by hilzoy
Sarah Blustain has a very good article in TNR on McCain’s position on abortion, contraception, and related issues. Short version:
“To many voters, the McCain of 2000 is the true McCain, with his latest statements constituting an understandable, if undignified, pander to the GOP’s right-wing base. They simply cannot believe that the maverick who defied the party’s hard-core social conservatives on embryonic stem cell research and campaign finance reform would toe the conservative line on abortion. But, in truth, it was his 2000 position on abortion that was the outlier–a short-lived attempt to court the center after George W. Bush had locked up the religious right’s support. McCain is not, and never was, a moderate.”
Longer version:
“During his political career, McCain has participated in 130 reproductive health-related votes on Capitol Hill; of these, he voted with the anti-abortion camp in 125. McCain has consistently backed rights for the unborn, voting to cover fetuses under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and supporting the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which allowed a “child in utero” to be recognized as a legal victim of a crime. He has voted in favor of the global gag rule, which prevents U.S. funds from going to international family-planning clinics that use their own money to perform abortions, offer information about abortion, or take a pro-choice stand. And he has voted to appoint half a dozen anti-abortion judges to the federal bench, as well as Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. During the Bork hearings, McCain attacked the Court’s creation of a right to privacy in Roe v. Wade: “Whether one is pro-or anti-abortion,” McCain said in an October 1987 hearing, “it is difficult to argue that the Court’s opinion is not constitutionally suspect.”
Some of these votes were, politically speaking, no-brainers for anyone vaguely in the pro-life camp. But McCain also joined efforts supported only by the radical wing of his party. He voted, for instance, with only one-fifth of the Senate to remove family-planning grants from a 1988 spending bill and with only 18 senators that same year against allowing Medicaid to pay for abortions in cases of rape or incest.
In 1994, the year after abortion provider David Gunn was killed outside a Florida clinic, McCain voted with 29 members of the Senate against establishing penalties for violent or threatening interference outside abortion clinics. Many solidly pro-life Republicans–Mitch McConnell, Kit Bond, John Danforth–voted in favor of the bill, called the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE). “We tried to get as many co-sponsors as we could, and we postured the thing as anti-vigilante violence,” recalls Judy Appelbaum, a Washington lawyer who was counsel to Senator Edward Kennedy at the time and the lead Hill staffer on the bill. “We argued that, even if you oppose abortion, you should not condone these actions.” According to Appelbaum, law enforcement officials, newspaper editorialists, health care providers, and law-and-order politicians all supported the bill. “There were a number of very anti-choice senators who voted for FACE,” she says, “and [McCain] wasn’t one of them.” Instead, McCain joined senators like Orrin Hatch and Jesse Helms in opposition.
Conservative writer Charlotte Allen summarized McCain’s congressional career well last year in The Weekly Standard, noting, “[He] has never failed to cast his vote in favor of whatever abortion restrictions are arguably permitted under Roe v. Wade: bans against partial-birth abortion, abortions on military bases, transporting minors across state lines to obtain abortions behind their parents’ backs, and government funding for abortion both in the United States and abroad. … In addition, McCain has voted to confirm every ‘strict constructionist’ judge … appointed by the various Republican presidents who have served during his tenure.” And, she added, “Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America…consistently award him ratings of absolute zero on their scorecards.””
And it’s not just abortion:
“He has voted to end the Title X family-planning program, which pays for everything from birth control to breast cancer screenings and which is a target for the right because the recipients of these dollars also tend to be clinics that offer contraception to unwed and underage women and that offer abortions. He has backed largely discredited abstinence-only education, voting in 1996 to take $75 million from the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant to establish such a program; ten years later, he voted against teen-pregnancyprevention programs. He has supported parental notification laws governing not only abortion but contraception for teens, and, though he didn’t want to talk to the press about it, he’s voted against requiring insurance companies to cover birth control. In international family affairs, McCain has voted not only in favor of the global gag rule, but also to defund the United Nations group that provides family-planning services (not abortions) for poor women, and to spend a third of overseas HIV/AIDS prevention funds on abstinence education. (…)
Sharlene Bozack was public affairs director for Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona between 1989 and 1995. One day, she came to D.C. for PPFA’s annual day of lobbying and encountered McCain on the Hill. “I relive it every time I see the man on TV,” she told me over the phone from Phoenix. She and Feldt had run into McCain, introduced themselves, and asked if they could speak with him. He agreed, and they got on the train that runs between Capitol buildings. Bozack was talking to him about international contraception access. Suddenly, she recalls, he was no longer calm, cool, and collected. “He turned toward me and put his index finger out and started pounding me in the chest saying, ‘You know my position on this,’ and ‘How dare you ask me about this,’ and ‘You are just trying to intimidate me.'””
