Gannett, AP claimed McCain opposes a constitutional amendment banning abortion -- but McCain said he supports it
SUMMARY: In recent comparisons of Barack Obama's and John McCain's positions, Gannett News Service and the Associated Press claimed that McCain opposes a constitutional amendment banning abortion. However, McCain has previously asserted that he supports such an amendment, and McCain advisers have reportedly said that he would not try to change the Republican Party's platform on abortion, which in 2004 called for a constitutional ban on abortion.
In recent comparisons of Sen. Barack Obama's and Sen. John McCain's positions, Gannett News Service and the Associated Press claimed that McCain opposes a constitutional amendment banning abortion. A June 5 Gannett News Service article asserted: "McCain opposes abortion except in cases of rape or incest or to protect the life of the mother. He believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned, but would not seek constitutional amendment banning abortion." Similarly, a June 3 Associated Press article stated that McCain "[w]ould not seek constitutional amendment to ban abortion." However, McCain has previously asserted that he supports a constitutional amendment banning abortion. In addition, other media outlets have reported that McCain advisers have said that he would not try to change the Republican Party's platform on abortion, which in 2004 called for a constitutional ban on abortion.
On the November 19, 2006, edition of ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos said to McCain: "You're for a constitutional amendment banning abortion with some exceptions for life and rape and incest." McCain replied: "Rape, incest, and the life of the mother, yes." Stephanopoulos then asked: "So is President Bush, yet that hasn't advanced in the six years he's been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn't done?" McCain said: "I don't think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it's very likely or possible that a Supreme Court should -- could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support. ... I'm a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade returned to the states."
An April 2 Washington Times article reported that "[a]dvisers to Sen. John McCain's presidential bid say he will not try to 'soften' the Republican party's platform on abortion. ... McCain associates told The Washington Times that his operatives are not going to work behind the scenes to eliminate the party's calls for constitutional bans on abortion and homosexual marriage before the GOP convention in September." The 2004 Republican Party platform states about "Promoting a Culture of Life":
As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children.
Similarly, ABC News' Teddy Davis reported on May 9 that "Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., the co-chairman of McCain's Justice Advisory Committee, significantly downplays the possibility that McCain would revise the party's call for a nationwide constitutional ban on abortion with no exceptions. 'I don't think that's going to happen. I think you're going to see a platform process that is going to maintain that plank,' said Brownback, a leading abortion rights opponent who endorsed McCain after ending his own White House bid."
On the May 11 edition of This Week (retrieved from Nexis), Stephanopoulos asked McCain senior adviser Carly Fiorina about the GOP platform. Stephanopoulos noted that the Obama campaign, in mapping an election strategy for independent voters, has "point[ed] to the GOP platform on abortion which is a constitutional amendment with no exceptions. No exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother." He then asked Fiorina: "Senator McCain used to be for changing the platform. Now he's signaling -- to include those exemptions. Now, he's signaling it should stand as it is, aren't you worried that's going to turn off independents and moderate Republicans, especially women voters?" Fiorina replied: "John has been consistently pro-life. He also, as you perhaps know, has said that he supports stem cell research. I think in terms of the Republican platform there is a process in place where delegates work their will. And delegates come together the week before the convention and go through a series of proposals and take their votes. And that's the process that's going to be put in place. I can tell you right now that John McCain is not yet focused on the convention. Not yet focused on the platform."
During the 2000 primary, McCain also said he supported a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. On the January 30, 2000, edition of NBC's Meet the Press (retrieved from Nexis), host Tim Russert said to McCain: "A constitutional amendment to ban all abortions?" McCain replied: "Yes, sir." Russert then said: "You're for that?" McCain responded: "Yes, sir."
Additionally, the Gannett article stated that McCain "opposed the Bush tax cuts for not being paired with spending cuts but now says they should be made permanent" -- echoing a May 30 Gannett News Service "analysis" that asserted that McCain "voted against [President] Bush's tax cuts, calling them irresponsible without an accompanying resolve to cut government spending." However, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, while McCain now claims that he voted against the tax cuts because they were not accompanied by offsetting spending cuts, McCain said at the time that he opposed the tax-cut bill because "so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief."
From the June 5 Gannett News Service article:
McCain opposes abortion except in cases of rape or incest or to protect the life of the mother. He believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned, but would not seek constitutional amendment banning abortion.
[...]
McCain: "No new taxes" if elected. He opposed the Bush tax cuts for not being paired with spending cuts but now says they should be made permanent. He wants to lower the estate tax and taxes on dividends and capital gains.
From the June 3 Associated Press article:
ABORTION
McCain: Opposes abortion rights. Has voted for abortion restrictions permissible under Roe v. Wade, and now says he would seek to overturn that guarantee of abortion rights. Would not seek constitutional amendment to ban abortion.
Obama: Favors abortion rights.
