The meaning of the NY Times’ non-endorsement of pro-abortion Gov. Cuomo

 

By Dave Andrusko

Gov. Andrew Cuomo

Gov. Andrew Cuomo

In the short-short term, the fact that the New York Times chose not to endorse pro-abortion New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the upcoming Democratic primary likely will have little impact on a man whose ambition to run for President is no secret. New York is an overwhelmingly Democratic state and after Cuomo disposes of Fordham University associate professor Zephyr Teachout in his party’s September 9 primary, he will be the favorite to win a second term in the general election November 4.

In deciding not to endorse either candidate, it would be hard to miss that the Times editorial board is chastising Cuomo for not governing (as many have pointed out) further to the left. But the key long-term implications did not come into play until well into the piece.

Under the rubric of “ethics reform,” the Times opined that “The worst moment of all came when Mr. Cuomo blocked the progress of the independent commission he set up to investigate corruption after the panel began to look into issues that may have reflected badly on him and his political supporters.”

To outsiders that is intriguing but oblique. The Times is alluding to what CNN’s Dan Merica described yesterday in its interpretation of the non-endorsement:

“Cuomo has recently come under fire for accusations of tampering in a corruption investigation by the Moreland Commission, a group appointed last year by the Democratic governor. The commission was part of a plan to wipe out violations of campaign finance laws in the state.

“According to the New York Times, when the group subpoenaed a firm that had done advertising for Cuomo’s 2010 gubernatorial campaign, the governor’s senior aide, Larry Schwartz, then pressured the commission to withdraw that order.”

There’s much more to it than that, but as a big picture overview, that’ll do.

For pro-lifers, our concern is Cuomo’s full-throated embrace of abortion on demand– and then some.

We’ve posted on Cuomo’s ambitious pro-abortion agenda multiple times. In a word, he promoted legislation that was a frontal assault on conscience rights, the taxpayer’s pocketbook, the unborn child who survives an abortion or is killed when his or her mother is attacked, and would open the door to an even greater expansion of abortion by widening the categories of people who can perform abortion.

Why?

For starters every candidate jockeying to be the Democrats’ 2016 (or 2020) presidential nominee will be pro-abortion. No particular payoff for being pro-abortion, so why not go over the top?

Yet, even so, New York is already a kind of secular heaven for the pro-abortionist, one of NARAL’s crown jewels. (NARAL routinely gives New York an A-.) It has no parental consent law, no 24-hour waiting period, and publicly funds abortions for women who receive public assistance.

New York already has a major metropolis in which in some zip codes the abortion rate has reached a ghastly 60% among African-Americans. Who but the likes of Andrew Cuomo could possibly believe there is a “need” for more abortions, including more late abortions? But he does!

Why else? Cuomo has a well-deserved reputation as a bully. As you may remember, earlier this year he said, “Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life….. Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

To which New York State Right to Life Executive Director Lori Kehoe quickly responded,

“If he wasn’t serious, it would almost be laughable that Governor Cuomo, who still advocates for no protective regulation on up-to-birth abortion, would consider the pro-life position to be extreme. New Yorkers stood up in force against his violent abortion agenda last year and, as a result, the Senate held the line against third trimester abortion. The facts speak for themselves. It’s clear who is too extreme for New York, and it’s certainly not the majority of New Yorkers who are opposed to expanding our already-extreme abortion law.”

That, obviously, has nothing to do with why the pro-abortion New York Times chose not to endorse him in the upcoming primary. But it ought to a primary reason for anyone other than pro-abortion radicals to not want him elected to any office, let alone the highest in the land.