John McCain gets consistent zero ratings not just from organizations like NARAL, which focus on protecting abortion rights, but from organizations like Planned Parenthood and the National Family Planning And Reproductive Health Association, which cover family planning and other policies that reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. This is worth bearing in mind if these issues matter to you, as they do to me.
Well, at least he is consistent here ;-()
Now, if we could make the potential voters realizing that…
He voted, for instance, with only one-fifth of the Senate to remove family-planning grants from a 1988 spending bill and with only 18 senators that same year against allowing Medicaid to pay for abortions in cases of rape or incest.
I know having children is some great and wonderful thing for women (or so I hear), but stuff like this is one of the reasons I’m really glad that I don’t have a uterus. Being raped and carrying around a piece of the rapist for 9mos and caring for it for perhaps the rest of my life? If that isn’t punishing the victim, I don’t know what is.
…and, though he didn’t want to talk to the press about it, he’s voted against requiring insurance companies to cover birth control.
Being against abortion I can understand, even if I think you’re wrong and doing harm to women. But opposing the things that probably prevent more abortions than any act of Congress? I have no doubt, however, that McCain fully supports Viagra coverage and probably government funded penile enhancements.
I honestly can’t see any real reason for opposing birth control other than having a problem of some sort with female sexuality.
As someone who tries to be pro-life in everything, the issues matter greatly to me. However, the George W. Bush administration shows that the potential for a reckless and malicious President to destroy human life. In my view, “pro-life” doesn’t just apply to fetal life. It encompasses a series of policies that involve erring on the side of valuing all life.
The notion that John McCain is “pro-life” is laughable.
“McCain has consistently backed rights for the unborn, voting to cover fetuses under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and supporting the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which allowed a “child in utero” to be recognized as a legal victim of a crime.”
The fact that these count as anti-choice votes in any meaningful sense only shows how hardened the political positions are.
In a normal world, it wouldn’t be considered a bad thing to allow states to consider a fetus a separate victim for the purposes of murder statutes in instances where someone was attempting to kill the fetus against the mother’s will, or as an additional victim if the mother and fetus are both killed.
That might even be considered progressive.
In a normal world extending health coverage to a fetus doubling the potential for many services wouldn’t be portrayed as anti-choice. It might even be considered progressive.
Obama’s position in support of passive infanticide is far more disturbing than McCain’s vacilliation on “choice.”
Obama has yet to adequately address why he voted against a bill, and later killed in committee a 2nd bill, that would have required life-saving and/or palliative care to be administered to infants who survived a botched abortion attempt? As it stood at the time the bills were debated, infants who survived abortions were discarded as medical waste.
Obama’s explanation thus far is that he wanted certain language added to the bills so that roe would not be imperiled. I’m sure the former con law professor understands that when a statute conflicts with a supreme court precedent, the STATUTE, not the precedent, is stricken.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/a_catholic_case_against_barack.html
In a normal world, it wouldn’t be considered a bad thing to allow states to consider a fetus a separate victim for the purposes of murder statutes in instances where someone was attempting to kill the fetus against the mother’s will, or as an additional victim if the mother and fetus are both killed.
As soon as a fetus is considered a “separate victim” when it is killed against the mother’s will, it will be considered as a “separate victim” when it is killed in accordance with the mother’s will. Abortion will legally be murder.
No thanks.
MeDrew: Being against abortion I can understand, even if I think you’re wrong and doing harm to women. But opposing the things that probably prevent more abortions than any act of Congress?
