In Latest Debate, Garcetti Pushes Abortion as Issue in D.A. Race

Abortion has emerged as an unlikely issue in the race for Los Angeles district attorney, with incumbent Gil Garcetti trying to portray challenger Steve Cooley as opposed to a woman’s right to choose, an accusation Cooley strongly denies.

The Garcetti campaign first raised the issue in a recent poll, suggesting to respondents that Cooley was anti-abortion. It came out again Friday, during the latest in a series of debates between the two candidates, when Garcetti charged that Cooley would “prosecute a caring doctor who performs a tri-semester abortion.”

Cooley ignored the issue during the debate but responded angrily afterward.

“Let me be clear,” he said. “I support a woman’s right to choose. Roe vs. Wade is the standard . . . and it is part of state law.” He accused Garcetti of focusing on a fringe issue--in practical terms, local prosecutors in California almost never get involved in abortion cases--to shift the focus from other issues in the campaign.

Abortion is one of many issues that Garcetti, trailing in opinion polls, has deployed in an effort to portray Cooley as a right-wing zealot. After issuing a series of scattershot denials, Cooley answered with a four-page statement Friday that began: “Let’s talk straight. I’m pro-choice. I support gun control. And I support crime prevention.”

At the debate, sponsored by the Rotary Club, Garcetti raised all of those. He said Cooley opposed crime prevention programs, “and that is perhaps the starkest difference . . . we have.” He brought up the abortion issue. And he once again issued a challenge to Cooley to support his call for a ban on all assault weapons.

“I want to take them off the street, right now,” Garcetti said. “I’ve asked my opponent to join me in this . . . and he says, ‘No.’ Why?”

Cooley brushed the criticism aside but did not directly answer the question. In the past, he has detailed his support for a variety of gun control measures, including waiting periods, background checks and the registration of gun owners, but has stopped short of calling for an assault weapon ban.

On the gun control question, however, he accused Garcetti of hypocrisy, noting that the prosecutor’s office initially opposed parole for a young man convicted of killing an acquaintance by shooting him 10 times with an Uzi. He also said Garcetti had failed to support California’s “10-20-life” law, which stiffened penalties for crimes committed with guns.

“Your gun control attitude sounds good,” he told Garcetti, “but when it comes down to it, it’s not there. It’s hypocritical, and you essentially don’t know the role of a true prosecutor.”

Garcetti said a deputy made the decision to oppose parole in the case of Robert Rosenkrantz, and that he later ordered that decision reversed. The state Board of Prison Terms recently declared Rosenkrantz suitable for parole, despite testimony by Deputy Dist. Atty. Larry Diamond urging that parole be denied.

Garcetti also insisted that he supported the “10-20-life” law. Deputy Dist. Atty. David Ross, who wrote the proposal that ultimately became the law, has charged that Garcetti didn’t support it. Jim Provenza, who lobbies for the district attorney’s office in Sacramento, said the office did not directly support the “10-20-life” bill, but supported it indirectly through the California District Attorneys’ Assn.

Friday’s debate, held at a downtown hotel, was the eighth so far this year between the two, and most of the charges and countercharges had been delivered many times before.

Cooley accused Garcetti of failing to exercise “prosecutorial oversight” in the Rampart scandal. He also charged that, by canceling the district attorney’s “rollout” program, which sent investigators to the scene of any shooting involving police officers, Garcetti might have foreclosed his office’s chances of detecting the scandal in its early stages.

Garcetti touted his crime-prevention programs--including one aimed at keeping children in school--saying they were helping to lower the crime rate. “I guarantee, you work with me to keep kids in school, crime will stay down,” he told the audience.

The only two new issues were abortion and the role of the civilian Police Commission in overseeing the Los Angeles Police Department.

Asked by a member of the audience about what role the Police Commission should play in managing the LAPD, Garcetti gave a noncommittal answer, saying he wanted to see how the commission operates under the new City Charter, most of which took effect on July 1. Cooley, however, said the district attorney’s office was the appropriate agency for overseeing the Police Department, and that Garcetti had failed to exercise that authority.

“We’ve got to play that role,” he said.

“This is a new point of disagreement,” Garcetti said. “Steve is obviously saying he doesn’t believe in civilian oversight of the Police Department. . . . I strongly, passionately disagree.”

The abortion issue was first raised in the poll conducted for Garcetti by the polling firm of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates. The survey, conducted last month among 500 registered voters, showed Garcetti still trailing Cooley, 46%-31%, but having bounced back significantly from a Los Angeles Times poll in April that showed Cooley leading 55%-18%.

After asking basic questions about whom the respondents supported, the pollsters then read a series of statements about the candidates’ positions. In a memo, the pollsters said that voters were “dismayed” by Cooley’s “stands”--including opposition to abortion rights and gun control.

Asked how the campaign determined that Cooley opposed abortion rights, campaign manager Eric Nasarenko pointed to a June 6 debate between the candidates on radio station KPFK-FM. In it, Cooley was asked by a caller, “Do you believe that doctors should be prosecuted for late-term abortions?”

“If they violate the law, they should be prosecuted,” Cooley said. “As you know, Roe vs. Wade, which was the constitutional decision setting forth a woman’s right to choose and defining that, is the law of the land, and that has to be respected. . . . I think that would certainly set the standard for prosecutions.”

Under California law, physicians are allowed to perform abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy only when it is deemed necessary to protect the health or life of the mother. Since that is generally stipulated, prosecutions of late-term abortions are virtually unheard of.

Garcetti, in the same radio debate, said he would exercise “prosecutorial discretion” in a late-term abortion case.

“Prosecutorial discretion means that even if you can prove a case or a crime that’s been committed, and there’s a reasonable probability of conviction, you have the ability to say . . . in this case, I’m not going to prosecute,” Garcetti said. “No, I would not prosecute a doctor for performing late-term abortions.”