Media reported McCain claim of consistency on abortion, ignored history of waffling
Several news outlets uncritically repeated or paraphrased a claim Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) made during the May 15 Republican presidential debate on Fox News, in which he said: "I have kept a consistent position on right to life. And I haven't changed my position ... on even-numbered years or have changed because of the different offices that I may be running for." But, as Media Matters for America has documented, McCain has in fact waffled on the issue; some conservatives have responded by accusing him of incoherence and of trying to appeal to both sides in the debate.
A May 16 New York Times article and a report by CNN chief national correspondent John King on the May 16 edition of CNN's American Morning both offered McCain's entire quote without noting his waffling on the abortion rights issue. In an article on the debate published the same day, the Associated Press paraphrased McCain's statement, reporting that McCain claimed "he has consistently favored limits on money in politics and opposed abortion," before citing McCain's quote about "even-numbered years." Similarly, on the May 16 edition of NBC's Today, Tim Russert, NBC News Washington managing editor and host of NBC's Meet the Press, asserted: "John McCain tried to define [Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov.] Mitt Romney last night by saying, 'I'm consistent. You may disagree, but I'm consistent.' "
On August 25, 1999 -- as Russert himself noted when McCain appeared on the May 13 edition of Meet the Press -- 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"I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary.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."
Several days later, McCain issued what the Chronicle called a "clarification," reportedly saying: "I have always believed in the importance of the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, and as president, I would work toward its repeal." He added: "If Roe v. Wade were repealed tomorrow, it would force thousands of young women to undergo dangerous and illegal operations. I will continue to work with both pro-life and pro-choice Americans so that we can eliminate the need for abortions to be performed in this country."
The Chronicle further noted that McCain's vacillation drew criticism from fellow Republicans and conservatives:
Those statements kicked up severe criticism from some Republicans that McCain, considered a plain-spoken maverick, appeared to be trying to please both sides on an issue that has been at the top of the political radar in California in recent elections. "It's very hard to finesse the issue of abortion, and Senator McCain is finding that," said Jeff Bell, senior political consultant for rival GOP presidential candidate Gary Bauer. "He's got a problem. He has a down-the-line pro-life voting record in (Congress). ... To say you're going to work with both sides is easier said than done."
Bauer called McCain's statements "unintelligible," and a spokeswoman for the Steve Forbes campaign accused the Arizona senator of "stuttering and stammering" on the issue.
Columnist George Will was even more blistering: "How can McCain square what he told The Chronicle with the answer 'yes' that he gave last year in response to the question, Do you support the complete reversal of Roe vs. Wade?' Or with this, from February 25 and July 22, 1998: 'I am a lifelong, ardent supporter of unborn children's right to life.' "
In 2006, a McCain spokesman reportedly told the National Journal's Hotline political newsletter that if McCain had been governor of South Dakota when that state proposed legislation banning all abortions except those necessary to save the pregnant woman's life, he "would have signed" the controversial bill, but 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: "[T]hat 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."
From the May 16 edition of CNN's American Morning:
KING: McCain was quick to return fire, suggesting Romney waffled on issues like abortion, depending on whether he was courting a liberal electorate in Massachusetts or the conservatives who settle GOP presidential fights.
McCAIN [video clip]: I have kept a consistent position on right to life. And I haven't changed my position even -- on even-numbered years or have changed because of the different offices that I may be running for.
KING: There was little new on Iraq.
From the May 16 edition of NBC's Today:
MATT LAUER (co-host): There's some momentum right now with Mitt Romney, when you think about it. He had the cover of Time magazine, a 60 Minutes profile; he's raising a lot of money -- but he's also dogged by these questions of flip-flopping on things like gay marriage and abortion and other subjects. Has he managed to define himself yet?
RUSSERT: He's trying. John McCain tried to define Mitt Romney last night by saying, "I'm consistent. You may disagree, but I'm consistent. You have different views every other year depending on the office you're running for." I think Romney's going to have to do what Giuliani did on abortion: finally decide "This is who I am. This is how I got there. End of subject."
From the May 16 New York Times article:
The moderators from Fox News allowed and at times encouraged the candidates to mix it up among themselves.
Mr. Romney sought to skewer Mr. McCain by association, noting his sponsorship of two bills that were particularly unpopular among conservative Republicans: an immigration bill that he was negotiating with Senator Edward M. Kennedy and the landmark campaign finance bill he drafted with Senator Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat.
"My fear is that McCain-Kennedy would do to immigration what McCain-Feingold has done to campaign finance and money in politics, and that's bad," Mr. Romney said.
