At a campaign stop in Iowa on Friday, a member of the audience grilled Tim Pawlenty on his views about rights for LGBT people. Gabe Aderhold, a senior at Edina High School, asked Pawlenty why he has “not had the courage to stand for me and my friends. You are discriminating against me and it hurts.” Pawlenty said he will never be at the point “where I’ll say that every domestic relationship is the same as traditional marriage.”

Pawlenty has opposed all efforts in Minnesota to give same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples. And his opposition extends beyond marriage equality. He vetoed legislation that would give same-sex couples the right to fulfill a deceased partner’s last wishes in 2010. In 2008, he vetoed a bill that would allow local units of government to provide health care benefits for same-sex couples.

Also in 2008, he vetoed a bill to allow government employees, including same-sex partners, to use sick time to care for a seriously ill family member. The Minnesota Family Council pressed for a veto and got one.

“The end game in all of this is a legal imposition of homosexual marriage upon the state of Minnesota,” said Tom Prichard, the group’s president, at the time.

On Wednesday morning, Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed a proposed amendment that would ban same-sex marriage in the Minnesota Constitution. The veto is only symbolic — the Minnesota governor has no authority over constitutional amendments. In his veto message Dayton called the amendment “divisive and destructive” and urged Minnesotans to vote against it in 2012. Dayton told reporters at a press conference that it was a bit of an anomaly for him to be presented with the amendment bill, but it also gave him an opportunity to comment on it.

“Without question, I am vetoing it; and I urge Minnesotans to reject this divisive, mean-spirited, un-Minnesotan and un-American amendment,” he wrote. “Minnesota is better than this. Minnesotans are better than this. I urge Minnesotans to reject this amendment.”

At a press conference for the veto, Lt. Gov. Yvonne Prettner-Solon, said, “I add my voice in urging Minnesotans to reject the marriage amendment when it comes before them in 2012.” She called the amendment a “travesty.”

Sen. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis, said, “[The veto] has no practical effect but has a tremendously positive effect across the state of Minnesota. It shows that he stand with every citizens and every family.”

“I know that we are going to beat this amendment,” he added.

Rep. Karen Clark, DFL-Minneapolis, “I want to thank Gov. Dayton and Lt. Gov. Prettner-Solon for really important leadership. It was heartbreaking to have the bill pass,” said Clark adding her belief that love will win over discrimination. “We are going to love this thing to death.”

She added that it’s going to be a bruising battle. “The other side had already put out documents about igniting a culture war.”

Dayton added, “I’m optimistic that the overwhelming majority of Minnesota will reject this and still be a leader on social progress in this country.”

AmendmentVetoLetter –

As expected, Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed all budget bills Tuesday that were submitted by the Republicans. His message to the GOP: “Compromise.” Dayton also hit Republicans for including divisive social issues in their budgets.

In the higher education bill, Dayton said he wouldn’t accept restrictions on stem cell research, a provision that was heavily debated in the Legislature. Republicans, and a few DFLers, moved to include a ban on somatic cell nuclear transfer, as well as all products from that procedure in University of Minnesota research, in the budget bill.

“The definition included in the bill is vague and could threaten further development of stem cell research,” Dayton said.

The education budget bill included a private school voucher program that would allow for taxpayer subsidies for religious schooling. Dayton called the provision “unwise.”

“I am disappointed that the bill creates a private school voucher program, an experiment that has not worked in other states,” he wrote. “Until our public schools are funded at adequate and sustainable levels, a diversion of public funds to private schools is unwise.”

The Health and Human Services bill contained health care cuts for 140,000 Minnesotans, which Dayton called “unconscionable.”

He also said the bill had become “a vehicle for divisive social issues,” such as a ban on stem cell research and a ban on the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

In the Public Safety budget bill, Dayton criticized cuts and changes to the Department of Civil Rights.

“Discrimination remains a serious problem in Minnesota,” he wrote. “Your extreme cut in funding, along with your policy language, would weaken the Human Rights Act and lessen the effectiveness of the Department of Human Rights. This I will not allow.”

In a press statement announcing the vetoes, Dayton accused Republicans of failing to compromise.

