Most Republicans are not satisfied with the modification, however, and are co-sponsoring legislation that would significantly broaden the conscience exclusion. On Monday night, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) joined the pack, with a spokesperson telling the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent that the senator “appreciates President Obama’s willingness to revisit this issue, but believes it needs to be clarified through legislation” that would permit any employer or insurance plan to exclude any health service, no matter how essential, from coverage if they morally object to it.

But Massachusetts already requires insurers to carry contraceptive coverage for women and Brown voted for the provision as a member of the Massachusetts House on Jan. 30, 2002, ThinkProgress has learned. At the time, the Catholic Conference of Massachusetts, lobbied against the measure and urged lawmakers to adopt an amendment exempting organizations that are affiliated with the Catholic church or have a moral objection to contraception. Brown supported that provision, but once it failed in a vote of 106 to 49, he voted ‘YES’ on the underlying bill, which only exempted “an employer that is a church or qualified church-controlled organization” from offering birth control:

Since Obama’s new federal standard would allow church-affiliated nonprofits to eschew birth control coverage, it could offer greater conscience protections to Massachusetts’ Catholic colleges, universities, and hospitals. For instance, if Boston College is required to provide birth control under the Brown-approved law, it could drop the coverage — and leave the matter to its insurer — under Obama’s regulation.

Interestingly, Brown also voted for a 2005 bill mandating hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims, even after lawmakers defeated his amendment to allow religious hospitals to opt out of the requirement. Brown split with then-Gov. Mitt Romney on the matter and joined the legislature in overriding his veto.

Brown’s office did not immediately respond to ThinkProgress’ request for comment.

Romney prefers to focus on his past as a corporate executive at Bain Capital, where he often invested in companies and laid off workers while reaping huge profits. But a closer look at Romney’s governorship of Massachusetts, from 2003 to 2007, reveals that his “experience” as a job-creator isn’t all that great. In fact, Massachusetts lagged behind the nation in virtually every economic measure, Andrew Sum, an economics professor at Northeastern University, told the Washington Post:

“There was not one measure where the state did well under his term in office. We were below average and often near the bottom,” said Sum, who is also the director of Northeastern’s Center for Labor Market Studies.

Romney’s campaign points out that he took over the state during a downturn, which is true. But Massachusetts was 47th in the nation in job creation during Romney’s time as governor, and by the beginning of the Great Recession, it still had not replaced 100,000 jobs lost to the 2001 recession, making it one of only four states not to have replaced all its lost jobs over that time period. The state’s jobs record during that time more closely resembled those of Rust Belt manufacturing states like Michigan and Ohio than the high-tech economies of New York and North Carolina, two states to which it had once compared itself.

While the unemployment rate under Romney did fall, it was largely due to contraction of the labor force — a criticism Romney has often leveled at Obama. According to Sum, the only state that saw a sharper drop in its labor force during Romney’s tenure was Louisiana, the state that was ravaged by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Without Romney in command, the state’s economy has rebounded much faster from the next recession it faced, creating jobs at nearly twice the national rate and ranking in the top 10 nationally. Romney is banking his presidential campaign on his experience creating jobs and leading an economy out of a downturn. If these numbers are any indication, that’s an experience the American people may not want.

“We must have a president who is willing to protect America’s first right, a right to worship God, according to the dictates of our own conscience,” Romney told an audience of nearly 3,000 people in Colorado. “We’ll either have a government that protects religious diversity and freedom, or we’ll have a government that tells us what kind of conscience they think we ought to have.” But Romney’s new-found outrage is a stark contrast from his record as Massachusetts governor, when he tacitly endorsed a very similar coverage mandate and greatly expanded government-funded contraceptive services.

In 2002 — the very same year Romney campaigned for governor of Massachusetts — the state enacted a “contraceptive equity” law that required insurers that provide outpatient benefits to cover hormone replacement therapy and all FDA-approved contraceptive methods. Similar to the Obama regulation, the law exempted “an employer that is a church or qualified church-controlled organization” from the requirement and the legislature soundly defeated an amendment that “would have allowed affiliated institutions such as hospitals, universities, and nursing homes to deny their employees coverage.” The defeated amendment closely mirrors the expanded conscience protections religious groups are now clamoring for.

