About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

AP, CNN, The State reported McCain's Roe comment without noting McCain's history of flip-flopping on overturning Roe

February 20, 2007 6:02 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

45 Comments

Despite his history of inconsistency on the subject, which Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted (here, here, here, and here), the Associated Press uncritically reported in a February 18 article Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) statement that "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."

In its February 19 "Political Bulletin," U.S. News & World Report uncritically cited the AP article. Additionally, both a February 19 article in The State (Columbia, South Carolina) and a report by CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley, which aired on that day's edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 and on the next day's edition of CNN's American Morning, also uncritically quoted McCain's statement opposing Roe v. Wade.

On August 25, 1999, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that McCain had told its editorial board:

"I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. ... But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations."

The Chronicle added:

But on Sunday [August 22, 1999], in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, McCain said he favors the ultimate repeal of Roe vs. Wade, "but we all know, and it's obvious, that if we repeal Roe vs. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be (undergoing) illegal and dangerous operations."

The next day, according to the Chronicle, McCain issued what the Chronicle called a "clarification," which reportedly stated: "I have always believed in the importance of the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, and as president, I would work toward its repeal." On the June 19, 2005, broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, however, McCain adopted yet another position, saying that he agreed "to some degree" that Roe should be overturned, but adding: "I don't think it is [going to be overturned] at least not any time soon." In 2006, McCain issued a statement indicating that if he were the governor of South Dakota, he "would have signed" a controversial bill outlawing all abortions except in those situations in which the life of the woman is threatened, but that he "would also take the appropriate steps under state law -- in whatever state -- to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included." As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman noted: "But that attempt at qualification makes no sense: the South Dakota law has produced national shockwaves precisely because it prohibits abortions even for victims of rape or incest."

In a February 19 post on his personal weblog, Philadelphia Inquirer political analyst Dick Polman contrasted the AP article -- which, in Polman's words, "dutifully reported the quote -- without providing any of the context" -- with McCain's 1999 statements on abortion and Roe.

By contrast with the AP, CNN, and State articles, Fox News congressional correspondent Major Garrett's report on the February 19 edition of Fox News' Special Report noted McCain's 1999 comment against overturning Roe, adding that several days later "McCain reversed himself" to support overturning Roe. Similarly, on the February 19 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson noted that McCain "said pretty explicitly last time he ran ... that he didn't want [Roe] overturned." Democratic strategist Peter Fenn, who was a guest on the show, later referred to a comment McCain reportedly made on January 26, 2000, when asked what he would do if his daughter became pregnant. According to CNN, McCain answered: "The final decision would be made by [daughter] Meghan with our advice and counsel."

From the February 18 Associated Press article:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, looking to improve his standing with the party's conservative voters, said Sunday the court decision that legalized abortion should be overturned.

"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned," the Arizona senator told about 800 people in South Carolina, one of the early voting states.

McCain also vowed that if elected, he would appoint judges who "strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench."

The landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade gave women the right to choose an abortion to terminate a pregnancy. The Supreme Court has narrowly upheld the decision, with the presence of an increasing number of more conservative justices on the court raising the possibility that abortion rights would be limited.

Social conservatives are a critical voting bloc in the GOP presidential primaries.

From the February 19 article in The State:

The Arizona senator also said the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion should be undone.

"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned," McCain said.

[...]

About 1,500 people, most of them teens, had gathered at the auditorium for a religious and abstinence rally, and McCain made it there just as a Christian rap group finished a loud, spirited performance.

"I'm known for straight talk," McCain quipped. "I don't like that music."

The audience laughed, and then McCain told the teens to stand fast for what is right, even when doing so is difficult.

[...]

The senator vigorously campaigned here in 2000 during his unsuccessful push for his party's nomination.

That campaign, which he lost to George W. Bush, was noted for its nastiness, and, later, for McCain's acknowledgment that he had not spoken out for removing the Confederate flag from the State House because he feared doing so would hurt his chances of winning.

McCain was the anti-establishment candidate then, running against a party that strongly backed Bush.

From the February 19 U.S. News & World Report's "Political Bulletin:"

The AP is reporting that Sen. John McCain told a crowd in South Carolina Sunday: "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned." McCain "also vowed that if elected, he would appoint judges who 'strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench.' "

From the February 19 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:

CARLSON: John McCain says he wants Roe v. Wade overturned. He said pretty explicitly last time he ran -- I think it was '99 -- that he didn't want it overturned. Social conservatives don't trust him. I think part of that is a little bit unfair, personally. Will this help him at all with the evangelicals he needs, do you think?

