An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Pro-Choice Voters Need to Take a Look at McCain’s Record

If you are pro-choice, and wish to preserve reproductive rights for women, you need to take a closer look at McCain’s record on reproductive rights and other issues affecting women’s health.

Unfortunately, many pro-choice voters who support McCain prefer not to question too closely where he stands on this issue. Some have persuaded themselves that his present posturing as a far right Republican isn’t “sincere.” In an article in The New Republic, Sarah Blustain writes:

According to one poll, about half of all women voters backing McCain said they were pro-choice, including 36 percent who say they strongly support Roe. More importantly, these women voters think that McCain might agree with them on abortion. The same research found that “more than seven in ten pro-choice McCain supporters … have yet to learn that McCain’s position on abortion is directly at odds with their own.”

And the issue is not that they don’t care. One June poll found that, when Democratic women voters in twelve battleground states learned McCain’s position on abortion, Obama gained twelve points among them.McCain’s views may matter especially to Hillary Clinton supporters, many of whom are pro-choice; according to syndicated columnist Froma Harrop, “[T]hey’ll want to know this: Would McCain stock the Supreme Court with foes of Roe v. Wade? “(NR)

Blustain points out that MCain’s views are not in the least ambiguous.

There is no “latitude” in McCain’s position on abortion. Interviews with dozens of people who have dealt with him on the issue–pro-choice and pro-life activists, Hill staffers, McCain confidants, pollsters, and staffers–along with a two-and-a-half-decade-long perfectly anti-abortion voting record, make that clear. And his record on related issues, like contraception, is no better. “I think it is outrageous that people give him a pass, as they gave George W. Bush a pass,” reflects Feldt. “John McCain will be that and worse.”

While it’s true that his views have fluctuated with the political climate,

[T]his time around, McCain has swerved sharply to the right. The campaign website of the same man who, eight years ago, said Roe shouldn’t be overturned now says, “John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.” (NR)

Women who are concerned about women’s health, the freedom of women to a degree of control over their reproductive systems, and protecting the freedom of choice of others should therefore be very concerned about a candidate likely to appoint anti-choice judges to the federal bench (not only to the Supreme Court, but to all the federal courts).

Here are some facts to consider:

During his political career, McCain has participated in 130 reproductive health-related votes on Capitol Hill; of these, he voted with the anti-abortion camp in 125. McCain has consistently backed rights for the unborn, voting to cover fetuses under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and supporting the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which allowed a “child in utero” to be recognized as a legal victim of a crime.

He has voted in favor of the global gag rule, which prevents U.S. funds from going to international family-planning clinics that use their own money to perform abortions, offer information about abortion, or take a pro-choice stand.

And he has voted to appoint half a dozen anti-abortion judges to the federal bench, as well as Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. …

….McCain also joined efforts supported only by the radical wing of his party. He voted, for instance, with only one-fifth of the Senate to remove family-planning grants from a 1988 spending bill and with only 18 senators that same year against allowing Medicaid to pay for abortions in cases of rape or incest.

In 1994, the year after abortion provider David Gunn was killed outside a Florida clinic, McCain voted with 29 members of the Senate against establishing penalties for violent or threatening interference outside abortion clinics. Many solidly pro-life Republicans–Mitch McConnell, Kit Bond, John Danforth–voted in favor of the bill, called the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) (NR; emphasis added)

Conservatives have taken note of his record.

Conservative writer Charlotte Allen summarized McCain’s congressional career well last year in The Weekly Standard, noting, “[He] has never failed to cast his vote in favor of whatever abortion restrictions are arguably permitted under Roe v. Wade….And, she added, “Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America…consistently award him ratings of absolute zero on their scorecards.” (NR)

Pro-choice voters who have bought into the argument that McCain might not be that bad—and who have convinced themselves that he is misrepresenting his views for political reasons—need to take a hard look at his cumulative record on reproductive rights. (NR)

  • kryon77
    Sure, I'll own up to being anti-choice.

    The choice in question is to take a 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 month fetus and torture-murder him; to stick a scalpel in his head, then suck out his brains, crush his skull, tear him from limb to limb, and then throw the remains of what was once a fully conscious and growing human being into a bio-hazard bag and in turn throw that bag in the garbage.

