Florida senatorial candidate Marco Rubio, once a strong advocate for repealing the entire health care law and replacing it with “real reforms,” is now telling reporters that he would not repeal the law’s pre-existing conditions exclusions and the provisions that allow children to stay on their parents’ policies until age 26. From National Review’s Jim Geraghty:

A small group of reporters in a D.C. coffee shop, chatting with Florida Republican Senate candidate Marco Rubio. He just mentioned that there are two parts within the Obamacare legislation that he doesn’t want repealed. The first is the ban on insurance companies denying coverage based on preexisting conditions and the second is that he thinks that children up to age 26 should be allowed to “buy into” their parents’ coverage.

Politics Daily’s Matt Lewis:

Rubio says he would NOT get rid of the pre-existing condition provision of Obamacare. Also wouldn’t overturn 26-yr-olds on parents insur.

The statements seem to contradict Rubio’s previously calls to completely scrap the law and start over. In January, Rubio signed a Club For Growth’s pledge to repeal the bill and after it passed, issued a statement reiterating his “strong support for repealing it when I get to Washington and offering alternative reforms to make health care more accessible and affordable.” Similarly, during a March 28th appearance on Fox News Sunday, Rubio told Chris Wallace, “I think the first step is to repeal it. We need to win a few elections before we can get there. But we certainly need to start campaigning and talking about it.”

Rubio’s recent comments also highlight the rift in the Republican party between repeal purists like Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and the Republican leadership, which has been reluctant to embrace complete repeal. King has filed a discharge petition on legislation he has drafted to repeal the law and is now lobbying to secure the 218 votes necessary to force House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to bring repeal to the floor. King has not yet convinced Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) to support the discharge petition.

Govs. Chris Gregoire (D-WA), Jennifer Granholm (D-MI), Ed Rendell (D-PA) and Bill Ritter (D-CO) have filed a joint motion asking the District Court of Northern Florida to reverse its decision disallowing interested parties to file amicus briefs and permit a “friend of the court” brief in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new law. The governors will argue that the court “should reject the attorney generals’ request that implementation of the health care reform law be prevented from moving forward” and will “provide specific examples showing why the health-care law is constitutional as a matter of interstate commerce.”

The request also highlights the tension between attorneys general and their governors, who often find themselves on different sides of the case. Washington AG Rob McKenna joined the lawsuit over the objections of the governor and in the press release announcing the ‘friend of the court’ request, Gregoire distances herself from his actions. “I’ve said from the beginning – the action of the Attorney General in filing this lawsuit does not represent the Governor, the Insurance Commissioner, legislative leadership, or thousands of Washingtonians in our state that would benefit from national health care reform,” Gregoire said. “We need to move forward. This legislation not only provides necessary care to millions of Americans who desperately need it – it protects our tax payers from the skyrocketing costs of health care.” The release offers some more details:

The governors worked to ensure the federal health reform law met the needs of the states, and will point to numerous benefits to the states from the federal-state partnership including:

Health insurance coverage for pre-existing medical conditions, which experience shows can only be sustained if individuals are discouraged from waiting until they become sick or injured to obtain health insurance.

Federal funding for programs that are now wholly state-funded or have waiting lists because of lack of funds, such as Washington’s Basic Health Plan that provides subsidized health insurance for low-income individuals.

Significant reductions in the “hidden tax” on the medical and insurance costs of those who pay their bills when the uninsured do not pay for health care they receive

Measures to control the skyrocketing costs of health insurance, which will help the economies of their states.

At least three attorneys generals are also petitioning the Florida court in the matter. AGs from Oregon, Iowa and Vermont hope to file a brief and make the case that the PPACA “is both constitutional and important to the health and welfare of their citizens.” “The brief argues that states are familiar with the ‘longstanding relationship between the federal government and the states in the healthcare arena and are similarly familiar with the strengths and limitations of a state-by-state approach to healthcare reform.’” “[W]ithout a national solution to the healthcare crisis,” the brief claims, “the Amici States would be forced to spend more and more on health care and yet slide farther and farther away from their obligation to protect the health and well being of their citizens.”

The US Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the case earlier this month and it’s scheduled for oral argument on Sept. 14, 2010.