Because, like most pro-lifers, McCain is indifferent or actively hostile to policies that prevent abortion.
The point of being pro-life is not to prevent abortions – if it were, pro-life organizations would rival Planned Parenthood in free (and freely available) provision of contraception: and would be big campaigners of federally-mandated support to mothers and babies – including free provision of health care.
I’ve yet to meet a pro-lifer, either in real life or online, who actually appeared to have any concern for babies once born or for pregnant women, on whose welfare the welfare of the fetus profoundly depends: their passionate concern is always, exclusively, for the fetus.
It follows that while pro-lifers invariably claim a concern for human life is their motivation, they either don’t consider women and babies to be human lives… or else they’re lying.
Jeff wrote:
As soon as a fetus is considered a “separate victim” when it is killed against the mother’s will, it will be considered as a “separate victim” when it is killed in accordance with the mother’s will. Abortion will legally be murder.
—-
This is the standard NARAL/NOW response, and it ignores the fact that these laws usually include an express exception for abortions. If these laws didn’t have such an exception, they would be invalidated as an “undue burden” on the right to abortion.
The NARAL/NOW response is a fundraising tactic. Nothing more.
The NARAL/NOW response is a fundraising tactic. Nothing more.
Sure, because statutory caveats are usually good enough to overcome rhetorical arguments that appeal to emotion and the general legal framework.
“But there was an exception made…” usually doesn’t convince that many people.
“”But there was an exception made…” usually doesn’t convince that many people.”
I don’t understand your argument. Isn’t making an exception they typical and appropriate response to negotiation in the legislative process when one side raises the issue that the law may be too broad?
Jes-It follows that while pro-lifers invariably claim a concern for human life is their motivation, they either don’t consider women and babies to be human lives… or else they’re lying.
I’d be hard pressed to say which it is. Women and babies not being (fully) human is plausible because there’s plenty of tradition backing up the view that women aren’t smart/logical/whatever. (I’d go with roughly the same argument for babies until they grow up into intelligent men or irrational women.)
If they’re lying, what are they really trying to accomplish? This possibility scares me more since it ties into the pro-life leaders having some fundamental problem with women. I listen to James Dobson or Bill Donohue and they nearly scream that female sexuality is evil. If that doesn’t equal a problem with women, I don’t know what does.
Nothing follows because your alleged premise isn’t factually correct on a general level (nor even at the “I’ve never met level” I would suspect). Your problem is that you don’t count anything as concern for babies once born or for pregnant women unless it matches explicitly and in every detail with your poltical program.
For example the fact that a large number of adoption services are run by Catholics seems to have completely escaped your attention. You also fail to notice the large number of Catholic charities for the homeless and the enormous number of Catholic charities for the poor. You don’t count any of that.
I don’t understand your argument. Isn’t making an exception they typical and appropriate response to negotiation in the legislative process when one side raises the issue that the law may be too broad?
Only if that were the only objection. Not so much if you understand the underlying strategy of creating a legal framework that will interact with moral norms to push opinion in a certain direction.
In other words, the “normal world” that you keep pining for would, to me, be a world in which only a fringe few were pushing for a repeal of reproductive rights.
If that were, in fact, the state of the world, then these laws would indeed be embraced by progressives.
But a trojan horse is a gift that should be met with skepticism.
Women and babies not being (fully) human is plausible because there’s plenty of tradition backing up the view that women aren’t smart/logical/whatever.
Not just that, they wives were considered the “chattel” of their husbands. Meaning, legally, their husband’s property. Like a piece of furniture. Not that long ago in fact. In the United States.
“Only if that were the only objection. Not so much if you understand the underlying strategy of creating a legal framework that will interact with moral norms to push opinion in a certain direction.”
You need to specific because this sounds like hand-waving.
What moral norms are we talking about that you are otherwise objecting to? The moral norm against killing babies? Oh, noes!
What precisely do you believe the strategy to be? How does that strategy make it such that you are forced to oppose laws that you claim progressives would normally support? How do you believe the legal framework forces you to oppose laws that you would normally support?
