I didn’t find it on the WTTK interview (starting around the 20 minute point.) They only discussed a hypothetical Senate vote, while denouncing the potential implications of the House vote.
I didn’t find it in the Globe story about the WTTK interview, but I only find this direct quote:
“To pretend that now the House has passed this bill is real progress – it’s at the expense of women’s access to reproductive rights,” Coakley said in an interview, after making similar comments yesterday morning on Boston radio station WTKK-FM.
She said later at a campaign appearance in Worcester, “I refuse to acknowledge that this is the best we can do.”
Hmm, no smoking gun about voting no in the House. Sure she’s critical of the vote, but she never says she would not have done anything differently than the 40 pro-choice Congresswomen now saying they will vote against the very bill they voted for, if the Stupak amendment stands.
The only direct quotes from Coakley about voting “no” pertain to a Senate vote:
Coakley countered that there are some things on which she will not compromise.
“Let’s be clear on what’s principled here,” she said. “If it comes down to this in the Senate and it’s the health care bill or violating women’s rights, where does he stand? If Congressman Capuano feels that he has to sell one set of constitutional rights for another, then he should say that.”
I certainly could be wrong, she may have said it and I look forward to seeing the quote. If she didn’t say it, then the Cauano Fire Brigade will be working over time.