Research support for this article was provided by the Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute.
John McCain was mad. Fuming mad. It was then the early days of his political career, and he had paid an unscheduled visit to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Mesa, which was within his Arizona congressional district. That's when Gloria Feldt, then the CEO of the group's local chapter, got a phone call. "Congressman McCain is here," a staffer told her, "and he is screaming and it is upsetting the patients."
Feldt says McCain had always refused her offers to visit a clinic, but had apparently decided to make a spot visit of his own. What had raised his ire was a shelf containing information about Title X federal funding, which some clinics receive to support non-abortion-related reproductive health care for low-income women. McCain was upset that the clinic provided paper for people to write their representatives in support of the legislation, which requires constant advocacy because Congress must reauthorize it every year. "His immediate and incorrect assumption," says Feldt, "was that we were using federal funds to pay for lobbying." Feldt got on the phone. "He was screaming, 'I am going to defund her, I am going to get the federal government to defund you.'... [H]e rants and he raves and finally he hangs up on me."
Most voters would not recognize that passionate crusader as John McCain. Which is hardly surprising. McCain has spent years manipulating the public's perception of his stance on abortion and reproductive health. He's been against overturning Roe v. Wade and he's been for it; he's embraced the idea of a pro-choice running mate and, more recently, recoiled from it. It's no wonder the public is confused.
The right has been twisted in knots for years over whether McCain respects "life" enough to earn its support. And, among Democrats and pro-choicers, the confusion is even greater. Poll after poll shows them unclear on McCain's positions. Planned Parenthood's president Cecile Richards says that, even after McCain secured the Republican nomination this year, long-time Planned Parenthood supporters she met with didn't know the candidate's position on Roe v. Wade. McCain's maverick reputation and his calculated political meanderings on choice add up to one thing: The public thinks McCain just might be a moderate on abortion.
The fact that he's not could matter a great deal in the election. According to one poll, about half of all women voters backing McCain said they were pro-choice, including 36 percent who say they strongly support Roe. More importantly, these women voters think that McCain might agree with them on abortion. The same research found that "more than seven in ten pro-choice McCain supporters ... have yet to learn that McCain's position on abortion is directly at odds with their own." And the issue is not that they don't care. One June poll found that, when Democratic women voters in twelve battleground states learned McCain's position on abortion, Obama gained twelve points among them.
McCain's views may matter especially to Hillary Clinton supporters, many of whom are pro-choice; according to syndicated columnist Froma Harrop, "[T]hey'll want to know this: Would McCain stock the Supreme Court with foes of Roe v. Wade?" But, she writes, "The answer is unclear but probably 'no.' While McCain has positioned himself as 'pro-life' during this campaign, his statements over the years show considerable latitude on the issue."
That, however, is simply not true. There is no "latitude" in McCain's position on abortion. Interviews with dozens of people who have dealt with him on the issue--pro-choice and pro-life activists, Hill staffers, McCain confidants, pollsters, and staffers--along with a two-and-a-half-decade-long perfectly anti-abortion voting record, make that clear. And his record on related issues, like contraception, is no better. "I think it is outrageous that people give him a pass, as they gave George W. Bush a pass," reflects Feldt. "John McCain will be that and worse."
The confounding problem with Mr. Straight Talk is that his public statements on abortion have been anything but straight. This meandering began most seriously in 1999, as McCain made his first bid for the presidency. On the eve of that campaign he told the San Francisco Chronicle that he'd "love to see a point where [Roe] 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 v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." That same year, he suggested that Republicans revert to the language of the party's 1980 platform, which affirmed GOP support of a constitutional amendment to defend the unborn, but also "recognize[d] differing views on this question among Americans in general--and in our own Party." McCain said, "I believe we are an inclusive party, and we can be so without changing our principles." He also told reporters that if his then-15-year-old daughter got pregnant, they would make "a private decision that we would share within our family and not with anyone else"--a response that to some ears sounded a lot like code for the right to privacy and abortion. McCain even said he would consider a pro-choice running mate.