The problem you seem to have is that people are going to take the moral intuition that babies who are born alive in a botched abortion attempt should receive medical treatment, or that fetuses might get special protection if they are specially targeted (i.e. if a jealous husband wants to kill a baby conceived in adultery) and apply it in ways that you don’t like.
But since laws are about drawing lines based on moral intuitions, you either need to argue against the moral intuition (and in these cases good luck) or you have to describe why giving in to that intuition automatically takes you too far into something that would be bad.
You don’t seem willing to do either. You seem to buy the NARAL propaganda that this all necessarily leads to a total ban on all abortions. The problem is that the average American doesn’t want a total ban on all abortions, so very little is *likely* to lead to that end point. The average American is not in tune with NARAL on these issues, which is why the pro-life groups can score points on them—because NARAL is so strong in the Democratic Party that it can force the issue even on things that a large majority of Americans disagree with.
“Not just that, they wives were considered the “chattel” of their husbands. ”
Department of analogies that don’t necessarily help you.
Do you mean exactly like fetuses are to mothers?
EM- don’t understand your argument that measures to exact tougher punishments for murderers of pregnant women or to provide potentially life-saving medical care to infants who survive abortion attempts is somehow incompatible with any moral norm, at least in a civilized society.
i suppose if you prize the right to abortion-on-demand above all else, then your argument makes sense.
well put, i defer to sebastian.
You need to specific because this sounds like hand-waving
No, I just need to object to what looks like a trojan horse. That’ll do.
What moral norms are we talking about that you are otherwise objecting to? The moral norm against killing babies? Oh, noes!
Well, yeah, oh noes when you start calling a zygote a baby.
Department of analogies that don’t necessarily help you.
Do you mean exactly like fetuses are to mothers?
Yeah, I mean, what’s the difference between a woman and a fetus anyway!
What precisely do you believe the strategy to be? How does that strategy make it such that you are forced to oppose laws that you claim progressives would normally support? How do you believe the legal framework forces you to oppose laws that you would normally support?
Seb, use your imagination. You’re a smart guy. Don’t feign ignorance.
But since laws are about drawing lines based on moral intuitions, you either need to argue against the moral intuition (and in these cases good luck) or you have to describe why giving in to that intuition automatically takes you too far into something that would be bad.
Intuition being: fetus is not a human being.
provide potentially life-saving medical care to infants who survive abortion attempts
Are there infants that survive abortion attempts? Can you even attempt to abort an infant?
EM- Is this an attempt to get cute with semantics or a display of breath-taking ignorance?
if it’s the latter, by way of background, a federal law was passed (98-0) in 2001 to protect infants who survive abortion attempts. obama has, as of yet, failed to adequately explain why he opposed a similar bill while he was in the illinois legislature. so yes, it’s possible for an infant to survive an abortion attempt.
if it’s the former, you can change the syntax in whatever manner you see fit. And then you can respond to the substance of the argument.
And then you can respond to the substance of the argument
I did not know about this law. I thought it was clever semantics on your part.
Further, it was not either of the two laws mentioned by Seb upthread that I initially responded to (though he through it in later).
I’d have to look at the particulars of the law, and the reasons for opposition. This is the first I’m hearing of it.
And by through, I mean “threw”…
“obama has, as of yet, failed to adequately explain why he opposed a similar bill while he was in the illinois legislature.”
I guess this would be the inadequate explanation…
What kind of an answer is this? I do not in fact believe that the legal framework is forcing you to oppose laws that you would normally support in this case. I think that if you were to try to specifically articulate it, you would find that the case isn’t very strong at all. But you refuse to articulate it, which only increases my suspicion.
“Are there infants that survive abortion attempts? Can you even attempt to abort an infant?”
Yes to both questions. If you are interested in the topic you can google “wrongful life” lawsuits to start. And before the law was passed (strongly opposed by NARAL) if a baby (I use the term because the fetus has at that point exited the womb) was delivered live during an abortion, you could leave it without medical care until it died, even if just of dehydration.
Existing IL statute:
Actually NARAL didn’t oppose it the final time it came to Congress. Interestingly it did not for reasons you find suspect: that it contained wording saying that it was specifically not intended to undermine Roe. I presume this case would fall under your “Sure, because statutory caveats are usually good enough to overcome rhetorical arguments that appeal to emotion and the general legal framework.” concept.