Mr. McCain responded with a reference to criticism of Mr. Romney for switching positions on issues like abortion and gay rights as he has moved from the political arena of Massachusetts, where he ran for governor and senator, to running for president. "Well, I've taken and kept a consistent position on campaign finance reform," Mr. McCain said in response to Mr. Romney. "I have kept a consistent position on right to life. And I haven't changed my position even on even-numbered years or have changed because of the different offices that I may be running for."
On several occasions, the candidates sought to divert problematic questions by trying to turn their attacks on Democrats.
McCain appears to hold the same position as the "safe, legal and rare" crowd. Which is that he may oppose abortion but not abortion rights. Unless he's cornered in which case he says whatever his accuser wants to hear.
I agree...McCain would gain more credibility with this conservative if he went back to "straight talk"...rather than acting like most of the political candidates on the issues.
McCain is a war monger and near death so he does not have a chance this just nails it. The next President of the United States will be Obama any way.
McCain is an opportunistic politician, in my opinion. That being said, many think that being "pro-life" automatically means you want women and abortion doctors jailed. Undeniably, some do. But many also realize that is highly impratical and never going to happen.
So, the "safe, legal and rare" option is reasonable. It's more about the culture of valuing life, instead of it being cavalierly indispensible.
"So, the "safe, legal and rare" option is reasonable. It's more about the culture of valuing life, instead of it being cavalierly indispensible."
Very well stated! I consider myself Pro-choice, but my stance on abortion falls exactly in line with what you guys are saying. I think to many people focus on the extremes and never look at the big vast grey area on these issues.
I think you have a point. Could it be that abortion is too valuable to both sides as a political issue? Compromise may not be in their best interest, considering the money and emotion that it brings into the arena.
Exactly. Abortion is a valuable political football for both sides. Both parties use it to gear up their respective bases to get to the polls, who are very adamant in their support for choice or life......often at the expense of other, more critical issues that politicians would rather avoid. It's pathetic.
"often at the expense of other, more critical issues that politicians would rather avoid. It's pathetic"
Not really. Life should always be the most important issue. If we can't protect those in the womb, then all of the policies that we put in place after that won't matter because the children killed by abortion won't have the opportunity to benefit from those policies. Our #1 concern should always be to protect innocent life and ensure that every human being is protected by law and welcomed into life.
Do you deny that abortion is used by politicians and political parties as the expense of other issues at all? I am not saying it's unimportant.....but we keep going around and around and the chances of it ever becoming illegal are very rare. Even if Roe is overturned someday, many states would still keep it legal.
It should be a cultural issue, not a political issue.
"It should be a cultural issue, not a political issue"
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. If it wasn't a political issue we would have abortion on demand throughout the entire 9 months of pregnancy. It has to be a political issue in order for there to be at least some restrictions on it. The government is the only entity powerful enough to put restrictions on or ban abortion. Abortion to me is the most important issue and I won't vote for a pro choice politician. It's that important. You disagree. That's fine. But you should know that there are millions of us who feel the same way.
Rhino, you stated yesterday: "Birth control pills and condoms simply prevent the egg and sperm from meeting and forming the fetus." Is it your position that sperm and eggs are not alive?
No. It's my position that life doesn't begin until the egg and sperm meet and form the fetus. Birth control pills simply prevent the egg and sperm from meeting and isn't murder in my opinion. There are probably some pro lifers who disagree with me on this, but that's where I stand on that issue.
It's very simple chemistry. The egg and sperm combine to form a completely different entity, much like sodium and chloride combine to form salt. The argumant that contraception is abortion is ridiculous.
I think some, including Randall Terry, do disagree. There is no question that the egg and sperm are alive, so, drawing the line at conception is just as arbitrary as drawing the line at viability.
You're not entirely correct. The primary purpose of most birth control methods is to prevent fertilization. However, many forms - including lunelle injection, some oral contraceptives, some IUDs and others - also work to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the womb.
Do you believe all of these forms of birth control should therefore be banned?
It's estimated that about 60% of all pregnancies end in natural abortion. In the vast majority of those cases the woman is never even aware it has happened. If those fertilized eggs were the equivalent of a newborn baby we should consider all of those cases to be tragedies. You will find very, very few people who hold that attitude. It's simply not a reasonable position to take.
When I said it shouldn't be a political issue, I did not mean that there should be no laws or restrictions regarding the procedure. I meant it is far too closely aligned with politics and politicians who use it as a tool to get elected. I am not minimizing it's importance to many, it is a very emotional issue and I understand many use it as a litmus test when voting. But the reality is it will never be illegal in this country, at least not in the foreseeable future - it is far too impractical and unworkable, regardless of who is in office. The citizenry does not support it being illegal, and I doubt it ever will.