PAT BUCHANAN (MSNBC political analyst): Sure it will, because it's -- the evangelicals and the social conservatives don't trust Romney. They don't trust Giuliani for good reason and for good -- Romney for good reason, and they don't trust McCain for good reason. McCain -- McCain overall is not as bad as Giuliani on this, and what he's doing, he's trying to get -- well, he says, "Look, I'm -- in effect, fellas, I'm going to get the nomination, and you got some deep concerns, and I'm going to appoint justices like [Antonin] Scalia, who will overturn Roe v. Wade, and I'd like to see it overturned -- and so, you're going to get what you want. And you and I know we can't do a great deal about abortion up there in the Congress of the United States."

CARLSON: Right.

BUCHANAN: So, I think it's going to help him. He's -- again, he's de-demonizing himself. He's making himself acceptable, you know, not embraceable.

[...]

FENN: Let me just run -- make one quick point on McCain, though.

BUCHANAN: It's the Rockefeller syndrome: the further he was away from things the higher he went, but he got back in -- right back down.

FENN: Thee guys -- these guys -- I tell you, these guys are doing more flip-flops, on the Republican side, than anything I've ever seen. You might remember that in New Hampshire there was a little problem with McCain when he was asked by a reporter about what he would do if his daughter got pregnant.

CARLSON: I was sitting literally next to him when he said that.

FENN: And he said, "Well, it's up to her" and, you know, "I'd have to look at it" and the -- boy, everybody went crazy. The social conservatives went crazy. He had to try to explain it. And that was -- that was leading into South Carolina, which I think hurt him greatly. And you're right, he's changing his views.

From the February 19 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

GARRETT: This weekend, another crucial issue for McCain and conservatives, abortion.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you feel about overturning Roe versus Wade?

McCAIN: I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned.

GARRETT: McCain lost South Carolina to [President] George W. Bush in 2000, in part because pro-life voters considered Bush more reliably anti-abortion. Though McCain then and now maintains a pro-life voting record, he gave pro-life voters doubt when he said this to the San Francisco Chronicle in August of 1999: "In the short term, or even in the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe versus Wade, which would force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations."

The quote created an immediate pro-life backlash. McCain said he misspoke. Five days later, McCain reversed himself, telling the Des Moines Register: "I have always believed in the importance of the repeal of Roe versus Wade, and as president, I would work toward its repeal."

McCain's maintained the same anti-Roe stance ever since, but questions persist.

From the Februrary 19 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:

CROWLEY: If you want to be the Republican nominee for president, a convention of religious broadcasters is close to must-do politics.

McCAIN: I respect the work of the religious broadcasters, and I was glad to have the opportunity to meet with them.

CROWLEY: In the 2000 election season, 16 percent of New Hampshire Republican primary voters identified themselves as part of the Christian conservative political movement. A third of South Carolina's Republican primary vote was conservative Christian, and more than a third of caucus-goers in Iowa said they were part of the religious right.

SUZANNE TABOR (Revival co-founder): I think the Christian conservatives are a force to be reckoned with and could put anyone in office they wanted, if they would get out and vote.

CROWLEY: You hear the echo of their influence down the campaign trail. It is in the announcement speech of [former Massachusetts Gov.] Mitt Romney.

ROMNEY: I believe in God, and I believe that every person in this great country and every person on this great planet is a child of God.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One, two, three.

CROWLEY: It is in John McCain's journey through the town halls of South Carolina.

McCAIN: I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned.

CROWLEY: It is even in the interviews of the pro-gay-rights, pro-abortion-rights [former New York City Mayor] Rudy Giuliani.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by IRONY 101 (February 20, 2007 6:22 pm ET)
         

      Flip, flop...  Flip, flop...   Flip, flop...

      Or did I hear NUANCE in McCain's statements regarding abortion?  Sorry, John, NUNANCE is a dirty word in Republican politics. Ask John Kerry? McCain's own party is going to eat him alive... and he deserves it. Maverick my arse... more like a cheap, pandering politico running for city council.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (February 20, 2007 7:29 pm ET)
           

        I gotta wonder about the people in their 50s who haven't quite made up their mind on abortion rights, or pretend that they haven't. I actually have more respect for the religious nuts who at least come out and say they think 2 cells is a person.