So again, I ask you to explain the framework which forces you to oppose laws that you think progressives would normally support except for “the underlying strategy of creating a legal framework that will interact with moral norms to push opinion in a certain direction.”
The problem I have with that is that it suggests that the polity isn’t capable of stopping once it starts down a particular road. If we legalize pot we have to legalize heroin. If we put any restrictions on banks, we have to have government ownership on everything. If we want to have the government provide a safety net for health care, it has to provide health care for everyone. That is just lazy thinking.
It is perfectly possible to completely outlaw late term abortions except when carrying the child would seriously endanger the mother and still allow abortions in early cases–and that is in fact the position of most Americans. Moving toward the political position of most people doesn’t guarantee that the direction will continue well past the political position of most people. In fact, it suggests the opposite.
“No, I just need to object to what looks like a trojan horse. That’ll do.”
I’m asking what precisely you think is being smuggled in that causes you to object to things that you would normally support.
And you are asking me to guess. I don’t think it is a trojan horse. I think it fits with the moral intuition of most Americans. I think it fits with the moral intuitions of most Americans BETTER than the NARAL positions.
What precisely do you believe the strategy to be? How does that strategy make it such that you are forced to oppose laws that you claim progressives would normally support? How do you believe the legal framework forces you to oppose laws that you would normally support?
Oh crikey Sebastian, here goes (though I, deep down, think that you know this already):
By establishing in law that fetuses deserve the protections of humans, you begin to normalize the concept that fetuses are humans. Even if the initial wave of laws did not push to extend to abortion (and even if those laws contained specific caveats), such laws can begin to shift people’s conceptions of the fetus’s humanity, or lack thereof.
I mean Seb, do you honestly doubt that anti-abortion activists think strategically, and that this is one manifestation of that strategic thought?
Yes, the explanation on Obama’s website is horribly inaccurate.
The Illinois legislation stated:
“A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.”
Given the fact that the infant must be (i) “born,” i.e. extracted from the mother, and (ii) “alive,” i.e. breathing or with a beating heart, before this protection even applies, there is NO impact on the rights of the child or the mother while the fetus is in utero.
Moreover, Obama was the Chairman of the committee that held hearings on the Illinois bill. He could have advocated that language be added, but he didn’t. He voted against the bill to curry favor with his base.
Thanks, Hilzoy. This makes me feel much better about my decision to support McCain. 🙂
Thanks, Hilzoy. This makes me feel much better about my decision to support McCain.
Hey, who wouldn’t want four more years of Bush’s policies!
You seem to buy the NARAL propaganda that this all necessarily leads to a total ban on all abortions.
“A majority of Americans oppose [X]” doesn’t mean that [X] will stop (see “torture of innocent men”). To me, there’s a clear line from “fetus as victim” to “fetus is ‘human'” — and I don’t really want to get into that debate again; suffice it to say that many pro-choicers think they have good reson not to call a fetus ‘human’) to “abortion is murder”. This line of reasoning has been rolled out a few times, and it can be hard to refute.
I don’t think that pro-choice resources should have to defend against this reasoning, over and over and over.
(echoing Eric)
And then?
You know about the underpants gnomes and their business plan right?
1. Collect underpants
2. ???
3. Profit!
You are essentially positing:
1. Protect late term fetuses when mother is not in danger.
2. ???
3. Complete ban on abortions
And maybe some pro-lifers believe that too.
But you aren’t normalizing any notion that doesn’t already have wide acceptance. You are bringing the law in to line with the already normalized concept that late term fetuses are very similar to post-birth babies in terms of how they ought to be treated. That is already what a very large majority of people in America believe. You are essentially positing a political scale from 0-100 (zero being no abortion ever and 100 being NARAL’s maximalist position) where any movement subtracting numbers moves you ‘closer’ to a ‘bad’ position in the sense of your unacceptable position becoming reality.
