Score one for NARAL

One reason New York politics are generally pro-choice is the effectiveness of that side's lobby, as witness this attack by NARAL on prospective Senate candidate Harold Ford, who previously ran for Senate in Tennessee. There, he identified as pro-life. Now, he favors "removing anti-abortion language" from the health-care bill. Mitt Romney made the same switch from pro-life to pro-choice when he became a Massachusetts pol, before changing back to the pro-life side to run for president. A generation or two ago, the elder George Bush switched from pro-choice to pro-life. Going in the opposite direction were Jesse Jackson and, to a certain extent, Al Gore and even Ted Kennedy. Gillibrand has always been pro-choice, but almost immediately upon being appointed senator last year (when she had been representing a relatively conservative congressional district) she switched positions on other issues (immigration, guns, gay rights) to appeal to a broader Democratic constituency. And politicians wonder why people don't believe a word they say?

Comments

[Brian]

Right, it can't be because liberal New York is a different constituency that conservative, very religious Tennessee?

If New York as a whole were as "pro-life" (ie: anti-abortion) as you'd wish, legislators wouldn't dare go against them, regardless of what the lobbies said.

[Bob Conner]

I'm certainly not denying that politicians like Ford and Gillibrand are switching positions as/because they switch constituencies.