That is why if efforts were put into the culture to make abortion as rare as possible, that makes more sense. You can't solve the abortion problem through legal means, the culture is the best hope.
"That is why if efforts were put into the culture to make abortion as rare as possible, that makes more sense"
I agree that we should promote adoption and figure out ways to reduce abortion. But I also think that Roe v. Wade should be overturned so that the people can actually vote on the issue. If Roe v. Wade were overturned there would be some states that would ban abortion in most circumstances, and other states would still have abortion on demand. I simply want the people to be able to vote on the issue.
I agree completely. Roe is bad law and should be overturned back to the states, where it belongs.
following that logic, the southern states could vote on whether segregation is ok.
or whether the ten commandments should be the law of the land.
The Constitution doesn't allow it, sorry.
but your argument is turn things back over to the states.
Only things that the Constitution says absolutely nothing about like abortion.
it doesn't say anything about birth control. should that be left up to the states?
Ya, or else create a constitutional amendment making birth control a constitutional right
really? so everything not in the constitution needs an amendment? there's no assumption that the government has no business regulating it? you communist.
"so everything not in the constitution needs an amendment?"
Uh ya, or else it should be voted on. Supreme Court justices who make up new constitutional rights which aren't contained in the constitution are judicial activists. We have a democracy in this country in which people get to vote on issues. You're obviously not a fan of democracy. And the term "communist" that you threw out there comes much closer to describing you than me. Communists oppose democracy, and it's very obvious that you want to take controversial issues out of the hands of the people and let un-elected judges impose their own will on the American people. This has nothing to do with "big government." You support a big government in virtually every other area such as taxes, the environment, business regulation, gun control, etc. I'm simply a big fan of democracy and want the people to vote on issues that aren't contained in the Constitution.
amemdment 9: "the enumeration in the constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".
The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts don't allow it, sorry.
Very true. Outlawing it would be very intrusive and it still wouldn't prevent it. We would just feel like its gone away, much like with prostitution or drugs.
"Our #1 concern should always be to protect innocent life and ensure that every human being is protected by law and welcomed into life."
Iraq-civilians-the poor-Troops-Darfur
When people claim to be prolife I always wonder if they are really pro-life or just interested in unborn babies.
One can cite evidence that the pre-war sanctions imposed on Iraq killed half a million children. So where does that leave us?
From Wikipedia: On May 10, 1996, appearing on 60 Minutes, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) was presented with a figure of half a million children under five having died from the sanctions. Not challenging this figure, she infamously replied "we think the price is worth it", [10] though she later rued the comment as "stupid."[11]
Going to war with Iraq wasn't the only alternative here. Perhaps the sanctions could have been modified so as not to impact the children so harshly.
I don't think we should be quick excuse Saddam Hussein from responsibility of those alleged 500,000 children either. Sanctions weren't imposed for no reason.
We didn't go to war for no reason either, just not enough good ones.
My point was really that continuing what we were doing was also causing a lot of damage to Iraq, and I agree that Saddam was responsible for the sanctions by his own actions. Just a reminder that the sanctions also killed just like war does.
the sanctions were voted on by the united nations.
And therefore what? The deaths didn't occur?
did i say anything that suggested the deaths didn't occur? my point would be that they were nothing unilateral by this country.
The terrorists kill Iraqi civilians, not the US troops. Let's get that straight. We came in to liberate the Iraqi people and try to give them freedom. I'll admit that it hasn't worked so far, but our soldiers aren't "killing Iraqis." I believe that we should care for the poor as well. I just think that it can be done more effectively through private charities, churches, and individual compassion rather than a large and inefficient federal government. I think Darfur is terrible as well, but I'm not sure exactly what we can do about it. That's a problem that we need to focus on as well.
Actually, our forces have killed civilians. We do not specifically target them, but you know as well as I that many died in the intitial bombing, not to mention subsequent mistakes that have resulted in unfortunate "collateral damage". Civilian casualty figures have been estimated up into the hundreds of thousands. Do we bear no responsibility, even indirectly, for those deaths? Had we not invaded, most of them would still be alive.
"Had we not invaded, most of them would still be alive"
At least the ones who Suddam Hussein decided he didn't want to execute.
You are merely using speculation as to what might have happened as fact. You don't know that.
We do know that the Iraq War (a war we started) led directly to the deaths of many thousands of civilians. That is an undeniable fact.
And we also know that Suddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of his own people before we invaded Iraq. That is an undeniable fact as well.
