CAMPAIGN AD REALITY CHECK

Wednesday, Aug. 2, 2006 | 7:35 a.m.

What the ad says

Female announcer: Dina Titus is pro-choice and doesn't want government intrusion.

Male announcer: Jim Gibson is anti-choice and wants to outlaw a woman's right to choose.

Female announcer: If you're pro-choice, there is only one choice.

Male announcer: Titus for governor. It's time.

What the ad's trying to do

It's very simple. The ad is designed to activate core Democratic voters by contrasting the two candidates on a motivating issue - abortion - for many party primary voters.

What's accurate

Did Gibson say he would outlaw abortion? You be the judge. On Oct. 21 on "Face to Face," Gibson said he believed abortion was an alternative in three instances - rape, incest and to protect the life of the mother. Then this dialogue ensued:

Ralston: What if the U.S. Supreme Court, as some people fear in the Democratic primary, overturns Roe vs. Wade? The governor then has a lot of power. Would you then pass a state ban on abortion here?

Gibson: I told you what I think about abortion.

Ralston: I'm just asking a simple question.

Gibson: I'm never going to put myself in a position where the things that I really think and believe are at odds with what we would enact. I believe abortion is an alternative in the circumstances I described. And that would be the kind of legislation, if it ever came to that, and I don't even imagine it will, that that's a position I would take. I want people to know that. I have not hidden that. Although you understand. I've been a mayor. I haven't been out there flagging all these issues, because they don't apply. In fact, that whole debate is not something that I've initiated. It doesn't really apply to us today. The law is the law. There will come a time when people will learn whether or not the court will ever look at that issue again. If the reconstituted court does that, then maybe we'll have a chance to talk about that.

(Gibson's campaign clearly knew the damage such a statement could have in a Democratic primary, and the mayor immediately retreated with this statement from his then-campaign spokesman: "I can say unequivocally he would not propose legislation. He would never go along with criminalizing abortion. He would never go along with that. That is not who he is and that is not what he is about. If he is guilty of anything, it is of being honest about his personal beliefs on abortion." - Greg Bortolin, Gibson spokesman, on Oct. 22 to the Reno Gazette-Journal.

(Gibson repeated his recant last week during a debate on "Face to Face.")

Titus: On this very show ... the mayor said, well, that was his position, he could never see himself supporting legislation that was contrary to his position. Pull out the quotes. Then he's gone back and forth with a lot of lawyer talk. You either are or you aren't. I'm not and I never said that. Well, now he says that.

Gibson: What happened is this ... You put out a hypothetical if Roe v. Wade is gone ... If the Nevada law is gone, if the slate is clean, would you criminalize abortion? And my view is you have to have abortion as an alternative. So, what I said was I wouldn't do something that was a violation of my own view, and that is I would never criminalize abortion. I answered your hypothetical, but what you've done is you put out the text, but you haven't put out the whole hypothetical.

Ralston: So you're saying what you meant there is that you did not mean you would impose your moral beliefs?

Gibson: No. My moral beliefs require that there has to be abortion, Jon.

Ralston: There are exceptions that exist in your moral beliefs.

Gibson: Yes, but you asked me if I would criminalize abortion under any circumstances. I can't. I can't do that, because whether it's my moral beliefs or the views of the people expressed at the ballot box, I don't believe you can do that and that's what I intended to say, and I think if you read or listen to the entire context ... I used to carry it around ... to show what I said was in response to a lengthy hypothetical.