If it were up to the anti-abortion group Massachusetts Citizens for Life, the requirement for state residents to obtain coverage through its subsidized health care system would be repealed.The group’s argument stands that the 2006 law is raising insurance premiums, lengthening the wait for doctor’s visits and increasing taxpayer-funded abortion, and is the basis for an intended ballot petition against the 2006 law. But one local official disagrees.”There’s an argument for everything,” said state Rep. Kathi-Anne Reinstein, D-Revere. “But to have, say, a senior citizen with a urinary tract infection end up in the emergency room because she couldn’t afford to go to the doctor ? now you’ve spent more money on that person that would have been spent before.”In a statement released earlier this week by Anne Fox, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Fox expressed the need for “affordable and ethical health care for all.””We are deeply concerned with information which has been published in the past two years, which shows that the state health plan is running out of money and assumes that rationing is the solution,” Fox said in a statement. “We in Massachusetts already have the highest premiums and the longest waits for doctors in the country and things are getting worse.”Fox also said she hopes a repeal of the law will translate into it unraveling entirely.Tricia Wajda, director of public affairs with Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said the organization has witnessed firsthand the positive effects of the state’s health care reform.”Women across the state have better access to critical preventive health services, including annual exams and birth control,” she said. “That’s why it came as no surprise when the New England Journal of Medicine published a study last year that showed the state’s abortion rate declined by 1.5 percent during the first two years of its new health care program (2007-2009).”The law currently provides subsidized insurance to residents earning up to three times the federal poverty level, which translates to about $32,000. Those who do not obtain the coverage are subject to fines and surcharges, including businesses.Reinstein deemed the issue a difficult one, especially during a tough economy when the public tends to scrutinize items more than usual. But on the flip side, Reinstein said the landmark law has greatly benefited those struggling to make ends meet, including having proper health care.”It’s a horrible, vicious cycle,” she said. “Every person in the Commonwealth costs money, but let’s be preventive so we save more money in the long run.”According to Fox’s statement, 19 signatures, including Fox’s, were filed with Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office on Tuesday.Coakley now has until September to review the petition and either certify or reject it. If certified, the group has to collect 68,911 signatures by mid November in order for it to potentially appear as a ballot question.