Romney remained mum on the requirement — which passed unanimously in the Senate and in a 140 to 16 vote in the House — and pledged to maintain the status quo on family-planning related policy throughout his gubernatorial campaign. He even promised to expand access to emergency contraception and restore state funding for family-planning and teen pregnancy prevention programs.

After all, before deciding to run for President, Romney had been a strong supporter of expanding public access to birth control. In 2007, the Boston Globe reported that “Romney’s wife, Ann, made a $150 contribution to Planned Parenthood in 1994, the year Romney ran for Senate as a candidate supporting abortion rights” from “the Romneys’ joint checking account.” And in 2005, he “signed a bill that could expand the number of people who get family-planning services, including the morning-after pill.” Romney even pressured the state Department of Health and Human Services to issue regulations that required Catholic hospitals to issue the morning after pill to rape victims, despite initially vetoing the bill and claiming that the pill constituted an “abortifacient.”

But perhaps his greatest contribution to expanding the public availability of birth control came from his health care reform law. The state’s Commonwealth Care, which offers subsidized, low or no-cost insurance program for low-income residents without access to employer-sponsored health insurance, offers primary and preventive care that includes “family planning services” and prescription contraceptives.

“The Obama administration is engaged in a war against religion,” Gingrich began. “Their decision last week that they would impose on every Catholic institution, every Jewish institution, every Protestant institution the Obamacare standard of what you have to buy as insurance is a direct violation of freedom of religion, an example of the dictatorial attitude of this administration,” he charged, ignoring the regulation’s religious exemption. He then went after Romney:

GINGRICH: Let me just note that in a similar circumstance, Governor Romney imposed activities on the Catholic hospitals against their opposition. Refused to allow them the right of conscience in Romneycare. Just as, by the way, he eliminated serving Kosher food to elderly Jewish residents under Medicaid.

Watch it:

In reality, Romney’s position on allowing religious institutions like Catholic hospitals to opt out of providing emergency contraception to rape victims is more complicated. In 2005, the governor vetoed a “widely supported bill” making the morning-after pill available over the counter and requiring hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims, even after pledging to support such measures while running for governor. By September, the state legislature “easily overrode” his veto, but the Department of Public Health, which is overseen by Romney, began drafting regulations that exempted religious hospitals from the requirement.

Then suddenly, in December 2005, Romney “abruptly ordered his administration to reverse course… and require Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception medication to rape victims.” “My personal view in my heart of hearts is that people who are subject to rape should have the option of having emergency contraceptives or emergency contraceptive information,” he told the Boston Herald. Romney has since said that he would support broader federal conscience protections for health care workers and pledged to eliminate the Title X program which provides “reproductive health services like birth control” to millions of women.

Romney also angered the Jewish community in 2003 after he “nixed the funding of about $5 per day” that allocated additional dollars for “poor Jewish nursing-home residents to get kosher meals.” The governor warned that the subsidy would lead to an “increased rate for nursing facilities,” but the Massachusetts Legislature “approved an amendment to restore the $600,000 to finance the kosher meals.”

On Monday, Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts again urged state lawmakers to address rising health care costs in his annual state of the state address. Patrick first introduced a bill, “An Act Improving the Quality of Health Care and Controlling Costs by Reforming Health Systems and Payments,” in February 2011 in an effort to achieve comprehensive delivery system and payment reform.

Patrick’s proposal calls for replacing the current fee-for-service payment system, which creates incentives for providers to deliver more services – even unnecessary care, with a global payment system, which encourages more coordinated patient care and rewards providers for better patient health. It aims to “significantly reduce” fee-for-service payments by the end of 2015 and, as Patrick explained, “stop paying for the amount of care, and start paying for the quality of care.”