“In the spirit of compromise, more than one week ago, I cut my proposal in half, in the hopes that an offer to meet in the middle would spur action towards the balanced solution the people of Minnesota have asked for,” said Dayton. “Instead, you chose to present me with an all-cuts approach, one that has serious consequences for Minnesotans, and that I do not believe is in line with our shared commitment to build a better Minnesota.”

He concluded, “Compromise is never easy, because each person must give up something that is important. Compromise requires us to agree to items that we don’t agree with. That is the only way we will reconcile our differences on the state’s budget. I am returning this and the other budget bills to you with the hope that you will choose to work with me, to find a fair, responsible, and balanced solution.”

Gov. Tim Pawlenty handed over artifacts from his time as governor on Monday including an over-sized “Veto Pen.” In a press release from the governor’s office, Pawlenty boasted that he broke the record for most vetoes in one year and that he used the veto or line-item veto 299 times in his 8 years in office.

The statement from his office read, “Today, (Monday, December, 27, 2010) Governor Tim Pawlenty turned over documents and artifacts from his eight years as Governor to the Minnesota Historical Society, including an oversized ‘Veto Pen’ and the actual veto stamps he used. During his time in office, Governor Pawlenty issued 299 complete bill and line-item vetoes, including vetoing $7.5 billion in tax increases. In 2008, Pawlenty set a record for the most bill vetoes issued in one year by a Minnesota governor.”

Among those 299 bills that Pawlenty vetoed in recent years: a bill to legalize marijuana for terminally ill patients, a bill to allow the surviving member of a same-sex couple to make decisions for their dead partner, a voter fraud prevention bill that would alert felons that their voting rights had been revoked, a bill to standardize anti-bullying procedures in schools, a bill to streamline absentee voting, a bill that decriminalized bong water, state funding for stem cell research, a bill that would regulate toxins in children’s toys, and a $1 billion tax bill,

Photo: Wikipedia

Although medical marijuana use is still illegal on the federal level, the Obama administration said today that it won’t go after patients or their providers in states where it is legal.

“It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement to federal prosecutors this morning. “This balanced policy formalizes a sensible approach that the Department has been following since January: effectively focus our resources on serious drug traffickers while taking into account state and local laws.”

The memo, penned by David W. Ogden, Deputy Attorney General, says:

As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources.

In Minnesota, medical marijuana remains illegal. In 2009, the Minnesota Legislature passed a tightly-worded bill that would allow some medical marijuana in the state, but that measure was vetoed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

Advocates say they will take their battle to the people, and and constitutional amendment legislation is planned for the 2010 legislative session.

“While I am sympathetic to those dealing with end-of-life illnesses and accompanying pain, I stand with law enforcement in opposition to this legislation,” Pawlenty said in his veto letter.

“I’m disappointed in the governor’s action, but I’m not giving up,” Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia, said in a press release. “This would have been the narrowest, strictest medical marijuana law in the country, but the bottom line remains that there are patients suffering terribly who need protection, and I won’t stop till they are protected.”

Joni Whiting, whose testimony of finding marijuana for her dying daughter brought tears to many legislators’ eyes, had harsh words for Pawlenty.

“The governor thinks I’m a criminal for allowing my daughter some comfort during the last months of her life,” she said. “I don’t know how he sleeps at night, but I do know I’m not giving up until others in my daughter’s situation are protected.”

Polls show the issue is popular with voters with popular support at over 60 percent for more than a decade.

“Since the governor has refused to listen to reason or to the overwhelming majority of Minnesotans, we have no choice but to bypass him and take this directly to the people through a constitutional amendment,” said Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing.

Legislators on both sides of the aisle watered down the bill by eliminating the ability for patients to grow their own marijuana, limiting the bill only to patients who are terminally ill and adding a sunset date two years from enactment, but none of those concessions appear to have affected Pawlenty’s opinion of the bill.

Heather Azzi of the Marijuana Policy Project, one of many groups lobbying for the bill, said in an email Tuesday afternoon, “He is going to exercise his power to make sure dying patients, and their family and friends, continue to face arrest and jail for simply trying to alleviate their pain.”

Advocates say that with majority support in the legislature and among Minnesota voters, they will bypass Pawlenty with a Constitutional amendment next year.

Photo: Ryan Bushby, Wikimedia Commons

A bill that would legalize medical marijuana passed the Minnesota House on Monday, and for the first time in a decade of effort the bill will head to the governor’s desk.