Yes. If you avoid any attention to the history or context, that looks pretty bad. The problem is that many of the people Saddam killed were rebelling against his authority. Whether we like it or not, nation-states are given the right to protect their own sovereignty.
Now this wasn't the only instance where Saddam murdered his own people, but it constitutes the lions share of the examples cited by people who are trying to paint Saddam in a bad light.
Our country does the same thing with would be rebels and rightly so. Look at what we did to Timothy McVeigh. Do you disagree with putting rebels to death or that states have such authority to do so?
"Now this wasn't the only instance where Saddam murdered his own people, but it constitutes the lions share of the examples cited by people who are trying to paint Saddam in a bad light"
Absolutely unbelievable. It's astonishing that you would actually defend Saddam Hussein. Even most Democrats in Congress concede that he was an evil man. Saddam was a brutal and evil dictator who suppressed his people and murdered thousands. The people who rose up against him tried to remove him from power by force. They were trying to rid their country of an evil and UN-ELECTED dictator. Brute force is the only way to remove a dictator from power. The Iraqi people were right to rise up against him. If anything, the United States should have tried to help the rebels in this effort. It could've saved us from going to war. Timothy McVeigh murdered a vast number of people to send a political message. Of course he should be put to death. You don't seem to understand the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship. The Iraqis that Saddam killed were innocent people who were trying to rid their country and the world of one of the most evil men in the world. Saddam was a brutal and evil man who is burning in hell as we speak. It absolutely astonishes me that you could defend him.
"Saddam was a brutal and evil dictator who suppressed his people and murdered thousands. The people who rose up against him tried to remove him from power by force. They were trying to rid their country of an evil and UN-ELECTED dictator." --rino hunter
Your objection seems to be more centered around whether you have determined that Saddam is a bad guy or not. Bad guys are not allowed to defend themself if I am reading you correctly. Simple and self-serving logic.
I don't subscribe to your relativist views. I believe that the same principles should be used for Saddam and for ourselves and our friends. Those principles do not bend in the wind depending on whether we are talking about our friends or enemies.
The Saudi Kingdom and Musharef in Pakistan come to mind as UN-ELECTED Dictators/Kings who have a history of brutality towards their people. Do Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have the right to execute those who would try to overthrow them (even if it is Al Quaida)?
That said, I think Saddam deserved to be overthrown. I am just pointing out that not everything is as simple as you seem to present it in your disingenuous argument. There is a price for failure in attempting to overthrow Saddam. It is difficult to place blame on Saddam for doing what just about anyone in his position (friend or foe alike) would do.
Rhino,
So in other words; you have nothing to dispute these facts.
We bear responsibility and mourn every innocent death we have caused. Unlike Saddam and the terrorists, we don't target, then celebrate, innocent slaughter.
"We bear responsibility and mourn every innocent death we have caused. "
Reasonable peole agree with you, the rest are oblivious.
Agreed. Saddam was a bad guy, and deserved what he got. There are dozens just like him around the world. Even though he did target his "enemies", Iraq was much more peaceful then than it is now. Some Iraqis believe they were better off before we invaded. At least they could go to work or school without getting blown up. At some point we have to stelp back and evaluate...have we done more good than harm in Iraq? It probably depends on who you ask.
"We bear responsibility and mourn every innocent death we have caused." --tommy
I am not so sure about that. That is not a specific cut on you or America per se. I think if we knew about the degree of devastation, we might feel more like you say. I just don't think it is discussed very often. The war and its distruction are often discussed in ways that do not reveal the human costs very well. When it is discussed, many times the conversation devolves into a numbers game or some other abstraction.
I don't think this issue is really covered and discussed enough for us to claim we really care about these people and their shattered lives. In many ways our culture has objectified these victims much like the terrorists objectify their enemy or anything else that gets in their way.
I don't disagree with much of what you say, the lives lost are seen as numbers at times, that is a sad reality of war.
What I do quibble with is when you say "much like the terrorists objectify their enemy or anything else that gets in their way". They don't kill people or enemies simply because they "get in their way", they go out of their way to murder innocent people.
I see your point. My comparison at that point of the post was more a of a political one. We kill civilians (unintentionally) on the way to achieving political goals, while terrorists kill civilians (intentionally) to achieve a political goals as well. I agree that terrorists go out of their way to kill civilians by definition.
Rino,
You are likely correct on what you say.... that no US soldiers kill or have killed .Iraqi civilians..... on purpose (except those that may have lost their way) but it has occured so you shouldn't make a blanket statement.