The Massachusetts bill encourages greater price transparency, consumer protections against rate increases, and medical malpractice reform to reduce the costs of defensive medicine. The legislation creates incentives for providers to better coordinate patient care and lower costs through Accountable Care Organizations (ACO). Such arrangements have already improved care for more than 100,000 Blue Shield of California patients in California and San Francisco, where better coordination among health care providers has flattened premium increases, lowered hospital readmissions by more than 20 percent, and saved $20 million in 2011.

Numerous hospitals, physician groups and insurers across the nation are adopting the ACO model in hopes of duplicating this success. For instance, Massachusetts is already home to nine ACO entities and 32 health care organizations are participating in HHS’ Pioneer ACO initiative to improve care and lower costs for Medicare patients.

Health reform in Massachusetts was wildly successful in expanding coverage to more than 98 percent of the population and now lawmakers must tackle their next big challenge: cost control.

The comparison immediately put Romney on the defense, who claimed, “I didn’t say I’m in favor of top- down government-run health care,” and explained that he expanded access to “private insurance” and allowed people to “choose any plan” within a state-run exchange. “There’s no government plan,” he added. “And if you don’t want to buy insurance, then you have to help pay for the cost of the state picking up your bill, because under federal law if someone doesn’t have insurance, then we have to care for them in the hospitals, give them free care. So we said, no more, no more free riders.”

Romney’s description of his plan sounded so much like Obama’s rational for the federal health care law that ThinkProgress has compiled a video comparing how both politicians describe their reforms. Watch it:

Indeed, Romneycare and Obamacare share more than a dozen common provisions, for a full comparison, click here.

As Families USA Executive Director Ron Pollack — whose group published the comparison — told Pulse, the Romney and Obama plans “are fraternal, and almost appear like identical, twins,’ Pollack said. ‘It is therefore quite strange for Gov. Romney to criticize, and to claim he will repeal, legislation that mirrors his own creation.” Read the full report here.

1) Health insurance coverage among nonelderly adults in Massachusetts increased from 86.6 percent in 2006 to 94.2 percent in 2010. More than two-thirds of nonelderly adults (68.0 percent) also reported coverage through an employer. This is significantly higher than the level in 2006 (64.4 percent), before health reform:

2) In 2010 compared to 2006, nonelderly adults were more likely to have a usual place to go when they were sick or needed advice about their health (up 4.7 percentage points), and were more likely to have had a preventive care visit (up 5.9 percentage points), a specialist visit (up 3.7 percentage points), multiple doctor visits (up 5.0 percentage points) and a dental care visit (up 5.0 percentage points):

3) During the 2006–10 period there were drops in the shares of adults reporting a hospital stay and using the emergency department—the first shifts in those measures since 2006:

4) There have been gains in the affordability of care for adults since 2006, as evident in a lower burden from out-of-pocket health care spending (excluding premiums) and less unmet need for care because of cost. The share of nonelderly adults who reported high levels of out-of-pocket health care spending (10 percent or more of family income) was lower in 2010 (6.1 percent) than in 2006 (9.8 percent):

The state is still experiences gaps in coverage and Gov. Deval Patrick (D) is urging lawmakers to control costs by adopting reforms that reward providers for delivering care more efficiently But overall, “The Bay State’s 2006 health reform initiative has continued to fare well despite a severe economic downturn and the continued escalation of health care costs in the state” and the very dire predictions of many conservative pessimists.

Romney, predictably, attempted to deflect the criticism, saying he had “made a mistake” years ago. “Is there any possibility that I ever made a mistake in that regard?” Romney asked. “I didn’t see something that I should have seen? Possibly.” Watch it:

Immediately after the exchange, Santorum’s campaign began distributing copies of the pledge Romney signed in 2002 for Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts, which included Romney’s signature, which featured the following questions and answers, among others:

Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade? YES

Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? YES [...]

Do you support the teaching of responsible, age-appropriate, factually accurate health and sexuality education, including information about both abstinence and contraception, in public schools? YES

In the pledge, Romney also expressed support for expanding access to emergency contraception and for legislation to help prevent “violence, intimidation, and harassment directed at reproductive health providers and their patients.”