It was ideologically moderate but politically dangerous positions like these that earned McCain his reputation as a "maverick"--and that got him creamed by the GOP's right-wing base. The National Right to Life Committee helped destroy him in the all-important South Carolina primary, running ads that said, "If you want a strongly pro-life president ... don't support John McCain."
So, this time around, McCain has swerved sharply to the right. The campaign website of the same man who, eight years ago, said Roe shouldn't be overturned now says, "John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench." He sent heartfelt words to the National Right to Life Committee's annual convention: "I am pro-life," he told them, "because I know what it is like to live without human rights, where human life is accorded no inherent value. And I know that I have a personal obligation to advocate human rights wherever they are denied ... when we fail to respect the inherent dignity of all human life, born or unborn. " McCain's advisers have said that he will not fight to soften the Republican platform on abortion, and McCain himself has said that it would be "difficult" to choose a pro-choice running mate.
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.
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."
The record, however, doesn't seem to be enough to convince the electorate that McCain's votes honestly represent his beliefs. But, as I learned on a recent trip to Arizona, people who have known McCain for years confirm that when it comes to abortion, he's a true, if quiet, believer.
My first stop in Phoenix was the office of Grant Woods, who served as McCain's chief of staff during his first term in the House, helped with his campaigns throughout the 1980s, and is now a member of his Arizona Leadership Team. "I am very familiar with his position [on abortion]," reflected Woods, a cowboy-style lawyer, slow-talking and casual, who said that he embraces the true conservative position--that a woman should make her own decision rather than having the government make it for her. "It was one on which I disagreed with him from the beginning." Like many voters today, Woods said he "wondered about the depth of [McCain's] commitment to that position initially because I had the impression that it wasn't something that he'd given a lot of thought to. " But, over the years, he continued, "I was completely convinced that this was a very sincere position that he had thought through and arrived at." Woods recalled a number of conversations with McCain, including one "up in the mountains late at night," in which the lawyer suggested that reasonable minds could differ. "When we really explored it, it really came down [for] him to a sanctity-of-life question. ... He did get very emotional one time we talked about it. He truly believed."
The next day, I headed down to Tucson and spent most of the day in the gracious, pink adobe-style Arizona Inn. In the antique-filled sitting room, Dennis DeConcini, who served eight years in the Senate with McCain and got caught, with McCain, in the Keating Five scandal, was holding court, dishing his dislike for his fellow senator to this reporter and, he said, to others who were coming later in the day. He talked about McCain's furious temper, his lack of friends in the Senate, and his unwillingness to go to bat for Arizona. He said that, knowing the candidate as well as he does, "I don't think he would be a good president." But, if there's anything remotely positive that the anti-abortion DeConcini would say about McCain, it's this: "I think he's pro-life because he just can't be anything else. I think he's there."
And so it went through McCain's Arizona associates. Freddy Hershberger, who ran Barry Goldwater's Tucson office and herself served in the state legislature as a pro-choice Republican in the '90s, told me that, when she once said something which suggested that McCain shared her views on abortion, "He immediately said that nothing could be further from the truth...He all but smacked me down." Deb Gullett, who was McCain's chief of staff in the early '90s and was his top aide during the 2000 presidential campaign, is strongly pro-choice and a force for moderate Republicanism in Arizona. She believes McCain has a "fundamental pro-life position" and said that she never pushed him on the issue. "What would be the point of belaboring the discussion?"
Carolyn Gerster, an elderly but still practicing doctor who helped found Arizona Right to Life and the National Right to Life Committee, recalled meeting with McCain when he was first in the House. The meeting was supposed to last 30 minutes, but the pair spoke for two hours. She says McCain has always been available when she's asked for his time and cites his support for embryonic stem cell research and campaign finance reform as the only times he's disturbed his pro-life record. Another prominent anti-abortion activist, John Jakubczyk, gave me a copy of a 1982 Arizona Right to Life dinner program in which McCain placed an ad and showed me a folder thick with letters from McCain; he explained that the Arizona pro-life community endorsed McCain, during his first run for office, over other anti-abortion candidates because it thought he was most likely to win, because it trusted his pro-life views, and because it believed he would be effective in pursuing its agenda.