However, since it is likely that it has happened, mistakes do occur and under the circumstances over there I believe we can forgive them all (the soldiers) for those times.....
But it is quite well known that our military leaders (those that send out the orders) have no doubt sent rockets, artillery, and those unfortunate soldiers to go and hope to kill a terrorist into areas where civilians are, to do their collective best not to injure or kill civilians, which is so easy for those not on the ground to presume.
Obviously there is a difference between killing civilians on purpose and on accident and sadly our boys/girls are between a rock and a hard place with few choices to pick from.
We all have to remember that Iraqi's are HUMAN BEINGS also! Yes, to be sure there are terrorists there too, but wouldn't a bullet in the head work better than a 500 lbs bomb!
Sorry, Rhino we did not invade Iraq to "give them freedom" we invaded them looking for the "mushroom clouds" or "wmd's. And sorry US bombs HAVE killed inconnect Iraq's. They don't mean to kill inconnect people but they do.
So, the "safe, legal and rare" option is reasonable. It's more about the culture of valuing life, instead of it being cavalierly indispensible. - from Tommy
So your position on the issue is exactly the liberal position. How interesting.
Actually, some liberals have the same position as I do.
That's an interesting way for you to put it. However, the fact remains that the position you described is EXACTLY the liberal position on abortion.
Then good for those liberals that agree with me.......they're coming around.
The thing is this has been the stance of many liberals from day one, the right tries to protray there stance in the most negative of lights. ProChoice does not mean Pro Abortion.
Tommy is best described as a right-leaning libertarian. Libertarians are often on the same side as liberals on social issues. I don't think it is constructive to suggest that one side has come over to the other or not. What is of singular importance is that we simply agree. Maybe we should focus on that.
Fair enough assessment.
Bill, glad to see you posting again. I agree that "safe, legal and rare" is the mainstream liberal position but liberals seem to be opposed to a lot of restrictions on abortion that conservatives favor, such as the recent partial-birth ban. So I think there are gray areas within the "safe, legal and rare" arena.
Thanks for the welcome. It's been a tumultuous winter for me.My response is that liberals oppose unreasonable restrictions on abortion. The ban on the horribly misnamed "partial-birth abortion" procedure contained absolutely no possible exception for the life of the mother. This in spite of the fact that the vast majority of obstetricians stated unequivocally that there are instances where that is the safest course to take.
That's actually not true as MMFA has noted several times when discussing Guilianis abortion flip-flops. The 1997 bill that Clinton veoed DID have the exception for life of the mother as noted in Paragraph (a) here http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_bills&docid=f:h1122enr.txt.pdf
Which makes me wonder why Clinton vetoed it in the first place, to which I have never received an answer.
No, I'm not wrong. What I said was true of the recently passed bill. The problem with the 1997 bill was that it didn't include any language allowing for use of the procedure when it's deemed the best option for the health of the woman. Liberals consider restrictions that fail to take into consideration the life and the health of the woman to be overly restrictive.
No, you're still wrong. The most recently passed bill did contain an exception for the life of the mother.
You're right, there is the facade of an exception for the life. The problem is that applying that exception is so onerous as to make it virtually unusable. There are very few instances in which a doctor can absolutely, positively state that the woman will die without the dilation and evacuation procedure. The doctor may be positive that the risk is highly elevated without the procedure, but he's got to consider the possibility that his decision will be second-guessed with the possibility of prison time facing him if some crusading prosecutor with political ambitions decides to try to make a case against him.
The exception is so hard to apply and the risks so high for the medical practitioner that it is virtually nonexistent. Take a typical case in which the procedure is applied. An advanced term fetus has kidney failure. Miscarriage doesn't occur. Continuing to carry the fetus creates highly elevated risks of several kinds of complications. Under the current ban this safe, tried and true procedure is no longer an option, even though the woman's life may genuinely be in danger.
The ban on intact dilation and evacuation quite obviously is not a reasonable restriction on abortion.
This is from the Partial Birth Abortion Act that the Supreme court recently upheld. It's rather long but necessary to post I believe. The facts detailed do not support the need for partial birth abortions.
(13) (14) Pursuant to the testimony received during extensive legislative hearings during the 104th, 105th, and 107th Congresses, Congress finds and declares that:
(A) Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks include, among other things: an increase in a woman's risk of suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, according to a leading obstetrics textbook, "there are very few, if any, indications for . . . other than for delivery of a second twin"; and a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death.
(B) There is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods. Furthermore, there have been no articles published in peer-reviewed journals that establish that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to established abortion procedures. Indeed, unlike other more commonly used abortion procedures, there are currently no medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their curriculum.
