By Jack Sullivan and Bruce Mohl

More than 36 years after Roe v. Wade became the law of the land regarding abortion, it’s clear the legal procedure still inflames passionate debate and, in some cases such as Senate races, over-the-top claims that are tough to confirm — or back up.

During Tuesday night’s debate among the four Democratic contenders sponsored by WCVB-TV (Channel 5) and GateHouse Media, the heat ratcheted up when the discussion turned to the Stupak Amendment restricting abortion coverage in the House version of the health care bill.

Both Attorney General Martha Coakley and U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano have been the focus of attack ads by Stephen Pagliuca over their vow to vote against a final bill if it contains abortion restrictions. When Pagliuca reiterated his stance during the debate that he was the only reliable “yes” vote among the candidates for a national health insurance bill, the sparks began to fly.

Coakley, in her first overt acknowledgment that she is the only female in the race, told the Boston Celtics owner her position is “personal.”

“It’s personal with me and it’s personal with every woman who’s in this and who’s watching this,” Coakley said.

But then Capuano, who voted for the House bill but berated Pagliuca for taking the same stance, made it personal for both men, albeit with a touch of hyperbole.

“Have you ever known a poor woman who was forced to choose for an abortion without health care coverage? Have you ever known one?,” Capuano demanded.

“Yes, I have,” Pagliuca responded.

“And so have I,” Capuano retorted before going on to claim that any health care bill with abortion restrictions would return women to the back alley searching for illegal operations.

That short but heated exchange stretched credulity in several areas. A spokesman for Pagliuca declined to give details about the woman he knew, saying only it was a family acquaintance. A spokeswoman for Capuano merely said it was “highly unlikely” that Capuano would give out information regarding the woman he cited.

With less than one-half of 1 percent of the country’s population undergoing an abortion each year — about 1.2 million are performed each year — the odds are pretty narrow that two suburban white guys, one middle-class  and one super-rich, know two poor women without health care who had an abortion and talked to them about it.

“That’s a fair question to ask,” said Pagliuca spokesman Will Keyser, who still would not answer the fair question.

According to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit public policy group, 87 percent of private insurance plans offer abortion coverage, which would not be affected by the Stupak amendment.

Another study by the Guttmacher Institute, which studies women’s reproductive health issues, states that first-trimester abortions, which comprise more than 90 percent of the procedures, cost an estimated $400 to $550. Just 12 percent of those procedures were submitted for insurance coverage, according to surveys, with most women opting to pay for it themselves. Only 1 percent of abortions occurred after the 21st week of pregnancy, usually requiring hospital visits at a cost of $1,200 to $1,800.

There are an estimated 12.4 uninsured women between the ages of 15 and 44 who would be eligible for coverage under the health insurance bill, 10.5 million of them earning less than the federal poverty level, according to the Congressional Budget Office. For them nothing would change regarding abortion coverage because federal monies are already forbidden from being used for abortions except in the cases of rape or incest.

But Capuano went a step further saying anyone who votes for a bill that restricts abortion coverage would subject women to the pre-1973 world of back alley abortions. It’s hard to find anywhere in the language a measure that outlaws abortion. The worst-case scenario would be women who could not get coverage for the procedure could buy a rider out of their own pocket, which the Guttmacher estimates would cost between $4 to $12 a month, depending upon the actuarial charts.

In other areas of the debate:

Health coverage
Pagliuca had some battles with facts and statements. He talked about meeting a young woman graduating from college but was unable to find health insurance because she had cancer when she was six months old and even though she is fully recovered some 20 years later, no company would cover her.

Keyser said Pagliuca met the woman at the Big E in Springfield in September and she related the story.
But according under Massachusetts health care law, private companies cannot refuse coverage because of health status. They can impose a pre-existing condition exclusion for up to 12 months, meaning if that specific cancer returned in that period, treatment would not be covered but after that, it would be paid.

But none of Pagliuca’s stumbles was more head-scratching than his assertion about the pressing need for health care coverage.

“There’s 45,000 people dying,” he said, adding, “I talk to them every day.”

Keyser admitted that was a misstatement.

“We don’t talk to 45,000 people every day,” he said. Dead or alive, presumably.

Coakley’s personal finance decisions questioned

WCVB political reporter Janet Wu asked the attorney general if her dearth of assets and savings given her earnings were a harbinger of how she’d handle public funds.

Coakley, who earns more than $133,000 as attorney general, has just $12,000 in a retirement account and reported no checking or savings account with more than $1,000.

And though she earned an average of more than $100,000 during her eight years as Middlesex district attorney, Wu pointed out she did not meet the $1,000 reporting minimum for checking or savings accounts to be reported.

“I have been prudent in my own affairs in terms of the security that I have,” Coakley said in explaining why she has reported so little in wealth. “I am married, my husband has assets. . .We have been careful not to accumulate debt that we cannot afford.”

Although Coakley said her husband, Thomas O’Connor, has assets, she failed to list them on her required initial filing with the U.S. Senate. The amended form includes $250,000 in savings and inheritance O’Connor has. But her Statement of Financial Interest that is filed with the State Ethics Commission lists none of her husband’s or her assets either.

Coakley spokeswoman Alex Zaroulis said Coakley makes sure her money goes back into her and her husband’s biggest asset and investment, their Medford home.

Troop increase in Afghanistan
All four of the Democratic Senate candidates said they oppose sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, putting them at odds both with President Obama and Sen. John F. Kerry, the head of the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee.

“Our mission has been completed,” said Capuano, while Coakley expressed concern that US forces couldn’t turn around a corrupt Afghanistan regime before they are expected to start pulling out in 18 months. The attorney general also likened Afghanistan to Vietnam.

“We seem to be ignoring history in Vietnam,” she said. “This is unfortunately too much like what we saw; not enough troops but just enough to keep us mired in Afghanistan.”

Yet Afghanistan in many respects is very different from Vietnam. In Vietnam, US troop levels reached a peak of 536,100 in 1967. In Afghanistan, US troop levels are currently at around 68,000, their highest level, with another 30,000 scheduled to arrive next year.

Obama, in his speech, also highlighted differences between the situations in Afghanistan and Vietnam. “Unlike Vietnam,” he said, “we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now — and to rely only on efforts against al Qaedea from a distance — would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.”

Kerry, who had been expressing strong reservations about sending more troops to Afghanistan, came around to Obama’s side as long as the mission there is narrowly defined. “The only way to be successful is to rapidly transfer responsibility to the Afghans and anything short of that will end in failure, no matter how many troops we sent to Afghanistan,” he said.

Alison Mills, Capuano’s spokeswoman, said Obama’s speech and Kerry’s stance did not change Capuano’s view about the troop increase.

“The position remains the same,” she said.

Pagliuca appeared to make a slip of the tongue when he said we should focus our attention on Pakistan and ensure its stability because of their arsenal of “60 nuclear weapons.” Keyser said his boss misspoke and meant 16.

“He’s said that number (16) all along during the campaign,” Keyser said. “When you’re in a debate and talking fast, the numbers get blurred.”

But it looks like Pagliuca knew what he was talking about, whether he knew it or not. According to a report issued in October by the Congressional Research Service, “Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal consists of approximately 60 nuclear warheads, although it could be larger.”