        Contrary to what the "revival founder" says in the item, the religious right does vote, I just think they overestimate their power. I'm glad they're out there and make so much noise though. If it forces candidates to get off the fence, we at least will know who has the courage to publicly state their beliefs.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by clsn_lx1315 (February 20, 2007 8:18 pm ET)
             

          Hey HBL,

          How about the 22 week old "clump of cells" who is about ready to go home to her parents? I gotta wonder about people like you (once 2 cells) who gleefully salivate over the "right" to kill future generations. Can you say "Hitler", HBL?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (February 20, 2007 8:41 pm ET)
               

            you got all that out of his post?

            Report Abuse
          • Author by DorisRussell (February 20, 2007 10:01 pm ET)
               

            You are actually on to something, im my opinion the Republicans and Right wing nuts will use that babies "miracle " and pull a Terri Schiavo , they will use this case to propagandize against Roe v. Wade.  Lead by Mr Creepy Senator McCain.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (February 20, 2007 10:33 pm ET)
               

            See, I wish more politicians could be up front like CLSN.The crazy's right out there, imagining that people "gleefully salivate " over abortions, and that Jews and Hitler's other victims weren't any more human than fetuses.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by rusty shackleford (February 21, 2007 9:23 am ET)
                 

              Correction, HBL: people like Clx think that Jews are no more human than 2 cells.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by clsn_lx1315 (February 21, 2007 9:36 am ET)
                 

              That sure was out of Left field, HBL.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (February 21, 2007 10:26 am ET)
                   

                I guess reality's in Left Field.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by clsn_lx1315 (February 21, 2007 12:07 pm ET)
                     

                  The reality is that a 21-week-old girl was delivered and will likely go home with her mother soon. Most (not all) people on the Left consider it to be a fundamental and cherished "right" to kill innocent human beings like this in the womb for the sake of "convenience." Yeah, I know the "we want abortion to be safe, legal and rare" argument. Please name another "right" that those on the Left want to be rare.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by rusty shackleford (February 21, 2007 12:14 pm ET)
                       

                    The right to a speedy trial.  You hope you never have to exercise it, but you're glad it's there.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by clsn_lx1315 (February 21, 2007 12:35 pm ET)
                         

                      I imagine the more than 48 Million American babies who have been killed in the womb since 1973 wish they had a fair trial.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by rusty shackleford (February 21, 2007 12:38 pm ET)
                           

                        You asked a question, I answered it.  Sorry your "rare right" gotcha wasn't as solid as you imagined.  Better luck next time.

                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (February 21, 2007 1:33 pm ET)
                           

                        You imagine that millions of former fetuses make wishes, and that these wishes are mainly that they'd like to be involved in some sort of courtroom proceedings? Now you're just trying to be zany.

                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by clsn_lx1315 (February 21, 2007 12:37 pm ET)
                         

                      So you want the right to a speedy trial to be rare? You're losing the argument, Rusty.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by rusty shackleford (February 21, 2007 12:41 pm ET)
                           

                        A "right" isn't rare.  You either have it or you don't.  If you understood what you're talking about, you'd understand that you're talking about the exercise of the right, which a person might logically hope has to happen only rarely.

                        You're welcome.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by clsn_lx1315 (February 21, 2007 1:02 pm ET)
                             

                          You're fading fast, RS.

                          The cliche from the Left is that they want abortion to be "safe, legal and RARE". If this "right" to kill the unborn is such a beautiful idea, why do you want it to be "rare"?

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by rusty shackleford (February 21, 2007 1:10 pm ET)
                               

                            A right is not "rare" or "common."  You either have it or you don't.

                            Hillary and others have said that they hope the exercise of the right - that is, obtaining an abortion - is "safe, legal, and rare."

                            They want the right to exist, yet hope it has to be exercised only rarely.

                            Like the right to a speedy trial (you hope you never have to go on trial).

                            Or the right to use force in self-defense (you hope you are never put in that position).

                            Or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances (you hope you are never aggrieved). 

                            And so on.

                            Have I dumbed it down enough for you now? 

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (February 21, 2007 1:23 pm ET)
                                 

                              Rusty, do you work in special ed.? You're very patient.I probably would have stopped after the 2nd or 3rd explanation and suggested reading more carefully.

