan Vennochi:  Taking a hit on health:  Why, that’s women’s work!  And here’s the second great report of the day from Alison King at NECN:

a small group of men who don’t represent American Catholics, let alone the American populace.

They claim that 84% of American Catholics want insurance to cover abortions when the life of the mother is in danger, and that 50% want coverage any time a mother and her doctor decide it is appropriate.  The group warns:

If the electorate sees that a woman’s right to choose is not a core value but simply a bargaining chip to be laid on the table when the going gets tough, there will be a price to pay.  We call on the Democratic leadership and all of our elected representatives to put forward health care reform that can be endorsed by the American people, not just the US Bishops.

Today’s press conference in DC was called by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.  On their website,  an open letter signed by members of Catholics for Choice, various Jewish groups, Unitarian Universalists, and mainline protestant denominations including Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, & Lutherans says:

As religious leaders, we support public policies that are just and compassionate and prioritize the needs of those who are poor and marginalized in our society.

…health care services, including abortion, must be available to all, regardless of income. If coverage for abortion is eliminated from health care reform, the poor and communities of color will bear the consequences. Already, a low-income woman is four times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy and five times as likely to have an unintended birth as her higher income counterpart. Lack of access to abortion services perpetuates inequality and compromises the future of women, their families and their communities.

Update:  Pagliuca issued a statement saying that he misunderstood the question and that

If there was a need to increase our troop levels beyond what could be supported by our voluntary recruitment, I would support a mandatory draft that would be fair, transparent, and equal.

Blogger Taylor Marsh is sensing excitiment about the issue, too. On today’s podcast, she says that since the House vote, she’s heard from a swell of concerned women.  And Coakley’s fired up, too.  In an interview with Marsh, she said:

This just seems incomprehensible that in 2009 we are taking steps back. And I just refuse to acknowledge that we have to make that [trade-0ff]…

Why can’t we just focus on… getting at some of the cost drivers in insurance. We have a little bit of head start here in Massachusetts. I can bring that to the Senate. I look forward to that. But I refuse to be distracted by saying that, well, we’ve got to compromise women’s choice, taking steps backwards in order to get real health care reform…

It’s then discouraging for people to say to me, you know, when I step up for women’s rights, to say ‘you’re just going to be in the way of health care. You’re the obstacle to getting good health care reform. We’ve got to turn that argument around. The obstacles to health care reform are these folks who would stand in the way of women’s rights.

Absolutely, but you know what? I’m not concerned about… Democrats, what I’m really concerned about are women on college campuses who are missing their periods.

Of course the problem isn’t limited to college campuses, but the point Matsen was making is that in all of the political horse trading, some law makers have lost sight of women.  Matsen reminded viewers of NOW’s health reform cred:

NOW was the first organization to come out in favor of single-payer health care is a feminist issue in 1995.

Yet she says Friday night’s “back-room deal” to vote on and eventually include the Stupak amendment changed the picture.

In all of my years of pro-choice organizing (and it’s not that many, I’m 29), I never thought I would make a sign that says My Body, My Money, My Choice. What we have for the first time is an attempt to bar women from using their own private funds, with private insurance companies, from accessing abortion…

Asked whether she agreed with the assessment that the worst thing that the Democrats can do on health care is nothing, Matsen said:

I do not agree with that at all… The notion that we should sacrifice our rights as women for the greater good is absolutely a false choice… I don’t believe that we can roll back women’s constitutional rights.

Oh my. For Capuano’s sake, let’s hope the congressional health plan offers coverage for candidates who become so dizzy from turning political somersaults that they suffer self-inflicted injuries to the foot.

…the man who purports to be a courageous call-them-as-he-sees-them straight shooter proved himself adept at taking refuge in self-serving distinctions – distinctions so carefully drawn that they could easily lead the unwary observer astray.

On Coakley, Leigh says he’s learned that she’s

ready to make the perfect the enemy of the good enough.

Dramatic new limits on access to a legal health service are far too serious to dismiss as an “imperfection.”  Any bill that restricts access to abortion is just NOT good enough.  This is about drawing a line in defense of choice, which shouldn’t be horse-traded away.  

For more information, also see a good article on WBUR.