I’m suggesting that position of the American public is about 70 on that kind of scale. In a situation where the politics hasn’t been short-circuited by the Supreme Court, the law would tend to the 65-75 range (near public opinion). If the current state of the law is not close to public opinion, movement TOWARD the state of public opinion doesn’t imply movement much PAST it. So if we are at 95 now, an actual movement toward 70 doesn’t make a move to 30 any more likely now than it would then.
It may let the public opinion move to 69 or 68 as it settles into an equilibrium that isn’t being pulled by the former NARAL extremists, but it doesn’t make 30 or 20 or 0 more likely.
Now if you are part of the minority who thinks that NARAL’s position is totally correct, of course you will resist movement away from their Court-enabled wins in that area. But then you shouldn’t pretend that you would normally support the 65-75 zone if it weren’t for those nasty pro-lifers who want to take it further.
Now could public opinion shift further on some other basis? Sure. But not by these kind of legal games on an issue like this. It will shift on the basis of something like a truly effective artificial womb or something.
Which is why I wanted you to explain your logic rather than make me guess. So I could see if we had similar concepts about how law and politics work in the face of public opinion on issues like this.
And then?
And then, by beginning to shift the public’s concept of fetus/human, help to elect right wing candidates with retrogressive views on abortion rights. And then those politicians appoint more judges with same views. And then, eventually, overturn Roe v. Wade.
It’s the long war view.
I know, you couldn’t have come up with that in a million years. But I’ll let you keep your underpants.
But you aren’t normalizing any notion that doesn’t already have wide acceptance. You are bringing the law in to line with the already normalized concept that late term fetuses are very similar to post-birth babies in terms of how they ought to be treated.
For the crimes against pregnant mother statutes, are they only applicable to late term fetuses? If not, does this apply to my statement?
Now could public opinion shift further on some other basis? Sure. But not by these kind of legal games on an issue like this.
I like your confidence.
1. Protect late term fetuses when mother is not in danger.
Given that the existing IL statute quoted above by Hilzoy already does this, it sure looks like the point of the legislation Obama opposed is just to smuggle the language about “fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law” into the books. What, exactly, is the flaw in the existing statute that this language was meant to remedy? If it doesn’t address an actual problem, then it seems reasonable to label it a trojan horse.
“And then, by beginning to shift the public’s concept of fetus/human, help to elect right wing candidates with retrogressive views on abortion rights. And then those politicians appoint more judges with same views. And then, eventually, overturn Roe v. Wade.”
So you think that trying to maintain and out-of-step maximalist view is a better protection (even if you disagree with it) than trying to fashion laws that agree with the large majority position?
Because from where I sit it is much easier to argue “elect me or you get judges who have the ridiculous 100 view that almost no one agrees with” and get a crap shoot with judges on the other side than it would be to argue “the law agrees with you in almost every particular, elect me so I can move it from 70 all the way to 30 which isn’t anywhere near where you want it.”
Yes, if you build a dam and it breaks, things can get washed away. But if you build with how the river actually flows in mind, you won’t have a big problem.
The flaw in the existing statute is that it requires that the physician act with at least a reckless state of mind… difficult to prove.
Also, there was testimony that, in spite of the statute, infants born alive were not given medical care.
“intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly”. Less hard. Certainly not impossible. And better than criminalizing accidental misconduct.
Plus, it’s not clear why the fact that (as you say) people were not obeying the existing statute means that we should pass a different statute for them to disregard.
So you think that trying to maintain and out-of-step maximalist view is a better protection (even if you disagree with it) than trying to fashion laws that agree with the large majority position?
No. Re-read what I wrote. And then re-read Obama’s position on the federal vs. state legislation. I really don’t think that the difference is massively out of step. As to the pregnant mother statutes, is their a late term requirement?
“there”…yeaarrggggghhhh
it’s typo day or something…
I’m sorry. I was talking mostly about “McCain has consistently backed rights for the unborn, voting to cover fetuses under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and supporting the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which allowed a “child in utero” to be recognized as a legal victim of a crime.” and not about Obama at all. I thought you were too. As far as I can tell Obama didn’t come into the discussion at all until the very end.
So, do you believe that allowing states to designate the fetus as a separate victim in some cases ushers in a near-inevitable slide toward a total abortion ban?