It would appear that Politico would prefer to see a Democrat win the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Saxby Chambliss. Otherwise, why would its Elizabeth Titus, in her coverage of Michelle Nunn on Monday, reference a statement by that party's candidate, Michelle Nunn, which articulates a position on abortion that is at odds with EMILY's List, the entity which gave her the reason to do a story by announcing their endorsement of her?
Nunn's supposed position on abortion, according to a July Associated Press item, is that abortions should be "safe, legal and rare and that women should be ultimately able to make this very difficult personal decision in concert with their doctor and their family." Trouble is, that's not how EMILY's List sees it.
Oh, you won't find any official position on abortion itself at the EMILY's List web site. All they say is that they're about "electing women to create progressive change," and electing "pro-choice Democratic women to office."
Nice try. EMILY's List is about expanding abortion rights. In 2002, Thomas Edsall stated the group's true position as follows:
A candidate must meet three qualifications to be considered for an EMILY's List endorsement: back abortion rights, including the right to late-term (or "partial birth") abortions; be a Democrat; and, in primary elections, be a woman.
EMILY's List's official reaction to the Supreme Court's 2007 ruling against partial-birth abortion confirms that assessment, and was as follows:
Ellen R. Malcolm, president of EMILY’s List, an organization dedicated to electing Democratic women candidates who favor abortion rights, said in a statement that the “Bush administration and his court appointees have so whittled away at the basic reproductive rights of women that Roe is hanging by a thread.”
Roe "hanging by a thread"? We should be so lucky. What a drama queen reaction.
There is no evidence that EMILY's List has changed its position on partial-birth abortion since the Supreme Court's decision. It therefore is about expanding abortion rights, not merely maintaining the status quo.
The fact is that Michelle Nunn wouldn't have received EMILY's List's endorsement without making it clear to them (but of course not to Georgia voters) that she wants to restore partial-birth abortion to its supposedly proper legal place, so that Roe won't be "hanging by a thread" any more.
Titus and others at the Politico have been around long enough to know that, but won't tell their ever-dwindling number of readers — which perhaps partially explains the web site's dwindling number of readers.
Photos are from the Points of Light Foundation's 2011 Year in Review.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.