From the January 30, 2000, edition of NBC's Meet the Press (retrieved from Nexis):
RUSSERT: Let me turn to the issue of abortion, which is a difficult one for all candidates. The Right to Life Committee had this to say about John McCain, and I'll put it on the screen for you and your viewers. They say: "Senator McCain's positions have been conflicting and we do not think he warrants the support of pro-life voters."
You have said that you believe life begins at conception.
McCAIN: Yes.
RUSSERT: And, yet, you want exceptions for rape and incest?
McCAIN: And the life of the mother, yes.
RUSSERT: That would be the taking of a human life?
McCAIN: Yes.
RUSSERT: How is that consistent morally?
McCAIN: Because I think that these are careful balances that you have to make. And by the way, that also happens to be Henry Hyde's amendment, the wording of Henry Hyde's amendment, who is the leading pro-life advocate in the Congress of the United States. We have to make careful decisions here. These are all moral problems that we have to work out for ourselves. The life of the mother, obviously, is a human life, too. The gripping aspects of rape and incest are terrible situations and we have to kind of come to conclusions, taking into consideration the interests of all parties in this very difficult issue.
I have come to the conclusion that the exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother are legitimate exceptions in this situation, but I don't claim to be a theologian. But I have my own moral beliefs and I hold those. And by the way, I do have a 17-year voting record that's pro-life. Mr. Johnson and the national pro-life committee have turned a cause into a business, and they are very worried that if I have campaign finance reform, all this uncontrolled, undisclosed contributions may be reduced and it may harm them in their efforts to continue this huge business they've got going in Washington, D.C.
RUSSERT: A constitutional amendment to ban all abortions?
McCAIN: Yes, sir.
RUSSERT: You're for that?
McCAIN: Yes, sir.
RUSSERT: If, in fact, all abortions were banned in America ...
McCAIN: I understand.
RUSSERT: ... under President McCain...
McCAIN: Understand.
RUSSERT: ... let's look at our country. What would happen to a woman who had an abortion?
OK, I'm confused. I was pretty sure McCain opposed a constitutional amendment but supported a state amendment? This little lost nugget sure seems to be another gem of the flip flop brand.
McCain likes to have it both ways. In fact that pretty much sums up his campaign strategy. Get the conservative christians thinking he's finally joined them but keep everyone else thinking he's still the same old maverick. I think it's working because my sister actually sat in my living room the other day and told me McCain was just saying those things to get elected but she knew he would still support the choice, etc. once he was elected. She may be right but wow. Considering how many times I've heard Hillary Clinton and other dems ripped to shreds for pandering and because they would supposedly 'do or say anything to get elected' it's amazing that McCain can do it so freely and it's considered good politics.
MM4A has put its collective finger on Sen. McCain's biggest problem - when you try to discuss his position on a given issue it is very helpful to also include the time when you are quoting his statements.
Those statements change.
A lot.
Just as a single (glaring) example: Sen. McCain opposes earmarks and other waste in the Department of Defense budget allocations - until its time to vote. They he supports them by voting "For" the budget. He gains the reputation of a fighter willing to take on the establishment - as long as people don't notice that his position is constant - constantly changing...
It never ceases to amaze me, how human beings endowed with the truly "human-making" gift of speech, simply repeat words that they hear, like parrots do, apparently without any understanding or concept or image in their minds, of what those words are meant to invoke... like parrots, who are not at all human, despite their uncanny ability to mimic human speech (often with a perfect pronounciation and articulation and inflection: it's uncanny!)
There's a word in the English language, and what that words signifies is an intensely private surgical procedure, that only people in the most distressing of personal circumstances elect to receive, and that no person in their right mind would ever elect to witness... and yet for some reason, there are people who say this word when discussing Public Policy and National Policy: and in Public discussion they invoke that intensely private surgical procedure in the minds of others, despite it being something (as I said) that no sane person would ever choose to witness.
And I know why one side of the American Political spectrum uses that word in a Political campaign: to bait the other side, the Democrats, into using it: to bait those Democrats into making Public affirmations of that intensely private surgical procedure: and in the process, alienating those Democrats from the millions of Americans who are horrified at the imagery invoked by that word.
It's Democrats who never cease to amaze me, that they use a word in Public discussions of Public and National Policy, and I look at their faces and wonder if indeed the image invoked by that word is actually in their minds, in the moment they say it... or are they just like parrots, who have no concept or image of any particular thing in their bird brains, when they say the words they do, uncannily.
I still recall 1996. Congressional republicans had 2 options:
Save some babies' lives by backing Clinton's partial-birth abortion ban except for life and health of the mother, or
Stonewall on the life and health part to be able to send "Clinton is a baby killer" mailings to the sheep.
Republicans have lost all credibility on literally every issue. Pro choice might be the only defensible position they hold, and they pissed it away.