Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson Camps Feud Over Abortion, Health Care 
Email this article
Printer friendly page
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
November 15, 2007
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — After Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson received the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee on Tuesday, his campaign went on the offensive. It’s attacking former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for including abortion in his state health care plan — something the Romney camp says is off base.
The Thompson campaign is blasting Romney saying that, under his state healthcare plan, abortions are covered and the normal cost is reduced to $50 for anyone who wants an abortion.
Thompson’s camp points to a list of services in the Commonwealth Care plan Romney signed into law, showing the co-pay for an abortion.
In an email to LifeNews.com, the Thompson campaign said Romney could have struck abortion from the plan when he vetoed other portions of it, but failed to do so.
"While court mandate requires Massachusetts to cover ‘medically necessary’ abortions in state-subsidized health plans, Mitt Romney’s plan covers ALL abortions — no restrictions," Thompson’s campaign said.
"After it passed, Romney vetoed dental care for Medicaid recipients from his health plan, but did nothing to prevent coverage of abortion on demand for a mere $50," it added. "It’s a government subsidized health care plan that requires citizens to register with the state, slaps working people with tax penalties, and provides $50 abortions on demand."
The Romney campaign has responded with a press release it sent to LifeNews.com saying the former governor didn’t put abortion coverage in the state plan.
"The Massachusetts Health Plan benefits package was developed by an independent authority separate from the governor’s office," the Romney camp told LifeNews.com.
The Romney campaign also said that, in 1981, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Massachusetts Constitution required payment for abortions for Medicaid-eligible women. The court reaffirmed the decision in 1997.
"Unfortunately, under state law and court precedent, if the state is funding health care benefits it cannot refuse to provide abortion coverage," the campaign added.