Despite all this evidence, McCain's anti-abortion fervor hasn't registered with the public--in no small part because, in addition to his waffling on choice in the 2000 campaign, he hardly sounds like a true believer on other reproductive-health-related issues. When pressed to speak about them, he often evinces stunning ignorance, a fact that helps reassure the moderate middle that he could not possibly be as conservative as his record suggests. In early July, for example, a reporter raised the issue of whether it was "unfair" that insurance companies cover Viagra but not birth control. His response was painful to watch: "I certainly do not want to discuss that issue," he said immediately. She then asked about his votes against legislation requiring insurance plans to cover prescription birth control, legislation the anti-contraception right strongly opposed. He rubbed his mouth, rolled his eyes, flexed his fingers, crossed his arms, and more, before admitting, "I don't know enough about it to give you an informed answer." Finally, he told the reporter that he did not recall how he voted. "It's something that I had not thought much about," he added.
At another press conference, when a journalist asked him whether he thought contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV, he paused--for much too long--then answered, "You've stumped me." The reporter asked whether U.S. taxpayer money should fund contraception to prevent aids in Africa. "I'm not very wise on it," McCain said. What about grants for sex education? A long pause, then, "Ahhh. I think I support the president's policy." And, when the reporter pressed again, he finally said (after a reported twelve-second pause), "I've never gotten into these issues before"--an odd statement, given that he has voted on legislation related to all of them.
Clearly, these were not the responses of a devoted social conservative. What's more, on a few notable occasions, McCain has outright defied the right wing. The most prominent of these was his ongoing support, throughout the '90s, of embryonic stem cell research, on which he believed Congress had to "act affirmatively to support research to save lives." People who know him say that his support was a response to watching his friend and mentor Representative Morris Udall suffer from Parkinson's and that he believed his position was entirely consistent with his pro-life view. His leadership on campaign finance reform also infuriated social conservatives, who feared they would lose lobbying power, though that clearly wasn't McCain's intention.
But the public should not be distracted by these deviations from right-wing orthodoxy. McCain may or may not truly understand the broader definition of "pro-life," which these days also includes opposition to traditional and emergency contraception, family-planning, euthanasia, and related federal funding both here and abroad. (Playing the bumbling fool and satisfying no one is certainly an easier escape than trying to satisfy all.) But, as on abortion, both data and anecdote show there is little latitude in his positions. 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.
Moreover, say advocates, he is not open to dialogue. "Whether it's abortion care, birth control, or comprehensive sex education, McCain is not moderate or a maverick," says Donna Crane, policy director of NARAL Pro-Choice America and a key lobbyist on these questions. "We never ask--and we never hear pro-choice Republicans question--whether McCain will be with us on a vote. He's always on the wrong side."
Gloria Feldt says that, during her time in Arizona and later as president of the national Planned Parenthood Federation of America, her staff never tried to talk to McCain about abortion, but they did approach him about family-planning. He always refused to meet with them; he even refused to meet prominent Republicans on the Planned Parenthood board. "When I went to his D.C. office, I would be put into his waiting room forever and ever and ever, and eventually a staff person would come out and put me off, and finally I just gave up," Feldt recalls.
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.'"
So as not to alienate the Clinton middle--and perhaps in order to keep his foot out of his mouth--McCain has not voluntarily spoken on the campaign trail about many issues dear to social conservatives. (The McCain campaign did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this story.) Instead, he has used one issue--judicial nominations--as his proxy. In a May campaign speech at Wake Forest University, McCain slammed "judicial activism"--a common barb among social conservatives--and promised to restore "humility" to the federal courts and to nominate Supreme Court justices in the mold of Samuel Alito and John Roberts.
