Morning-After Pill is Just Business as Usual

A couple days ago, Bostonist's fearless editor sent us an e-mail, as he sometimes does, suggesting a possible post: "Is the morning-after pill something you want a stab at? I think it's worth coverage and if you don't want it I'll take a crack at it." True, we thought, it is frequently in the headlines, and our special job here is to write snide political and legal commentary. But what do we say about the morning-after pill? The only thing truly interesting about the matter, we think, is how it exemplifies the state of state politics these days: Beacon Hill is like a too-small community theatre stage where the lead actor tailors his out-of-place performance for the Broadway talent agents at the back of the house, ignoring the rest of the audience. On issue after issue, the legislature unifies behind some solidly Democratic law or policy, and the governor predictably takes a "principled" stand against it, burnishing his national Republican credentials, even as he is defeated again and again. It's almost as if the Democratic lawmakers are so eager to be rid of Romney, they're happy to play the comic-book lefty villains to his voice-in-the-wilderness crusader against blue-state wretchedness. We can imagine the stern voiceover in his national campaign ads: "In the face of politics as usual, he proposed innovative ideas for health care and the fair imposition of the death penalty; He took on liberal, activist judges to protect traditional marriage; When the [sneering tone] Democrats in [extra sneering tone] Massachusetts wanted to encourage cloning and on-demand abortions in pill form, Mitt Romney stood up for what he believed was right. . . Mitt Romney: He'll stand up to the liberals and defend American values."

So, um, right . . . the morning-after pill: The legislature's for it. Kerry "Who Me?" Healey is for it. Mitt is predictably against it. And today, he's in Iowa.