The bill passed by a vote of 70 to 64, but it depends on Gov. Tim Pawlenty to become law; Pawlenty says he’ll veto it.

Legislators added increased restrictions to the final version of the bill in an attempt to assuage Palwenty’s concerns. One legislator might have taken his opposition too far, however, as Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano, offered a series of amendments many in the House found offensive.

An amendment by Rep. Karla Bingham, DFL-Cottage Grove, eliminated the provision that Greater Minnesota patients be able to grow their own, and another by Rep. Joe Atkins said that only terminally ill patients could take advantage of medical marijuana.

But those restrictions did not calm the fears of Republicans. Emmer offered an amendment that would change every instance of “marijuana” in the bill to the word “pot.”

“We are not talking about medicine. We are not talking about marijuana. Let’s call it what it is: ‘pot,’” Emmer said.

His tactic did not go over well with bill supporters. Bill author, Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia, said to Emmer, “It might be cute, but the testimony of the families of people who were helped by medical marijuana are very moving.”

Rukavina continued, “I don’t know if you are trying to be cute, but I think your amendment stinks and I would urge members to vote against it.”

Rep. Mark Buesgens, R-Jordan, said to Emmer, “We have a very serious issue in front of us. We are talking about the quality of people’s lives at the end of their lives, the sickest of the sick,” he said. “It’s not a matter we should be joking about on the house floor.”

Rep. Thomas Huntley, DFL-Duluth, recalled the struggle that members of his family faced with cancer and said to Emmer, “You should be ashamed of yourself.”

Emmer responded, shouting angrily to Reps. Bisguens, Huntley and Rukavina.

“I didn’t bring this here to be cute, to make a mockery. You are taking a drug that has serious consequences for young people in the country,” he demanded. “So before you start mocking me for doing what I think is right, think about that! This is no joke!

Emmer’s motion failed, but that did not stop him from offering two more: one to remove the word medical from the bill and one to replace “medical marijuana” to “authorized marijuana.” Neither amendment was successful.

Opposition came mainly from Republicans. Rep. Steve Gottwalt, R-St. Cloud, said, “It is absolutely wrong to refer to this as medical. It is wrong to use the pain and discomfort of sick people to sell this bill.”

Emmer said, “It is a gateway drug and it has very serious and real physical impact. All we are doing here is legalizing marijuana.” He added, “Let’s not send the kind of message to the children of the state that marijuana is OK.”

Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder: “The bill will be vetoed no matter what form it leaves here. I’m not willing to give up the war on drugs. If we leave this war more people are going to get sick and die.”

Buesgens, a Republican who supported the bill, said the implication that this was about legalizing marijuana and not about compassion was wrong. “Questioning the integrity of the people putting this forward is pushing the line. There is nothing dishonest about this.”

He added that this is a core conservative and Republican issue.

“Government should not get between a patient and their health provider. That’s in the republican national platform.”

The roll call

DFLers who voted “yes”:

Atkins, Benson, Bigham, Bly, Carlson, Champion, Clark, Davnie, Dittrich, Eken, Falk, Faust, Gardner, Hansen, Hausman, Haws, Hayden, Hilstrom, Hilty, Hornstein, Hortman, Huntley, Jackson, Johnson, Juhnke, Kahn, Kalin, Kelliher, Knuth, Koenen, Laine, Liebling, Lillie, Loeffler, Mahoney, Mariani, Masin, Morgan, Morrow, Mullery, Murphy, E., Nelson, Newton, Obermueller, Paymar, Persell, Peterson, Poppe, Reinert, Rosenthal, Rukavina, Sailer, Scalze, Sertich, Simon, Slocum, Solberg, Swails, Thao, Thissen, Tillberry, Wagenius, Winkler.

DFLers who voted “no”:

Anzelc, Brown, Brynaert, Bunn, Dill, Doty, Fritz, Greiling, Hosch, Kath, Lenczewski, Lesch, Lieder, Marquart, Murphy, M., Norton, Olin, Otremba, Pelowski, Ruud, Slawik, Sterner, Ward, Welti.

Republicans who voted “yes”:

Buesgens, Demmer, Garofalo, Gunther, Hackbarth, Kelly, McNamara.