Romney spokesperson Stuart Stevens would not further expand on Romney’s explanation of his past support for the pledge as a “mistake,” saying after the debate that Romney’s response stood for itself. In November, the Romney campaign insisted that he “does not believe that federal taxpayer dollars should be used to fund groups that provide abortions or abortion-related services,” despite his support for Planned Parenthood’s 2002 pledge.

But as Sen. John McCain’s 2008 opposition book on Romney points out, the former Massachusetts governor felt satisfied with the law he ultimately signed. A June 7, 2006 Newsweek article quotes Romney as saying:

“The final legislation incorporates about 95 percent of my original proposal. So I think, overall, it is a major step forward. We will have health insurance for all our citizens without a government takeover and without new taxes required.”

Indeed, as Boston Globe reporters Michael Kranish and Scott Helman write in The Real Romney, the GOP candidate had been pleased with the final version of the law, telling reporters, “We are where we’d hoped we’d be.” “This isn’t 100 percent of what anyone in this room wanted,” Romney said at the signing ceremony in April 2006. “But the differences between us are small.”

Romney explained that the law would be “a big part of the legacy I will have personally for my four years of service as governor.” “But,” he added, “I have no way of telling if it’s going to be a help or a hindrance down the road.”

But according to Boston Globe reporters Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, Romney had initially signaled that he could live with an employer requirement as part of a compromise between the Massachusetts House and Senate to avoid levying a payroll tax on businesses that would have helped finance the expansion of coverage. In fact, state lawmakers said they felt sandbagged by Romney’s ultimate decision to veto the measure:

Asked if there were any partys of the bill he would veto, he said he still needed to review it all but, “We are where we’d hoped we’d be.” Didn’t he consider the penalty on employers a tax, as antitax activists did? And hadn’t he pledged to veto any taxes? “It’s not a tax hike,” Romney responded. “It’s a fee. It’s an assessment.” Businesses and workers who purchased health insurance already paid an assessment to help fund the “free care” pool, he noted, and “it makes sense to expand this assessment.” [...]

Toward the end, he was asked again: was he really okay with the new employer penalty? Romney said he was relieved that what he had feared most—a new, broad-based payroll tax on employers—was not in the plan. That was something, he said, that he “definitely would have been unable to sign.” “This,” he continued, “is of a different nature.”

Romney eventually described the fee as “unnecessary and probably counterproductive,” but employer coverage has generally increased in Massachusetts, as more private employers are now offering coverage than did before reform was enacted.

But this week, a group of military veterans changed her mind with an act of solidarity. Patrick Scanlon, a Vietnam veteran and a coordinator for Veterans for Peace, organized so many veterans and other supporters to come and patronize the restaurant that they ended up filling every seat — twice. “For someone to come and throw a rock through this window, in what we consider a hate crime, is totally unacceptable,” said veteran Pat Scanlon. The Lowell Sun captured video of the outpouring of support for the restaurant. Watch it:

“This solidarity gives us the courage to stand,” said Al-Zubaidi. “There is no more fear in my heart because there are such nice people behind us.” (HT: Reddit user rootGrapefruit)

But as the Huffington Post’s Lauren Basset reports, Romney was much more clear about his views on contraception several years ago. As Massachusetts governor, he vetoed a “widely supported bill” making the morning-after pill available over the counter and requiring hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims:

[A]s governor of Massachusetts in 2005, Romney took a harder line on contraception, vetoing a widely supported bill that would make the morning-after pill available over the counter in that state and require hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims.

His surprising veto did not stand. The Massachusetts state Senate voted unanimously to overrule it, and the state House voted 139-16 to do the same.

Romney tried to explain his controversial act by arguing in a Boston Globe op-ed that he did it in order to keep a campaign promise not to change Massachusetts’ abortion laws. But the scientific community and longstanding federal policy agree that the morning-after pill cannot end a pregnancy once it has begun.

Romney has also pledged to eliminate the Title X program which provides “reproductive health services like birth control” to millions of women. And despite his recent dodge in New Hampshire, Romney did previously voice “absolute” support for “personhood” efforts that could enforce a ban on contraception and even flirted with anti-birth control positions to court the conservative vote in Iowa. Indeed, he promised a South Carolina audience that he would expand the Bush-era rule allowing doctors to deny women access to common forms of birth control, including the pill.