(C) A prominent medical association has concluded that partial-birth abortion is "not an accepted medical practice," that it has "never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development," that "the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown," and that "there is no consensus among obstetricians about its use". The association has further noted that partial-birth abortion is broadly disfavored by both medical experts and the public, is "ethically wrong," and "is never the only appropriate procedure".
(D) Neither the plaintiff in Stenberg v.Carhart, nor the experts who testified on his behalf, have identified a single circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion was necessary to preserve the health of a woman.
(E) The physician credited with developingthe partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman.
(F) A ban on the partial-birth abortion procedure will therefore advance the health interests of pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy.
(G) In light of this overwhelming evidence, Congress and the States have a compelling interest in prohibiting partial-birth abortions. In addition to promoting maternal health, such aprohibition will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide, that preserves the integrity of the medical profession, and promotes respect for human life.
Those are the words of politicians, not doctors or scientists. The risks cited in (A) have never been demonstrated to occur to any measurable degree. Section (B) is irrelevant because there isn't any requirement that intact D&E be shown to be safer. It is very safe, as is every abortion procedure commonly practiced in this country. It's interesting that they don't mention the "prominent medical association" in (C) but we know positively that it's not the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or the American Medical Association. The two most prominent and autoritative medical associations with the greatest wealth of knowledge of the procedure disagree with the politicians who wrote the content of your post. There is significant disagreement with (D) which is easy to find. (E) is the opinion of a single man with no exceptional knowledge. (F) is merely speculation with no factual support. (G) refers to science not actually presented.
So you're saying that abortion rights advocates did not put evidence in the record that would support their side that this procedure is absolutely necessary and there is no alternative that is equally safe when the womans health is in jeopardy?
I don't think abortion rights advocates would let that happen if that evidence existed.
Apparently it is no longer the job of the MSM to seek out facts. This is evident in their coverage of the Republican debates. The consensus among these worthless stenographers is that Rudy Giuliani hit a "home run" when he hysterically played his bogus "9/11 credentials" against Ron Paul. It's disgusting.
McCain is saying the right thing. Keep 'em legal, make them rare. It's because he's a politician that he can't say it the same way twice, thus causing confusion.
McCain has a 100% pro life voting record. Forget about what he said. Just look at his record. He consistently votes pro life.
What abortion issues are even voted on by the senate? Just curious.
Here you go:
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm
Thank you. Very interesting.
SO why'd he say it in your opinion? (No sarcasm intended)
Because a majority of the American people don't want Roe v. Wade to be overturned and he was trying to make himself look more moderate.
instead of being a "straight shooter"
Ya, I never said that he was a "straight shooter." He's changed his mind on tax cuts and other important issues. I just like the fact that he has always consistently voted pro life.
Rhino, I find your comments regarding abortion interesting.
All life is precious or words to that effect but conservatives have no problem with the death penalty. If all life is precious then there will be no need for the foster care system and all children will be adopted but conservatives don't adopt. There are enough pro-lifers out there to adopt all the children but there are many many children awaiting adoption. Have you adopted a child and have your other conservative friends adopted a child? Again, it is a personal decision and not of my business, JUST LIKE ABORTION.
Abortion is THE MOST PERSONAL decision for a woman to make. It does not belong in the political arena. It is a discussion for the man and woman to have have but the decision IS a woman's to make. Yes I know that a woman can't have the need for an abortion without the initial help of the man to get pregnant but she and she alone carriers the child.
My daughter wanted children her whole life and when she finally became pregnant at age 35 she was thrilled however during her 4th month she had a crisis. The was not enough room in her uterus for her child to develop and going any further would not only endanger the child BUT my daughter as well. It was her decision to terminate the pregnancy for her health. It still haunts her today but it was deeply personal and I can't image you or anyone else making that decision for her.
When so called evangelicals and conservatives brought abortion to the political arena they did the one thing that I thought conservatives did not want, put MORE government in our lives. Using such a personal decision as a rallying tool is pathetic and disgusting.
Again, when you get a uterus you get to decide. When your spouse or significant other allows you to take part in HER decision you get a vote.
"Again, when you get a uterus you get to decide"
My mother is pro life as well, and so are my sisters. Do they get to decide? Also, what do you mean conservatives don't adopt? I've never heard such a ridiculously wrong blanket statement in my life. I know a lot of conservative people who have adopted children. I have no idea how you could make a claim like that. Also, your argument that the government cannot legislate morality is simply absurd. Both Republicans and Democrats impose there own morality on others. It's called democracy. We vote for candidates who reflect our values on all the various issues. Democrats want to impose their own morality on others when they ban smoking in restaurants or redistribute income from the rich to the poor. Every politician has certain key beliefs and values that they hold, and in a democratic society it is our right to vote for candidates who reflect our beliefs and values.
