Here’s an axiom for American politics: people believe what they want no matter what the facts are. The latest episode pointing to this truism relates to State Senator Brian Joyce of Milton and his position on abortion.

In her June 15 Boston Globe op-ed column, Joan Vennochi wrote of Joyce’s new, moderated position on abortion: “The man who until Monday had a 100 percent approval from Massachusetts Citizens for Life is now prochoice.... To position himself better for a run in the 9th, Joyce is flipping my way on choice.” The editorial page of the Brockton Enterprise made the same point on June 17. The public perception of Joyce’s move seems to reflect what Vennochi and the Enterprise wrote. It would make for great boilerplate — a rapaciously ambitious politician turns his position on a dime — if only it were true.

It isn’t. I set out a few weeks ago to write a story about what the Phoenix sees as an important issue in the Ninth Congressional District race — abortion. I had heard that Max Kennedy, the perceived front-runner, was pro-choice, and that the other three candidates, Senator Stephen Lynch of South Boston, Senator Brian Joyce of Milton, and Senator Marc Pacheco of Taunton, were all pro-life. Since Kennedy was the only obvious pro-choice candidate, he could pull support from abortion-rights groups — a substantial advantage. Then I called each of the candidates and a different story emerged.

A spokesman for Kennedy gave me the response I expected, i.e., that Max was solidly pro-choice. Then Pacheco gave a very measured answer that amounted to supporting Roe v. Wade with some restrictions. Finally, with Kennedy still in the race, I reached Joyce on June 8. That morning, Joyce explained his decision to alter his position on abortion. He said he’d been swayed by the painful decision made by friends of his, parents of a severely disabled child, to terminate a pregnancy after they learned that the fetus in utero would also be disabled. After that he believed that whether a woman has an abortion “should not be my decision, and I believe it’s not the government’s decision either,” he said. Still, Joyce wouldn’t answer detailed questions on so-called partial-birth abortion or funding of family-planning clinics abroad.

His position was clearly news, but being a weekly newspaper, we decided to complete our story before publicizing Joyce’s obvious change of heart on the issue. And as I wrote that draft, I couldn’t see how Joyce could possibly lure pro-choice support away from Kennedy, whom the pro-choice groups were sure to support. With Kennedy in the race, Joyce’s muted position seemed unlikely to help him. In fact, the interviews with the candidates seemed to work in Lynch’s favor, positioning him as the only solidly pro-life candidate in the district.

On Sunday, the Globe and Herald published polls showing that the majority of the district supports abortion rights in some form. And on Monday, when Kennedy announced that he was dropping out, the whole landscape changed. Suddenly Joyce’s position on abortion became a pressing question. (Somehow Pacheco’s position was lost in the ether.) On Wednesday, both the Globe and the Herald reported Joyce’s new position. A few hours later our completed story was up on the Web.

In the midst of subsequent discussion, the fact that Joyce made his initial statement on abortion when Kennedy was still in the race failed, for whatever reason, to resonate. Only two print reporters inquired whether Joyce had indeed made his decision earlier — Boston Herald columnist Margery Eagan in her June 14 story “How Candidates Deal With Abortion Reveals a Lot” and Bill Forry, the news editor of the weekly Dorchester Reporter.

None of this is to say that Joyce’s decision might not have been politically motivated — it may well have been. Perhaps knowing that he might eventually lose to Kennedy, Joyce wanted to position himself to the left for future elections. It’s possible. But that’s not as nakedly grasping as much of the coverage has portrayed him to be.

Issue Date: June 21 - 28, 2001