    That, Damozel, is precisely what you call "reproductive freedom." Now, I ask you, who exactly is using words to obfuscate, instead of describe, what you're really in favor of?
  • DAMOZEL
    I am not going to argue the point with you, Kryon. I have explained my position. I am at peace with it. I don't need to justify it to you---and, in fact, the piece is directed toward people who do NOT share your views (as the title shows).

    Though I'm certainly in favor of developing technology to make such procedures as painless as possible. Since "viability" of the fetus is the test, and technology makes that happen earlier, I'd even support outlawing it at an early stage.

    But ban abortion? No. Who is going to feed those children, bring them up, see that they get health care, clothing, an education---if the mothers don't want them? How is that kinder?
  • christoofar
    kryon

    What about a 3 month old fetus? 4 month? What about a pregnant woman who has 3 kids & whose breadwinner of the household up & leaves in the middle of the night ?
    What about a frightened 19 year old who made a mistake & is now pregnant, in jr.college & whose parents have stopped talking to her since she "sinned"?
    And when did these personal, heart-wrenching situations suddenly become your or my business?
  • Don Quijote
    You just don't understand, christoofar, do you ? The little tramps had fun, they must now pay the price. Which is also why I support the Banning of contraceptive, no one should be allowed to have more fun than I am.
  • DAMOZEL
    To be fair, the version of the piece that Kryon read contained an explanation of my pro-choice position. I decided afterward to delete it since it felt superfluous to my point and derailed the conversation to the merits of my pro-choice stance.

    What I really wanted to get across is that McCain is antichoice.
  • elrod
    Obama has, thankfully, come out against late-term abortions too.

    As for pre-viability abortions, which comprise the vast, vast majority of them, Obama is pro-choice and McCain is pro-life. Me? I'm torn. I find abortion abhorrent in all cases. But I'm genuinely torn on what to do about it legally. I'd feel better if we used whatever mechanisms possible (better contraceptives, adoptions services, etc.) to lower the number of abortions without outright banning it. But I certainly don't see abortion as some sort of "choice" like picking a pair of socks.
  • But I certainly don't see abortion as some sort of "choice" like picking a pair of socks.

    Perhaps the word choice unfairly trivializes it, but the label "pro-abortion" unfairly stigmatizes a great many people who only see it as a necessary evil.
  • DLS
    *** CORRECTION *** "Pro-abortion" Use correct English, not weasel words.
  • DLS
    "unfairly stigmatizes"

    Only those who are unnecessarily defensive about it, and why are they defensive?

    There is always "pro-abortion-rights" if they have the intellectual capacity for this longer alternative.
  • DLS
    We make innumerable choices every day. Red or blue this November? Red or blue shirt? McDonald's or Burger King (if your taste in food is shallow or you are just pressed for time)?

    The correct terms have always been and always will be "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion." "Choice" is weasel language, a deliberate evasive euphemism that so many use who are cowardly or evasive.
  • Rightwingers get angry when you use the same tactics they do. How about we talk a little bit about enhanced interrogation, entitlements, the death-tax, liberating Iraq, etc.
  • greenschemes
    But ban abortion? No. Who is going to feed those children, bring them up, see that they get health care, clothing, an education---if the mothers don't want them? How is that kinder?

    Just execute them if they are not adopted by the age of oh say 3. Thats a good arbitrary age to determine whether they should live or die.
  • FlaLady
    This is not a one-issue election.
  • pacatrue
    It's good to know that DLS is here to tell us what we really mean.

    Of course, pro-choice is different from pro-abortion in the exact same way that libertarians do not actively support everything they believe people have a legal right to do. I believe it's none of the government's legal business if a spouse has an affair, but I am not therefore pro-cheating. I am not pro-get-plastered-on-vodka-and-bourbon-every-night, but I do not support the government legally punishing someone for doing so if they harm no one else in the process. The list could go on and on.

    In the debate on abortion, the essential question always comes down to, "should the state determine the manner in which a citizen uses her bodily organs when another life is dependent upon her decision?" Believing that there are good and bad ways a person can make that decision (i.e., having an opinion on the morality of an abortion), but also believing that the state does not have a right to legally compel that decision is entirely consistent and in no way cowardly or evasive.
  • mlhradio
    >>Perhaps the word choice unfairly trivializes it, but the label "pro-abortion" unfairly stigmatizes a great many people who only see it as a necessary evil.<<

    McLuhan would be smiling right now.