Yes your pro-life sister and mother absolutly get to decide whether or not they get an abortion just like all other women. They just dont get to make the decision for OTHER women.
Why do you get to decide what kind of guns I can and can't buy?
Why limit your argument to just guns? The second amendment only mentions "arms" not "guns".
Why can't you or your neighbor get nuclear, chemical, or biological arms for that matter?
Once we have established that a line can be drawn at what is acceptible, we are just arguing about where to place the line. Arms are a little different matter because of the obvioius implications of destruction it could mean to you or your neighbors.
We elect our leaders to draw the line as reasonably as they can.
Rhino, again, It it not for you to decide. If your spouse or partner invites you to help them in making their decision then fine you get a vote. Yes your mother and sister get to decide but YOU do not. No one is asking you to carry a child for 9 months. No one is asking you to carry the child and then give it up. Again, it is not for you, Rudy, John (McCain or Edwards) Bill, Joe to decide.
IT IS A PERSONAL DECISION THAT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE POLTICAL ARENA!
My point on adoption was it's is not my business if you choose to adopt and it is not your business to decide it a woman has a child. If all those pro-lifers were adopting all of the innocent lives they care about don't you think there would be fewer kids waiting for adoption? If those pro-lifers were concerned about the innocent lives don't you think that there would far less children lost in the foster care system?
It belong to individuals not politicians.
How about if we carry this a step farther. Since the baby is the mother's own blood, then shouldn't she have the right to kill her baby after it has been born? She brought her baby into the world, so shouldn't she have the right to take it out? Why is it suddenly immoral to kill the baby after it has been born but not before? Does the baby suddenly become human only after it has been born? Is it only an illusion that the baby's heart is beating before it is born?
Rhino, abortions are done during the first three months of pregnancy where there is no way that the fetus could survive without the mother giving the child life. In my daughter's case it was her 4th month but the choice was her life and possibility of no life for her fetus.
Get it, without a woman's decision to take care of herself no fetus could survive. That's why the decision has to come from a woman NOT some politician
I'm not going to go down this road with you. You use the term "baby" who I take to mean that it can survive without the nutrients provided by a woman during pregnancy. Both you and I know that if a child can do that and you kill such child THAT'S murder.
So would you support banning abortions after the baby is viable? This is when many abortions occur. There are some that occur up until the moment of birth. It is still legal in most states to get an abortion even after the baby is viable.
Rhino,
I SUPPORT A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE!
"Rhino, abortions are done during the first three months of pregnancy where there is no way that the fetus could survive without the mother giving the child life"
This is your quote. You made it sound like you only supported abortion in the first three months of pregnancy. That's why I asked the question. There are some pro choice people who are pro choice in the first trimester but want it banned after that, and there are others who want it kept legal during the entire nine months of pregnancy. I was just wondering which camp you fit in.
Also, there are certain types of people in our society who are unable to take care of themselves. The elderly and people who are mentally handicapped are two examples. Should the government allow the elderly and the mentally handicapped to be murdered since they aren't capable of taking care of themselves? I find it funny that liberals often talk about "protecting the most vulnerable in society," but somehow that never extends to unborn babies.
Rhino I find it funny that when trying to make some point about a woman's right to choose you can't stick to that topic and that topic alone. You have to use examples like old people. If old people are able to have abortions then include them in the conversations if not try something else.
Nice dodge of the question.
Sorry, no dodge required.
Abortion first requires the ability to conceive and old people can't.
I'm talking about life issues in general, not just abortion. Abortion isn't the only life issue. You still haven't explained how it's all right to murder a defenseless baby but not all right to murder a defenseless old person or mentally handicapped person.
Rhino, we were talking about abortion until you started on about old people. You only reference to life before was in regards to abortion.
A baby can live outside the mother womb. There is no question in my mind about that. A fetus need a woman's womb to live in.
Old people deserve all that life has to offer. They deserve affordable housing, retirement, health care and love. Any more questions on old people?
Rinos analogy is relevent as to viability. Many pro-choicers use the "viability" reason when arguing for abortion rights, when in fact there are many people in this world that are not viable on their own without the use of life support. A fetus is merely using the woman as its means of life support until such time that it no longer needs her.
We don't consider someone less human because they cannot survive without outside support.
We define death as such time when the heart stops beating, we should be consistent and define life as such time when the heart starts beating.
