As a candidate for state representative I have spent countless hours trying to identify to the voters of the 81st District the major differences that exist on key issues between myself and my opponents.
As I campaign, the most frequently asked question is where I stand on abortion rights. Like the Chicago Tribune’s well-stated position, I am pro-choice within the parameters established by the Roe vs. Wade decision.
For me, it would follow that, on so important an issue, a Tribune-endorsed candidate, unless there is some indication to the contrary, would reflect that editorial pro-choice position. Certainly, the perception of the voters might be that your endorsed candidate is pro-choice.
In fact, in most of your endorsements you point out where a candidate stands on this issue. In your recent endorsement of Loleta Didrickson, not only did you mention she was pro-choice, but she agreed with your position, which seemed to be a key element in your endorsement.
When you warmly endorsed my opponent, Patti Bellock, you failed to mention that the only situation in which she would support an abortion is when the life of the mother is at stake. But you were quick to mention that fact as an implied negative in not supporting Peter Fitzgerald in his race against Ms. Didrickson.
Certainly, the Tribune has an awesome responsibility when it endorses a candidate. Many people, including myself, are influenced by the Trib’s editorial pages. Whether intentionally or not, you misled the voters of my district into believing an endorsed candidate agrees with your position on a critical issue when in fact she doesn’t. Shame on you.
