As we all know, Kerry Healey is in favor of stem cell research. Or is she?
Awesome digging by BMG’s ground troops leads to the following find from a 2005 AP story:
Romney recently credited Healey with raising concerns that stem cell research could exploit women.
Romney told reporters: “I have listened to her on that and have also found that compelling.”
Healey said that’s a reflection of her close working relationship with Romney.
“I’ve been really blessed because I do work so closely and easily with the governor,” she said. “While the governor and I may start from different points in a discussion, we usually end up at the same place.”
At the very least, Kerry Healey has some major explaining to do on this issue. Did she, in fact, advocate for a veto on the (flimsy) ground that women might be exploited by stem-cell research? Or did she advocate that he sign the bill, while seeking further protections? Or what? From Healey’s quote in the article, it sure sounds as though she believed a veto was appropriate on this issue — otherwise, why say that she and Romney “usually end up at the same place”?
And before anyone jumps down my throat about being insensitive to exploitation, let us consider the words of Tim O’Brien, Healey’s campaign spokesdude, from a story in Feb. 2006:
O’Brien, the Healey spokesman, said: “This was during a time when people were collecting data and learning about this issue. I think a lot of people’s opinions were being formed.”
He said Healey noted a newspaper opinion piece raising concerns that women could suffer physically if they repeatedly harvested their eggs for research. O’Brien said that concern, as well as Romney’s concern about somatic transfer, were subsequently allayed in conversations with doctors and scientists.
In other words, what? Healey was flying by the seat of her pants when she made those initial recommendations, basing them on some newspaper column? That sure does inspire confidence. Hey, Tim and Kerry, maybe it would have been a good idea to have those “conversations with doctors and scientists” before advocating for a veto. (Plus, how is it, exactly, that Mitt Romney’s “concerns” about stem cell research have been “allayed”? Did I miss something?)
I’ll agree that, at present, it’s not totally clear that Healey advocated for a veto. But it is clear that she helped Romney formulate his position on vetoing the bill by raising an “exploitation” issue that she has now backed away from. That, coupled with her statement that she and Romney “usually” end up in the same place, leads me to think that it’s more likely than not that she at least didn’t object to the veto, and maybe actually advocated for it. So I’m adding this issue to the “she was for it before she was against it” box, though with an asterisk to indicate that subsequent clarification may be in order.
but we’re grasping at straws on this one. Doesn’t Healey have some substantial problem points we can focus on instead?
<
p>
Mitt: “I really want to ban stem cell research but I’m going to look like a right wing dork if I do. i some some ammo.”
Muffy: “Look, I don’t know what your big issue is with stem research, I think -”
Mitt: “Did I ask you what you thought? Are you remembering which one of us is governor and which is a lowly gopher? I just need something against stem cell research that sounds all new age sensitivty lefty.”
Muffy: “Fine. Here’s a column I read in the Globe last week.”
Mitt: “Perfect! Thanks, doll, now go get me a cup of coffee. And can you wear that blue sweater I like so much tomorrow, darlin?”
Muffy: “grrrr”
If your scenario is accurate, that would be good to know. I wouldn’t be all that surprised if it is, but I’d like Healey to explain that to us.
In light of the last six years I have no doubt stem cell research is currently underway inside an underground bunker run by DARPA somewhere in remote Montana. That would make what Healy says about it relatively irrelevant.
<
p>
A Republican by any name adds up to 666, the mark of Satan.