McCain also created a 48-person Justice Advisory Committee that would, in theory, help a President McCain select nominees to the federal and Supreme courts. That committee features a host of legal minds from the Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 administrations. Its headline names include senators Sam Brownback, Jon Kyl, and Trent Lott, all of whom have thoroughly pro-life pedigrees. Other members include William Barr, who wrote a Department of Justice opinion in 1992 opposing the Freedom of Choice Act on both anti-abortion and federalist grounds; Charles Cooper, who under Reagan headed the Office of Legal Counsel, where he helped draft regulations that would prevent family-planning clinics that take federal funds from providing abortion counseling; Charles Fried, solicitor general under Reagan, who helped write a lengthy administration brief in Thornburgh v. ACOG that made the case for overturning Roe on anti-abortion and states-rights grounds; and Thomas Merrill, who was U.S. deputy solicitor general and co-author of the Reagan administration's amicus brief in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services asking the Court to overturn Roe. No member of the committee who has been active on reproductive health issues represents a pro-choice or even a moderately pro-life position.
It is clear that McCain is taking no chances with the right this time around. The question is whether pro-choice voters are going to take a chance on McCain. "No matter where he might have been," says Planned Parenthood's Richards, "it's pretty clear where he is now." And what is pretty clear now is not half as clear as it would become were he elected president.
Sarah Blustain is a Senior Editor at The New Republic
Subscribe to The New Republic for only $29.97 a year--75% off cover price!
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (119)
Thank you for this article. I've been trying to spread the word as well, and it's shocking how few people recognize his stance.
Thank you for this article. I've been trying to spread the word as well, and it's shocking how few people recognize his stance.
This piece provides some insight into McCain's views on abortion(which I would have thought were obviously pro-life, but yes, have not always been clearly articulated), but would TNR consider branding a pro-choice lawmaker a "pro-choice zealot?" And arguing that McCain's response to a reporter's question posing a hypothetical scenario in which his own daughter was pregnant betrays pro-choice sympathies is misguided--McCain gave a reasonable response to an intrusive question that should never have been asked. The ad run in 2000 saying that voters who want a "strong pro-life president" shouldn't vote for McCain is shoddy evidence as well--single-issue groups will pick up on any sign of a less- ... view full comment
This piece provides some insight into McCain's views on abortion(which I would have thought were obviously pro-life, but yes, have not always been clearly articulated), but would TNR consider branding a pro-choice lawmaker a "pro-choice zealot?" And arguing that McCain's response to a reporter's question posing a hypothetical scenario in which his own daughter was pregnant betrays pro-choice sympathies is misguided--McCain gave a reasonable response to an intrusive question that should never have been asked. The ad run in 2000 saying that voters who want a "strong pro-life president" shouldn't vote for McCain is shoddy evidence as well--single-issue groups will pick up on any sign of a less-than-fanatical devotion to their cause and call it weakness, particularly in TV ads.
This is a complex and not-easy-to-answer subject. In fact the right answer may be somewhere between outright pro-life or pro-choice. It should not be seen as a weakness for one to confuse, or even flip-flop on the issue, as I find myself do. After all, we are talking about human rights and undue health burdens and significant medical waste/costs on both spectrums.
Pro-choice policy ought to couple with extended public education of the importance in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Perhaps even a "three stikes you are no longer allowed abortions" law? I believe the choice is ultimately women's but a sensible policy should include laws to minimize the number of abortions and related costs.
This is a complex and not-easy-to-answer subject. In fact the right answer may be somewhere between outright pro-life or pro-choice. It should not be seen as a weakness for one to confuse, or even flip-flop on the issue, as I find myself do. After all, we are talking about human rights and undue health burdens and significant medical waste/costs on both spectrums.
Pro-choice policy ought to couple with extended public education of the importance in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Perhaps even a "three stikes you are no longer allowed abortions" law? I believe the choice is ultimately women's but a sensible policy should include laws to minimize the number of abortions and related costs.