As NARAL President Nancy Keenan noted, “Maybe Gov. Romney ‘can’t imagine a state banning contraception.’ But he should know that his own positions would put birth control out of reach for millions of American women.”

Q: How would you go forward attacking Obamacare? You have at one point supported an individual mandate, like Mitt Romney…but how would your strategy going forward be different?

GINGRICH: It’s real easy. I said, we looked at it, we studied it, we concluded it was wrong. And unlike Romney, I’ve concluded it was wrong — he is still defending it. Nobody at the White House said they relied on Gingrichcare to design Obamacare. They have said very clearly they relied on Romneycare. They actually had Romney staff in the White House helping design Obamacare. None of my staff were invited.

Watch a compilation:

Indeed, uninsured Massachusetts residents below 300 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) can participate in the state-subsidized Commonwealth Care program, where members receive health services by enrolling in health plans which cover a comprehensive package of benefits like “doctor’s visits, surgery, radiology and lab” and abortion services. The package of services was not specifically developed or approved by Romney — in fact he vetoed a provision for essential health benefits — but he has previously described the law as a whole as “the ultimate pro-life effort.” Section 16M (a) of Romney’s health care law, however, does state: “There shall be a MassHealth payment policy advisory board. The board shall consist of…1 member appointed by Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts.”

Gingrich actually supported various provisions that were ultimately included in Obamacare until as recently as last year and even praised Romneycare in a 2006 newsletter, saying, “The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to affect major change in the American health system. We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goals should be 100 percent insurance coverage for all Americans.”

Chaz Bono got turned into a man, dear.
Dancin’ with a woman on TV.
You might say there’s no such thing as Santa
Till you see what Chaz got ‘neath his tree. [...]

Now transgenders in the Bay State
Have a law that’s etched in black.
It says they can change their gender.
Then if they want, they can change it back.

Interestingly, the last line echoes the actual comments of Massachusetts Rep. Sheila Harrington (R), who asked two transgender witnesses if transgender people are able to change their genders on a “day-to-day basis” when the Judiciary Committee considered the legislation in June. The Human Rights Campaign has condemned the lyrics, saying, “It is unacceptable for transgender Americans, and the very real challenges they face, to become comedic punch lines –- and we have an obligation to speak out against such dangerous stereotypes.”

Drivers who are about to make the mistake of leaving “Live Free or Die” New Hampshire may not be aware, for instance, that regulation-happy Massachusetts has stricter laws on everything from guns to seat belts, fireworks and knives:

Six GOP lawmakers want the Department of Transportation to erect signs along every unmarked road leading from New Hampshire into Massachusetts, stating: “Warning: Massachusetts Border 500 Feet.” [...]

Laws relating to seat belts, guns, cellphones, motorcycle helmets, fireworks and knives are among those lawmakers want to warn people about. That’s not to mention alcohol and tobacco prices and New Hampshire’s tax-free shopping. [...]

The warning signs would let people know they were “no longer in the Live Free or Die state,” she said.

Since New Hampshire is the only state without a mandatory seat belt law, road signs would serve as a useful notice that drivers could receive a ticket if they don’t buckle up. But legislators’ comments make it clear they’re more concerned with denigrating Massachusetts than protecting travelers.

“We don’t need to be building Massachusetts revenues,” lead sponsor Rep. Jennifer Coffey (R) said. New Hampshire businesses have a keen interest in highlighting their state’s lax regulation and drawing a stark contrast to attract customers. And their Republican allies are perfectly happy to help by selling out the government’s seal of approval.

Under the proposal, the state Department of Transportation would erect the signs, but businesses associated with helmets, cellphones, or cars would pay for them — and get their name on the sign. Part advertisement, part official road sign, the plan would blur the line between government purpose and corporate interest.

A Democratic Party spokesman quipped, “No wonder voters have self-identified the Republican Legislature as one of the three most serious problems facing New Hampshire in three consecutive (University of New Hampshire) polls.”