FLASHREPORT

[Cross-posted from RedCounty.com]

Conservative talk radio host/blogger Eric Hogue has done yeoman's work charting the political evolution of Steve Poizner from 2004 Assembly candidate to 2009/10 gubernatorial candidate. Poizner and his campaign have been candid about his evolution, and judging from what I've read and my own conversations with Poizner, I'm reasonably satisfied his progression on issues of political economy such as taxes has been genuine.

I'm not so sure when it comes to abortion, or at least I'd like some more information.

All three GOP candidates for governor are pro-choice on abortion. So, in the maneuvering for the allegiances of the GOP grass roots -- which are generally more conservative on the social issues than the donor class -- the preferable position is to be perceived as the least pro-choice. To that end, the Poizner campaign has drawn attention to rival Meg Whitman's support for public funding of abortion -- a stance that seriously sticks in the craw of pro-life voters like myself -- and highlighting abortion restrictions he is willing to support, such as banning partial-birth abortions and requiring parental consent for minors to obtain abortions.

Which brings us back to the question of Poizner's post-2004 politically rightward journey.

During an August 24 interview with Eric Hogue, Poizner said:

"I've pretty much been an opponent to abortion my whole life."

Let's leave aside the question whether one can, in the final analysis, be pro-choice and simultaneously opposed to abortion, since the latter presupposes the bleif unborn babies are human beings.

In this video from a debate in his 2004 Assembly campaign, Poizner is responding to what is presumably a charge by his Democratic opponent thhat Poizner is "anti-choice." 

In the video, Poizner says:

"I've been pro choice my whole life. He knows that...in fact, when Planned Parenthood heard his allegation on TV, they did an instant investigation because this is important to Planned Parenthood. And they were so angry that this was a distortion that they instantly a few days ago issued a 100% rating for me, the highest rating that they give. And so I have been pro-choice my whole life."

This is a circle I have a hard time squaring: a person has to be pretty hard-core in their pro-choiceness to merit a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider and an organization that opposes any and all restrictions on access to abortion.

The 2004 Planned Parenthood ratings were based on a person's positions on the following legislation:

• "Assembly Budget Bill: Abortion Funding: Anti-choice amendment to the state budget that places restrictions on Medi-Cal abortion."
  
  
• "Senate Budget Bill: Abortion Funding: Anti-Choice amendment to the state budget that places restrictions on Medi-Cal abortion."
  
  
• "Safety for Reproductive Health Providers: SB 1590: Reduces harm and harassment of individuals associated with reproductive health facilities."
  
  
• "Family Planning Clinics: AB 2151: Maintains reimbursements and financial viability for family planning clinics."
  
  
• "Maternity Coverage: SB 1555: Requires group and individual health insurance policies to include maternity coverage."
  
  
• "Clinic Licensure: SB 1824: Clarifies the expedited clinic licensing process."
  
  
• "Clinic Licensure: AB 2307: Removes costly and unnecessary steps in clinic licensure and provider enrollment."
  
  
• "Celebrating Roe v.Wade: AJR 57: Resolution to U.S. President and Congress to uphold the intent and substance of Roe v.Wade."
  
  
• "Comprehensive Sex Education: SB 71: Consolidates, clarifies, and expands the current education code in the areas of sex education and HIV/AIDS prevention education."
  
  
• "Teen Pregnancy Prevention Programs: AB 561: Protects teen pregnancy prevention programs."

To put it in perspective, Democrats like then-Sen. Sheila Kuehl also scored 100%. The only Republican legislator who even caem close to 100% was then Assemblywoman Lynn Daucher, who scored 80%.

Individuals undergo changes in political philosophy, and as Republicans we ought to glad anytime a politicians begins a moving from left to right. At the same, when such shifts coincide with a politician's ambitions for higher office, voters are naturally suspicious. that goes double for GOP activists swimming in the backwash of the Age of Arnold. Mitt Romney's own abortion journey comes to mind.

As I struggle to make up my own mind about which candidate I will ultimately vote for next June, I'm not sure I can get past Whitman's support for publicly-funded abortion. At the same time, conservatives voters deserve to know if Poizner still adheres to the positions that garnered him a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood in 2004 -- which included support for publicly-funded abortion.

By his own admission, Poizner has stated "I'm clearly no one who agrees with the social conservatives either." While he's with us on same-sex marriage, on abortion, his past record doesn't jibe well with his statement in the same interview that he "doesn't believe abortion should be just another operation."

In other words, has a genuine change in his abortion views taken place, or are finger-pointing at Whitman's support for publicly funded abortions examples of throwing stones in a glass house?