Yeah good. It's one reason why I'm voting for him. I am against the genocide of the unborn.
Yeah good. It's one reason why I'm voting for him. I am against the genocide of the unborn.
And just exactly what could anyone say is wrong with protecting innocent life? Has it ever occured to any of you baby killers exactly how obsurd it is to put the convienience of a woman that does not want to be burdened with a child above the rights of an innocent child?
And just exactly what could anyone say is wrong with protecting innocent life? Has it ever occured to any of you baby killers exactly how obsurd it is to put the convienience of a woman that does not want to be burdened with a child above the rights of an innocent child?
Another reason to vote for McCain.
Another reason to vote for McCain.
And is what is wrong for thinking that abortion is a method of birth control!
Obama after all is the guy who voted for de facto murder of babies born alive during abortion by refusing medical help to them.
NOW THAT IS DISGUSTING!!!!!!
And is what is wrong for thinking that abortion is a method of birth control!
Obama after all is the guy who voted for de facto murder of babies born alive during abortion by refusing medical help to them.
NOW THAT IS DISGUSTING!!!!!!
"John McCain is a pro-life zealot"
I know, isn't it great!
"John McCain is a pro-life zealot"
I know, isn't it great!
Obama is a Baby Killing Monster
How's that for a title...
Obama is a Baby Killing Monster
How's that for a title...
The tone of these articles is so odd. It's as if the authors could not conceive of the possibility of a well-meaning public figure acting openly and out of commendable motives to limit the destruction of fetuses, through abortion or through vivisection. He must be a nut, or a lurker, right?
I'm a McCain supporter. It's been clear to me for a long time that he has a very clear voting record on the pro-life side. I don't find him disingenuous on this subject. His campaign website is quite open on the subject.
Nor do I find him a "zealot." That's just a loaded word for someone who disagrees with you.
Try to understand this: people who oppose abortion and embryonic stem cell vivisection do n ... view full comment
The tone of these articles is so odd. It's as if the authors could not conceive of the possibility of a well-meaning public figure acting openly and out of commendable motives to limit the destruction of fetuses, through abortion or through vivisection. He must be a nut, or a lurker, right?
I'm a McCain supporter. It's been clear to me for a long time that he has a very clear voting record on the pro-life side. I don't find him disingenuous on this subject. His campaign website is quite open on the subject.
Nor do I find him a "zealot." That's just a loaded word for someone who disagrees with you.
Try to understand this: people who oppose abortion and embryonic stem cell vivisection do not hold this position because they need an excuse to limit your personal freedom. They do it because they believe it is wrong to destroy human beings, and they believe fetuses are human beings. You don't agree, fine, but quit acting like you can't understand where they're coming from. Infanticide would be convenient, too, and prohibiting it certainly limits our freedom, but that doesn't make the laws against infanticide fascist, or anti-feminist, or any of that other nonsense.
More American males since the '60s have been killed by the actions of feminist abortionists than by the decisions of any 'warmonger' in the Pentagon.
More American males since the '60s have been killed by the actions of feminist abortionists than by the decisions of any 'warmonger' in the Pentagon.
Thank you for shedding more light on Senator McCain's stance on abortion. It was encouraging to me to read it. I'll be voting for him in November.
Thank you for shedding more light on Senator McCain's stance on abortion. It was encouraging to me to read it. I'll be voting for him in November.
Oh, horrors--another pro-lifer! Women, run for the back alleys!! Your right to destroy the innocent human being within you is in imminent danger!!! Vote Obama--he'll fight to preserve that right even after birth!!!!
Oh, horrors--another pro-lifer! Women, run for the back alleys!! Your right to destroy the innocent human being within you is in imminent danger!!! Vote Obama--he'll fight to preserve that right even after birth!!!!