    I personally prefer to use the term "Pro-freedom-of-choice", or "Pro-freedom" for short, and those who favor limiting a woman's constitutional rights to an abortion as "Anti-freedom".
  • DLS
    I'll ignore Chris's latest illogical and frequently-false stuff other than to say that not everything there is the same weasel language (like "right to carry" is, obviously), and it's the left that uses this weasel language routinely, by far the most, in the most politically active way several orders of magnitude greater than anything on the right ("choice"; "single-payer", ["common sense"] "gun safety"). Corrected!

    As for Pacatrue --

    1. I'm telling people they should say what they actually and really mean. Corrected!

    2. Abortion in the USA is complicated by our federal system. Constitutionally it is up to state and local government to legislate on abortion as each sees fit, and it may be different in different places. It has no legitimate basis for encroachment by the federal government (least of all an illegitimately activist judiciary who would make up law out of thin air).

    3. There is no absolute "right" [sic] to unrestricted abortion, much less any "right" [sic] constituting a claim on government services to provide this to those who want it.

    4. Abortion will become a serious issue if federal health care (the typical model anticipated being "Medicare for all") is expanded beyond the elderly and disabled. I don't consider abortion that big a deal (unlike the most wacky leftists) and view it in the same context as contraception (though they're quite different things), and look at the big picture. But plenty of people are against it strongly and of course it's fully open to question and exclusion if only elective (not for health reasons) as a new federal health benefit (or a government benefit anywhere).

    5. And as the Florida Lady said, this is not a one-issue election and what kind of people make looser abortion laws their holy grail, anyway?
  • DLS wrote:

    The correct terms have always been and always will be "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion." "Choice" is weasel language, a deliberate evasive euphemism that so many use who are cowardly or evasive.


    I disagree with you on this.

    The position which states that government should have nothing what-so-ever to do with abortion is is neither pro-abortion nor anti-abortion. It is pro-choice.

    While there are those on the left who claim they are "pro-choice" but nonetheless support using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions either at home or overseas (forcing taxpayers to pay for medical procedures that they find abhorrent isn't really "pro-choice"), there are also people who take the libertarian position that the government should neither be used to prevent people from getting abortions nor to use taxpayer dollars to pay for them.

    Government neutrality is the only true pro-choice position. There's nothing weasely, cowardly, or evasive about it. The true weasel words come from those on the Left and the Right who insist on characterizing everyone else's positions in terms of "pro" and "anti" (i.e. abortion, drugs, guns, marriage) without stopping to consider whether government should be involved in these issues in the first place.
  • DAMOZEL
    Well, DLS, I am anti-abortion but pro-choice. I believe abortion is wrong (certainly abortion of a viable fetus), but I am simply not as sure as you are that my opinion should be a law for everyone else, including atheists, people who don't want children, etc. etc.

    As for the alleged cruelty, I am not sure it is more cruel for a fetus to be aborted than it is to bring a child into the world who isn't wanted by its parents. I have seen too many parents just walk away and leave the child to fend for itself. And once a human being is outside its mother's womb, most anti-choice advocates don't seem to be willing to build much of a safety net into the system to ensure the child has adequate food, care, health care, etc., etc. That's equally, or more, cruel according to me.

    As for religious grounds for arguing for it---the sacredness of a human life etc. etc.---those beliefs are not shared by all people, and it is wrong to force them to comply with my beliefs.

    So I do not want to do that. Those in that unfortunate situation must choose their own form of cruelty.

    ....BUT NONE OF THAT WAS MY POINT ANYWAY. It's an emotionally charged issue on which people hold strong views.

    My point is that IF you are pro-choice then DO LOOK AT MCCAIN RECORD. He's not a good option for people who feel that this issue is important. As "fla lady" says, this is not a 'one-issue election.'

    I didn't say that it was. I said: IF YOU DO CARE ABOUT THIS ISSUE, LOOK AT MCCAIN'S RECORD. I don't think Obama has this principle, or holds it strongly---his statements about late term abortions were inaccurate legally, but conceded that sometimes it MIGHT be necessary---so he is the better option for pro-choice voters.

    And that's ALL I was saying. You can all fight about whether abortion is right, wrong, cruel, less cruel than the alternatives all you want, but that is NOT MY POINT.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC