Today's Globe profile of would-be US Senator Scott Brown is a fascinating read--largely for its revelation that, as a young adult, Brown had a pretty tough and troubled life. (Brown's relish in recounting his own physical fitness is interesting, too.)
I wonder, though, if reporter Brian Mooney struck the right note in describing Brown's stance on abortion rights. Writes Mooney: "On abortion rights, Brown is basically in favor but with nuance." He then quotes Brown on the subject:
"Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and I don’t plan on overturning it, but I’ve always felt that, you know, I’m against partial-birth abortions and believe in parental consent, a strong parental notification law,’’ Brown said, adding that he would not apply an abortion rights litmus test in Supreme Court confirmations.
Brown is right: Roe v. Wade *is* the law of the land--but stating that isn't the same thing as saying that's a good thing. What's more, Brown's lack of a plan to overturn Roe v. Wade could be an acknowledgment of what's possible, rather than what he thinks should be in an ideal world.
I've emailed Brown's press secretary to ask of calling him "bascially in favor" of abortion rights is accurate or not. I'll provide his response when I hear back.