[NYTr] FAIR: Giuliani "Pro-Choice"? - A Media Mislabeling

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

FAIR - Nov 13, 2007
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3211

Media Advisory

Giuliani, Pro-Choice? 
Media mislabel GOP front-runner

News stories about Rudy Giuliani's campaign for the Republican
nomination for president often refer to his supposed support for
abortion rights. To much of the mainstream media, this is evidence of
Giuliani's admirable consistency in the face of a largely anti-choice
GOP base, and a sign that Republican voters are pragmatic enough to
accept a pro-choice nominee.

A November 4 New York Times story, for example, declared that Giuliani
"has made no serious effort to shade his positions to appeal to the
social conservatives." The same day, a Times analysis of political
flip-flopping made the same point, oddly claiming that Giuliani's
"refusal to budge from his vocal support for abortion rights has
strengthened his image as being steadfast, even as he has shifted in
other areas."

But it's wrong to call Giuliani "pro-choice" or a "supporter of
abortion rights." Giuliani currently supports parental notification
laws and a ban on so-called "partial birth" abortion (the
dilation-and-extraction abortion method)--positions that put him
sharply at odds with the pro-choice movement. Moreover, as the Times
itself reported (2/10/07), "He has talked about how he would appoint
'strict constructionist' judges to the Supreme Court--what abortion
rights advocates say is code among conservatives for those who seek to
overturn or limit Roe v. Wade, the 1973 court ruling declaring a
constitutional right to abortion." Giuliani has suggested (Union
Leader, 11/5/07) he would nominate justices similar to Antonin Scalia,
Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

And when New York Times political reporters claim that Giuliani has
never "shaded" his views on abortion, they're ignoring the ample
evidence that he has--some of it reported in their own paper. (The
February 10 article cited above was headlined "Giuliani Shifts Abortion
Speech Gently to Right.")

In reality, Giuliani's positions on abortion have been all over the
map. When Giuliani first began running for New York City mayor in 1989,
seeking support of both the Republicans and the minor Conservative
Party, conservative leaders reported that "he assured them he was
personally opposed to abortion, did not favor government funding or
criminal penalties, did favor an exemption in cases of rape or incest,
and was in favor of overturning the U.S. Supreme Court's decision
legalizing abortion, Roe v. Wade" (New York Newsday, 2/22/89).
"Giuliani...is opposed to abortion and even the Roe v. Wade Supreme
Court decision legalizing abortion," the New York Times reported (New
York Times, 4/6/89).

Later, he pledged that ''I would not take a leadership role, supporting
or opposing abortion"; asked what his position was by the New York
Times (7/4/89), "Giuliani said he was personally opposed to abortion,
did not favor government financing for abortion and had believed that
the Roe v. Wade decision should be overturned," though he "would
'preserve, protect and defend all constitutional and legal rights,
including a woman's right of choice,'' as long as the state law
remained unchanged. But he did not say a woman should have a
fundamental right to an abortion."

A month later, with the general election approaching, Giuliani's
campaign issued a "clarification" (New York Times, 8/4/89):

    As mayor, Rudy Giuliani will uphold a woman's right of choice to
have an abortion. Giuliani will fund all city programs which provide
abortions to insure that no woman is deprived of her right due to an
inability to pay. He will oppose reductions in state funding. He will
oppose making abortion illegal. Although Giuliani is personally opposed
to abortion, his personal views will not interfere with his
responsibilities as mayor.

Giuliani lost the mayoral election in 1989, thanks in part to incumbent
David Dinkins' criticisms of his flip-flops on the abortion issue (UPI,
11/4/89). He ran again successfully in 1993 with much the same abortion
line that he had at the end of the 1989 campaign (though by '93, he was
openly describing himself as "pro-choice"--New York Times, 9/30/93).

Giuliani's actual historical record on the abortion issue would have
been useful when reporters were writing about how Giuliani secured the
endorsement of conservative evangelist Pat Robertson. (It's worth
recalling that after the September 11 attacks, which have been
Giuliani's signature issue, Robertson agreed with Jerry Falwell that
"abortionists" were part of the reason that the attacks were "probably
what we deserve" in part because of "abortionists"--700 Club, 9/13/01.)

Robertson declared when issuing his endorsement that Giuliani's
assurances about the judges he would appoint to the Supreme Court were
what mattered most (L.A. Times, 11/8/07). This is, by any reasonable
measure, what actually matters; how Giuliani feels personally about
abortion rights is far less important than what he would do as a
president nominating Supreme Court justices. That's a basic political
fact that GOP voters seem to understand better than mainstream media
political reporters.

******
FAIR
(212) 633-6700
http://www.fair.org/
E-mail: fair at fair.org