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by rusty shackleford (February 21, 2007 1:31 pm ET)
                                   

                                I'm pretty sure special ed kids would grasp this concept more quickly than Another Ameri... woops, I mean Clsn.

                                Report Abuse
                              • Author by clsn_lx1315 (February 21, 2007 1:39 pm ET)
                                   

                                Work in special ed? No, his kind prefers to abort those with "disabilities" instead of caring for them.

                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (February 21, 2007 1:47 pm ET)
                                     

                                  I thought it was convenience.

                                  Now it's eugenics.

                                  If you're going to just throw out crazy guesses about other people's motives , at least be consistent.

                                  Unless you're just trying to be the wackiest poster here.In which case, mission accomplished.

                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by rusty shackleford (February 21, 2007 1:52 pm ET)
                                       

                                    Apparently AA also thinks I'm a woman and/or an abortion provider.  He/she needs to check his/her extrasensory perception, as I am neither.

                                    Report Abuse
                            • Author by clsn_lx1315 (February 21, 2007 1:47 pm ET)
                                 

                              Your arguments don't hold water. You're talking about rights to remedy unjust actions taken against someone. With abortion, the aggreived party has no say in the matter.

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (February 21, 2007 1:50 pm ET)
                                   

                                How about your right to free speech? That's not to intended to remedy any grievance.And your exercise of it should be rare, for your own sake and those around you. 

                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by clsn_lx1315 (February 21, 2007 2:15 pm ET)
                                     

                                  Since when does freedom of speech have anything to do with killing babies in the womb? I don't get the correlation but then I really don't understand much of anything that comes from the Left. I'm through. You guys have fun.

                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (February 21, 2007 2:24 pm ET)
                                       

                                    Good night, sweet prince.sleep it off.

                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by rusty shackleford (February 21, 2007 2:28 pm ET)
                                         

                                      I am gonna miss him...

                                      - Bill Murray, Ghostbusters (in reference to William Atherton, aka "d__kless here")

                                      Report Abuse
                              • Author by rusty shackleford (February 21, 2007 1:50 pm ET)
                                   

                                Ah, the old "change the argument strategy."  Suddenly a right has to have all kinds of qualifications to fit your argument.  I could answer you, AA, but you'd just change your argument again, so what's the point?

                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (February 21, 2007 1:55 pm ET)
                                     

                                  Rusty, it asked you to name another right you'd like to have, but would hope to rarely exercise.Just limit it to rights that involve destroying a little tiny soul and making Jesus cry. Seems fair enough.

                                  Do you think this is Another American?and do you think it intends to win with a new name and the same bad arguments? 

                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by rusty shackleford (February 21, 2007 2:02 pm ET)
                                       

                                    I noticed that Clsn showed up about the same time AA vanished, and with the same vacuous arguments.  Purely circumstantial evidence.  Doesn't matter much anyway, I guess - the wingnuts are essentially interchangeable.

                                    Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (February 21, 2007 7:32 am ET)
             

          You surprise me HBL.

          Have you forgotten that when someone gets to the ripe old age of fifty, they no longer feel the need, or have the ability, to let the synapses fire so they can make decisions?

          I'm OK with letting Bill O'Reilly make mine for me. 

          Report Abuse
      • Author by dougsomers (February 21, 2007 4:25 am ET)
           

        My Abortion Bumpersticker:

        AGAINST ABORTION?  DON'T HAVE ONE! 

         

        Report Abuse
    • Author by jeter2 (February 20, 2007 10:34 pm ET)
         

      Almost every politician whether they have a D or R next to their name has Flip-Flopped on an issue at least once in their careers.

      While I understand that MMFA must report each and every one of them...well actually only those from the Right...it does get monotonous.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by autopsychic (February 21, 2007 8:17 am ET)
         

        It seems pretty convieniant that when a republican "changes" his mind on a subject he is bad. But when a democrat "changes" his mind on a subject (Byrd+kkk) he is considered a hero. With all the scientific knowledge that has been developed since his initial support of abortion, it only makes sense that being against unnessassary abortions would be expected (do the same comparison with byrd's reasoning for suddenly not hating blacks). What sane person would want a woman to have a living being cut out of them when it wasn't needed? What sane person could support that procedure? I mean, why would someone voluntarily become pregnant if all their going to do is cut it out of their body? What sense does that make? Why are "convieniance" abortions even available? If you're going to do birth control take the pill or make him wear something, or... try NOT doing it till you're ready for children.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by rusty shackleford (February 21, 2007 9:25 am ET)
           

        And the correct person to make that decision isn't a woman, in consultation with her doctor - it's you.