Republicans who voted “no”:

Abeler, Anderson, B., Anderson, P., Anderson, S., Beard, Brod, Cornish, Davids, Dean, Dettmer, Doepke, Downey, Drazkowski, Eastlund, Emmer, Gottwalt, Hamilton, Holberg, Hoppe, Howes, Kiffmeyer, Kohls, Lanning, Loon, Mack, Magnus, McFarlane, Murdock, Nornes, Peppin, Sanders, Scott, Seifert, Severson, Shimanski, Smith, Torkelson, Urdahl, Westrom, Zellers.

Minnesota Public Radio’s Tom Scheck uncovers the new no-man’s-nomenclature at the Polinaut blog. Garofalo told him Tuesday: “I look forward to standing at the press conference where he vetoes this [K-12 education funding] bill.”

When Scheck asked whether the governor would veto the bill, Garofolo replied, “I’m technically not allowed to use that word. Only he has that word and it’s locked up in a safe and I just goofed up.”

But if Pawlenty is the only one in the GOP allowed to use the word “veto,” his doing so sparingly is rather sudden. The governor relished the word “veto” in his 2007 and 2008 State of the State Addresses, but not 2009.

2007 State of the State Address (pdf):

I’ll be more likely to reach for the signing pen, rather than the veto stamp, if the bill on my desk clearly defines expected results.

State of the State Address (pdf):

In the meantime, I still have an important tool to restrain taxes and spending. I call it the taxpayer protection pen, otherwise known as the veto pen.

Pawlenty did not utter the word “veto” during his Jan. 15, 2009 State of the State address.

Pawlenty’s veto message appears to borrow its point of view from both the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life and a report commissioned by the White House to deflect criticism from Bush’s veto of a federal stem cell bill (PDF). Pawlenty vetoed the bill because it was not “consistent with sound ethical and moral standards.”

Pawlenty’s veto message extolled the virtues of adult-derived stem cells, particularly those extracted from umbilical cords, placentas and amniotic fluid, as superior to embryonic stem cells. The difference between the two has to do with their applicability for research. Embryonic cells are pluripotent, while adult stem cells are multipotent. The difference is in the cell’s mutability: Pluripotent cells are capable of developing into many kinds of tissue, and are thus more powerful tools in the course of medical research.

But new research has given Pawlenty and the religious right reason to be excited. Researchers have developed adult stem cells that act like embryonic stem cells. They are pluripotent and are called “induced” pluripotent stem cells.

“Unlike embryonic stem cells, which are obtained by destroying live embryos, iPSCs are made directly from adult stem cells by adding a small number of factors to these cells in the laboratory,” Pawlenty wrote. “No human eggs are used and no embryos are destroyed.” Pawlenty wrote that that is the research funding he would be willing to sign.

There’s a big problem with iPSC research that Pawlenty and his religious right advisers have failed to mention. iPSCs could cause cancer — one of the diseases they are being created to combat.

That’s because iPSCs are…

Continued: Click “Read More”
made by injecting genetic material into adult cells. One of those genes, called c-Myc, can induce cancer. Luckily, scientists have found a way around that issue and identified another gene to use. The problem? In order to get those genes into the cells, they have to use a retrovirus that likewise could possibly cause cancer.

That virus carries the genes into the cells and deposits them into the DNA of the cell, where those genes transform the cell into a pluripotent cell. The virus used to carry the genes into the cell’s DNA is called a lentivirus. One lentivirus that is known by name in most every home in America: the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), also known as the virus that causes AIDS.

Stem cell biologist Robert Lanza told Scientific American that there are a number of other hurdles to using these cells versus embryonic ones. “These cells have been severely modified. I don’t think the FDA would allow us to use these virally modified cells,” he said.

It’s probably unlikely that researchers will be able to find willing participants to be injected with a virus in the same family as HIV, even if initial indications are that it’s safe.

The researchers who conducted the studies that Pawlenty touts have said that their research should not be seen as a replacement for embryonic stem cell research. William Lowry of UCLA’s Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research helped create the technology. “It is important to remember that our research does not eliminate the need for embryo-based human embryonic stem cell research, but rather provides another avenue of worthwhile investigation,” Lowry has said. 

Pawlenty’s veto letter does little to explain to Minnesotans the real science behind the bill he rejected, but it does show that religious ideology has trumped science again in Minnesota.