What a thorough and enlightening article. Thank you for confirming my suspicions about McCain
What a thorough and enlightening article. Thank you for confirming my suspicions about McCain
If McCain is a "zealot", what does that make Obama with pro-abortion?
If McCain is a "zealot", what does that make Obama with pro-abortion?
This is a very good article. A rare case of solid, thorough research and good writing. As someone who cannot abide Obama, I'll admit this gives me pause. What of my view that, with a strong Democratic Congress, he wouldn't have the free rein Bush had on judicial nominations? After all, it's a tradeoff. I think Obama is unqualified and untrustworthy, with the capacity to do long-term damage to the Democratic Party. So, suppose McCain has the wrong views but would have to compromise. How weigh the comparative costs of either person as President? This really is a none-of-the-above year.
This is a very good article. A rare case of solid, thorough research and good writing. As someone who cannot abide Obama, I'll admit this gives me pause. What of my view that, with a strong Democratic Congress, he wouldn't have the free rein Bush had on judicial nominations? After all, it's a tradeoff. I think Obama is unqualified and untrustworthy, with the capacity to do long-term damage to the Democratic Party. So, suppose McCain has the wrong views but would have to compromise. How weigh the comparative costs of either person as President? This really is a none-of-the-above year.
I think Miss Cristi at Clintons4McCain would love this article. That is a misguided bunch if I ever saw one.
I think Miss Cristi at Clintons4McCain would love this article. That is a misguided bunch if I ever saw one.
As a nurse who has witnessed the horror of a partial birth abortion I suggest that you see this barbaric practice in person before you call McCain a zealot. I think Obama's unconditional support for all abortions will be a more potent liability in the fall.
As a nurse who has witnessed the horror of a partial birth abortion I suggest that you see this barbaric practice in person before you call McCain a zealot. I think Obama's unconditional support for all abortions will be a more potent liability in the fall.
McCain is a "pro-life zealot?" Is this the opposite of a "baby killer zealot?" The title of your article gives you zero credibility. You are trying to connect with Hillary voters who are probbaly more angry after seeing how she was setup by Obama and horn-dog Edwards. McCain has treated Hillary wityh far more respect. I don't even like McCain but if Obama is the "pro-death zealot" than McCain has my vote.
McCain is a "pro-life zealot?" Is this the opposite of a "baby killer zealot?" The title of your article gives you zero credibility. You are trying to connect with Hillary voters who are probbaly more angry after seeing how she was setup by Obama and horn-dog Edwards. McCain has treated Hillary wityh far more respect. I don't even like McCain but if Obama is the "pro-death zealot" than McCain has my vote.
Once again our unscientific pagans try to impose their will on us. Biology 101 shows human life starting at conception. Anyone who disagrees does not know his biology. He is arguing philosophy, not science.
So how far is it from killing humans in cold blood because of the stage of life they are in, to eating your enemies, once defeated.
Once God is rejected all abominations are possible. The PhD who lacks the wisdom of God stands for "Piled higher & Deeper".
Once again our unscientific pagans try to impose their will on us. Biology 101 shows human life starting at conception. Anyone who disagrees does not know his biology. He is arguing philosophy, not science.
So how far is it from killing humans in cold blood because of the stage of life they are in, to eating your enemies, once defeated.
Once God is rejected all abominations are possible. The PhD who lacks the wisdom of God stands for "Piled higher & Deeper".
Having a clinic that receives federal funds actively pushing those that use the clinic to ask their Congress for more funds is at best a little seedy. Do they have to do this or not receive services or is it implied at all that that is the case? Not being able to interpret something so clear cut labels the other potential biases of the author. Also lets not act like Planned Parenthood is some saintly helper of the poor. They are an abortion provider. They make money as the largest provdier of abortions in the country. Somehow though they are treated like they help women make family decisions in a way that is too the woman's benefit and not their own. Who else gets this benefit of the ... view full comment
Having a clinic that receives federal funds actively pushing those that use the clinic to ask their Congress for more funds is at best a little seedy. Do they have to do this or not receive services or is it implied at all that that is the case? Not being able to interpret something so clear cut labels the other potential biases of the author. Also lets not act like Planned Parenthood is some saintly helper of the poor. They are an abortion provider. They make money as the largest provdier of abortions in the country. Somehow though they are treated like they help women make family decisions in a way that is too the woman's benefit and not their own. Who else gets this benefit of the doubt?