"The fetus is merely using a woman as a life support until they can live on there own"
Without the woman a fetus is unable to sustain life. It is her right to choose whether she will continue. You say merely like a woman is the same as the "life support" machine that sustains life to organs. Should this woman have no feeling because she is merely the "life support" for the fetus? When the machine is "unplugged" I guess to you that would be when the woman give birth.
I come back again and again to choosing. The man has a choice before conception, wear a condom or not. A woman has a choice after conception. Since the woman has to sustain her life in order to continue to give life to her fetus it should be decided by her and not some politician in Washington. This should be the point where government leaves our personal lives.
Women have plenty of choices before conception as well. I'm just arguing against the point that because a fetus isn't viable that it shouldn't have rights.
What rights would this "fetus" have? Who would represent the "rights" of said fetus?
The fetus would have the inherent "right" to be born barring medical complications between itself and the mother and that right would be protected by the government.
The unborn should have the same right to life that the rest of us do. Those of us who are pro life represent and defend the unborn by voting for politicians who share our views on life. It's called democracy. We vote for people who share our values and beliefs.
I think the difficulty between people accepting your position is that your position tells others what to do with their bodies and what interpretation of life is correct. I don't see the harm in trusting people to decide that for themselves as they are the ones that have to live with that decision...not you.
The person who decides what rights the "fetus " has is the person giving that 'fetus" life, it's mother not the government.
When casting my vote I don't use that per say as what allows me to vote for or against that person. If I did I would be really confused by say Mitt. He ran on pro-choice when he wanted to be governor of Mass but when he wanted to take his campaign national and needed the evangelicals he has always been pro-life. I could called that either flip flopping or I could say that he has changed his mind. But what I will say is he will do or say anything to get elected and he is not someone I want running my country.
Actually there are many standards for measuring when life starts and when life stops. Ancient people (and this is evidenced in the Bible quite thoroughly) believe that if you breathe, you are alive and if you don't, you are not alive anymore.
Other standards have arisen. The current standard is usually either heart-beat or brain activity where it can be measured.
I believe that in the grey areas where a fetus cannot sustain itself, or if an old person is on life-support, the choice of whether such support should continue should be a personal/family one that does not involve the government in any way.
OpenMind, that is what I'm saying. The grey areas of life should be personal decisions not political ones.
I can remember the grandstanding the Republicans made during the Terri Schiavo case. Bill First, as physician making a diagnosis without ever examining the patient. Tom Delay without a medical degree at all. During this time I had several discussions with my children and family and guess what we did not all agree but decided as a family to deal and confront those decisions as a family. No government assistance needed.
"All life is precious or words to that effect but conservatives have no problem with the death penalty"
There's also no contradiction with that. It has to do with the difference between innocence and guilt. People who receive the death penalty have violently taken the life of another human being and deserve the same fate themselves. There are numerous examples in the Bible of murderers receiving the death penalty. Unborn babies are completely innocent and deserve the protection of the government. If the government won't protect them, then nobody will.
Rhino, can you honestly say that the justice given to those who we killed via a death sentence was correct? How many people have been release from prison who NEVER committed the crime that they were charged and in Chicago how many people were set to be killed but were found innocent and released from prison?
I guess it's OK by you if we make a few mistakes on the way to carrying out justice. And I guess it's OK if lady justice IS NOT BLIND when carrying out justice.
"Rhino, can you honestly say that the justice given to those who we killed via a death sentence was correct"
Considering that we allow defendants to file appeal after appeal and it usually takes at least ten years for the execution to take place, yes I can.
And all those released who were innocent and escaped the death chair just got lucky huh
I'm not opposed to the death penalty but I do understand that our system is flawed in how we serve "justice". For that reason I think the death penalty should be put on hold until we can determine guilt in capital crimes with more certainty.
They went through the process of appealing their verdict and won. That's what we have appeals for. Appeals in most death penalty cases go on about ten years. That seems long enough for me.
Sleep tight tonight with your thoughts
I wish the word 'waffling' was used exclusively to describe the action of making waffles...
...and that the word 'vacillating' was used instead, to describe the action of vacillating.
What about use of the word "waffling" to denote being smacked very hard (usually around the facial area by something hard)? What is your stance on that ^_^
Personally, I'd like to see more people waffling on President Bush in that case ...
It seems like a question addressed to me, so I'll answer it:
My 'stance' on whatever it is you just described is, I don't know... I don't know what it is you just did with the word 'waffling', or what you mean.
Me, I tried to make word-play out of it, but it sounds like you turned it into an assault of some kind... against the president no less.