Fast on the heels of this week’s remarkably good news that Massachusetts has defended equal marriage rights, they’ve continued this odd trend of doing the right thing, by overriding their governor to defend the rights of women, and the health of rape victims. Go Mass:

BOSTON — The state Legislature voted Thursday to override Gov. Mitt Romney´s veto of a measure that will expand access to emergency contraception.

The measure, which the Republican governor vetoed in July, will require hospital emergency room doctors to offer the medication to rape victims. It also will make the medication available without a prescription.

The Senate voted unanimously 37-0 to override the veto. In the House, the vote was 139-16 to override.

What makes me feel especially good about this is that, similar to their earlier rejection of legally enshrined anti-gay bias, the Mass. lawmakers have risen to the occasion with a vast majority in support of the right thing to do. While Republicans may disagree, the fact is that these lawmakers were elected to do just what they’re doing, and clearly represent the wishes of their constituents. I only wish that California’s legislators were similarly courageous.

Making matters equally hilarious is Governor Mitt, stepping up to recycle the sort of nonsense moderate Republicans always spew out in their pathetic (and sadly successful) attempts to have it both ways:

The governor said the medication, known as the “morning after pill,” is already widely available without a mandate from the state. Romney said he was concerned that the hormone regimen could abort a fertilized egg.

Someone needs to explain the birds and the bees to Mitt stat. The morning after pill prevents implantation of an egg in the uterus. Pregnancy begins only after implantation.^[1] If a lack of implantation is abortion, then millions of women all over the world ought to be sanctioned for practicing medicine without a license, because it’s extremely common for fertilized eggs never to implant. It’s one of the things that defines “difficulty”, as in “difficulty conceiving”.

What’s really chaffing me is that he’s playing the moderate republican “Existing laws” card. No matter what a situation calls for, no matter how serious, urgent, or necessary something may be, according to the “Existing Laws” crowd, there’s always some law, somewhere, that already magically covers the matter, even if it doesn’t. Therefore it’s just not proper to go around changing the laws. Federalism, or soemthing, I don’t know what the hell they mean by this nonsense.

Of course no one points out that this belief in the pre-existence of applicable law only applies to the limitation of things that Republicans consider wonderful, even if they’re not allowed to admit it in public (yet). However, when it comes to limitating on free speech, banning equal marriage rights, and muddling the definition of “scientific”, the sky’s the limit as far as “neccesary” legislation is concerned.

Anyway, back to Moderate Republican Cowards trying to have it both ways:

The bill also could also alienate crucial anti-abortion activists as Romney weighs a run for president in 2008.

During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney said he supported wider access to emergency contraception. As the bill began to make its way through the Legislature, he said he needed to consult with experts.

(Emphasis mine)

Of course he did, the cute little guy. The fact that anyone believed him during the election is astounding. How, please someone tell me, how a state like Massachusetts, clearly a bastion of freedom and liberty if ever there was one, elected this guy. Did the Democrats run a member of SPECTRE against him?

This reminds me of something I discussed briefly in a previous post.

There was a widespread argument among the blogs some months back, because Kos made some rather elitist and dismissive comments about feminist concerns, and later got downright testy for being called out on them…

(edited for surperfluousness)

One of the issues that led to this argument was Kos’ reaction to NARAL‘s decision to endorse republican Lincoln Chaffe, instead of the democratic challenger who also happens to be pro-life. Kos’ (poorly expressed) point was that, while endorsing Chaffe was technically in line with NARAL’s philosophy, it makes poor tactical sense, as a Republican majority, despite the position of an individual politican, will only help the larger republican cause, which is the elimination of abortion and reproductive freedom.

Now, on a purely emotional level I actually agree with Kos’ position. The fact is that a Democratic majority will make America’s reproductive freedoms safe. However, Kos’ position obscures, as I see it, the larger point: Just what the fuck are Democrats thinking by running Pro-life Dem against a Pro-Choice Republican, in a widely Pro-Choice state? New England isn’t Dixie and Democrats have no goddamned excuse, whatsoever, for nominating anyone who isn’t representative of the Democratic party’s publicly stated position.

Furthermore, doing something so blindingly stupid only cedes the debate to republican fence sitters who, like Mitt, have it both ways electorally while reliably selling out the naive voters who are sucked in my their ‘moderate’ rhetoric. Seen from this point of view, NARAL’s decision makes perfect sense. If the Democrats want to be endorsed by their constituents, they need to start treating their constituents as their base, because frankly, that’s who they are!

Which brings me back to Mitt. All over the country, so-called moderate Republicans keep getting elected in overtly liberal states, and in every case, they reliably back the position of the right wing which has no connection whatsoever to the wishes of their constituents. I keep asking myself, how many more times are people going to have to be burned by these guys, before they realize that “Moderate” republicans are only moderate because they’re not as consumed by paranoid hatred as their insane religious right compatriots?

And yet, the fault lies with the Democrats. They choose poor candidates, market-tested, passionless sellouts who seem to think that actually, proudly evoking their own principles will somehow backfire. People from the left who vote for so-called moderates aren’t attracted to them because they’re republicans. They’re attracted to them because the candidate in question pretends to share their views on the issues that matter to them, and because the other option is supporting a complete wanker. (See Gray Davis for more details).

But I’m rambling. To wrap this up, I’d like to say congratulations to the state of Massachusetts for doing the right thing. And also, welcome back Greg!