If Roe v. Wade was overturned it would simply return the right to an abortion to the hands of voters and elected representatives. Isn't this how a Democracy is supposed to work? The voters would then be able to set whichever limits and conditions that they felt were appropriate on abortions. The popularity of pro choice/life is dependant on how you define them. If by pro choice you mean no limits on abortion then that view is in the minority. Just as if you mean pro life is no abortions allowed at all then that view is in the minority. Also what of the rights of the father's of the children? This supposed equal rights argument seems to put all of the rights as well as the burden of responsibility on the woman and takes them from the man. Not sure how this benefits women all that much.
To try to claim that John McCain isn't for women's rights because he doesn't believe in unlimited access to abortion is not only absurd it puts him in the position of a large majority of Americans. If anything our society favors women now, if you think otherwise than you need to look at things more objectively. The pay gap is more of a gap in desires. Women want jobs that are in better enviroments and more friendly hours than men. Women are more likely to want more in life than an 80 hour a week job and to put more importance on family and relationships. This isn't a knock on women, if anything it is a knock on alot of men. Nobody who is old and dying says man if only I would have spent more time at work away from my family.
For those of you to young to remember:
The BBC Reported: 1962: "Abortion mother returns home An American mother-of-four is on her way home amid a storm of controversy after being given a legal abortion in Sweden. Sherri Finkbine, a TV presenter from Phoenix in Arizona, was denied an abortion in her home state following intense negative publicity surrounding her case. The 30-year-old mother decided to terminate her fifth pregnancy after discovering that tranquilizers she had taken in the first few weeks of her pregnancy contained the drug Thalidomide. In recent months there has been increasing evidence suggesting Thalidomide causes severe foetal deformities including missing limbs, deafness a ... view full comment
For those of you to young to remember:
The BBC Reported: 1962: "Abortion mother returns home An American mother-of-four is on her way home amid a storm of controversy after being given a legal abortion in Sweden. Sherri Finkbine, a TV presenter from Phoenix in Arizona, was denied an abortion in her home state following intense negative publicity surrounding her case. The 30-year-old mother decided to terminate her fifth pregnancy after discovering that tranquilizers she had taken in the first few weeks of her pregnancy contained the drug Thalidomide. In recent months there has been increasing evidence suggesting Thalidomide causes severe foetal deformities including missing limbs, deafness and blindness. Public condemnation Mrs Finkbine, host of children's television programme "Romper Room", told her story to the local newspaper, believing it would alert other mothers in the same situation to the dangers of the drug. But she became the focus of an intense anti-abortion campaign and worldwide public condemnation. The negative publicity led her local hospital in Phoenix to withdraw a tentative offer of a legal abortion for fear they may be held criminally liable - the current law in Arizona states that abortion can only be carried out to save the mother's life. Mrs Finkbine and her husband, Robert, a school teacher, took the case to the Arizona State Supreme Court but were unsuccessful. Despite vilification from anti-abortionists across the United States and the world she flew to Sweden where the operation was carried out. After the operation it was confirmed that the foetus had no legs and only one arm . When she returned to Phoenix Mrs Finkbine's local doctor asked her to register with another physician. She was dismissed from her job, and her husband was suspended from his high school teaching post. Their children were hounded, anonymous death threats poured in by post and telephone and the press swarmed around their home"
I remember Sherry. I have two daughters who grew up with choice. I will continue to support it.
John McSain will appoint Alito and Scarlia look a-likes when the time comes. Not this time. Not this year.