        You certainly think a lot of yourself.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Marker (February 21, 2007 9:28 am ET)
           

        Mind changing knows no party, Bush, "No nation building"  Trent "Strom is a great guy", McCain, "I'm against abortion now... let me put my finger in the wind to check". I'm against abortions (that I would be involved in) but what someone else does is their business, hard for so called "Christians" to understand. Oh, and it would be nice if Bush and McCain and Lott and.... cared as much about our soldiers as they do fetuses.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by aDifferent McCain (February 21, 2007 9:49 am ET)
           

        Ah, PC of course the position of the right wingers, "every problem has a simple solution. NO"

        I have a friend who for some reason is just a baby factory (sorry about the crude language),

        1st time: with pill = baby (which he takes form the mother and raises, since she does not want a kid).

        2nd time: condom breaks = baby (he's married at this point)

        etc. etc. etc.

        At the age of 25 he has had four kids already. He dropped out of college because he needed to get a job to support his family. For some reason the pill is ineffective against his "stuff". And by this point his family is one of those with the name "working poor." if another kid is born, his family is not going to survive.

        At the age of 26, his wife gets pregenant again. What should she do? Should she have the kid and doom the rest of the childern to a life were they don't ask "what's for dinner," but instead ask "will we have dinner?"

        He even had a vesectomy, but is one of those (I think) 5% for whom it regenerates (grows back). He can't afford another operation.

        Or even the classic case. What would happen if a woman was raped and became pregenant? Only truly special women would be able to raise the child and not treat it differently. I mean here is a living breathing reminder of that terrible event. Look at history and the childern who are born of rape, what does it teach you?

        And no matter what pat robbinson or dobson say there are cases where the mother's life is at risk. Should she die in that case? 

        I don't believe abortion should be used as birth control, not when there are other means availible. But it should be there, there are reasons for it being there.

        Perhaps the christian rhich should refocus thier energies away from banning abortion and instead pass out condoms. Or maybe catch up with the rest of human kind and try to change our attitudes regarding sex, helping make it something natural and healthy. Instead of the current, "its dirty and sinnfull" attitude they have. I bet you, the conservative's attitudes towards sex have led to more un-planned, un-wanted childern, and more abortions, than a healthy understanding of sex. (i.e. what kid who is taught from age 6, that sex is wrong, and only for married people (although everyone is doing it, when not married) is going to feel okay asking dad (or mom) for condoms, or other forms of protection?)

        Answer those questions and maybe you'll be a better person. (BTW don't just quote right winger tracts at me, actually think about the answers and maybe do some research. It's the only way to really know what you are talking about).

        Report Abuse
        • Author by clsn_lx1315 (February 21, 2007 12:26 pm ET)
             

          From McCain:  

          "I BET YOU", the conservative's attitudes towards sex have led to more un-planned, un-wanted childern, and more abortions..."

          And: "BTW don't just quote right winger tracts at me, actually think about the answers and maybe do some research."

          What "research" did you do, McCain, to support your off the wall claims? Oh, that's right; "You bet." Thanks for backing up your fantastic charges with solid research. That was brilliant.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (February 21, 2007 10:28 am ET)
           

        PC, all of your "scientific research" against abortion and hating blacks aside, if you really believe that women are deliberately getting pregnant just for the fun of having an abortion, you need to get out more.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (February 21, 2007 11:56 am ET)
         

      <>It's rather sad to see McCain, the once proud "Maverick" grovelling  before the drooling Troglodytes.  But then, he knows he can't get the GOP nomination without their support.   I heard one of these idiots interviewed on NPR yesterday.  He said that, while he was concerned about the Iraq war and all, he wasn't going to let it supplant his main concerns, which are abortion and that gay stuff.  Yeah, those are the people we want picking our president...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Dr Rick (February 21, 2007 7:43 pm ET)
         

      "The reality is that a 21-week-old girl was delivered and will likely go home with her mother soon." - clsn_lx1315

      I call bs; please prove me wrong, and show us the link

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.