The truth is that McCain's positions on abortion, although clearly pro-life, are much closer to the mainstream than Barack Obama's. Barack Obama was one of only TWO US Senators to not vote for the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which offered legal protection for babies that miraculously survived an abortion. Even ardent pro-choice advocate, Senator Barbara Boxer, voted for this act and commented "Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous." Apparently Barack Obama disagreed with Senator Boxer ... view full comment
The truth is that McCain's positions on abortion, although clearly pro-life, are much closer to the mainstream than Barack Obama's. Barack Obama was one of only TWO US Senators to not vote for the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which offered legal protection for babies that miraculously survived an abortion. Even ardent pro-choice advocate, Senator Barbara Boxer, voted for this act and commented "Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous." Apparently Barack Obama disagreed with Senator Boxer. This should come as no surprise as TWICE in the Illinois Senate, Obama blocked state bills that would have offered the same protections to these babies and he was and is an fervent supported of Partial Birth Abortion, a practive which the late Speaker of the House Patrick Moynihan desribed "comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen." In fact, Michelle Obama has signed fundraising letters promising that Obama will be "tireless" in preserving Partial Birth Abortions. I know full well that there are many TNR readers who are strongly pro-choice and who have no queasiness about ANY abortion seeing the issue as completely as about the mother and her rights. However, most of America falls somewhere in the middle on this issue and while John McCain is clearly on the pro-life side of the issue, he is much closer to the center than Barack Obama who is, based on his past record and his rhetoric, by far, on the pro-choice extreme. In his entire political career, Obama has never voted for a single restriction on abortion and has consistently voted for federal funding for any and all abortions For his lockstep support, he has earned an A+ rating from NARAL. If, like Obama, you want unfettered abortions and taxpayers to fund them, you have your candidate. If like me, you can see BOTH sides of this issue, Obama's position on this subject may frighten you. I doubt that TNR will do a similar exploration of Obama's views, though.
The only reason my wife and I are voting for McCain is becasue he is pro life and we hope he has the opportunity to appoint more justices that are strict constituionalists in the view of the law.
The only reason my wife and I are voting for McCain is becasue he is pro life and we hope he has the opportunity to appoint more justices that are strict constituionalists in the view of the law.
Pure scare tactics. McCain isn't even talking about abortion. Besides, he will have a Dem Congress to deal with. I am far more scared that Iran will go nuclear on Obama's watch, than I am that Roe v. Wade will be abolished on McCain's.
Pure scare tactics. McCain isn't even talking about abortion. Besides, he will have a Dem Congress to deal with. I am far more scared that Iran will go nuclear on Obama's watch, than I am that Roe v. Wade will be abolished on McCain's.
This is a good article. When it got started I asked myself whether you could support your thesis and persuade me of it. You have and did. But I still like the guy, prefer him viscerally to Obama, even though Obama represents by and large doemstic political positions I agree with. I think that your election may come to be decided on the basis of voters' preference for the candidates' foreign policy views and apparent inclinations. My gut tells me that here McCain has the edge.
This is a good article. When it got started I asked myself whether you could support your thesis and persuade me of it. You have and did. But I still like the guy, prefer him viscerally to Obama, even though Obama represents by and large doemstic political positions I agree with. I think that your election may come to be decided on the basis of voters' preference for the candidates' foreign policy views and apparent inclinations. My gut tells me that here McCain has the edge.
It continues to astound me that many in the media, including Blustain, insist on painting support for Roe v. Wade, which allows abortion for any reason, including matters of convenience and gender selection, and at any time, even when the fetus is viable, as a moderate position. The only thing that would be more extreme would be to adopt China's population control practices and start forcing women to abhort.
It continues to astound me that many in the media, including Blustain, insist on painting support for Roe v. Wade, which allows abortion for any reason, including matters of convenience and gender selection, and at any time, even when the fetus is viable, as a moderate position. The only thing that would be more extreme would be to adopt China's population control practices and start forcing women to abhort.
Hmm: one guy supports life, one guy supports infanticide. Hmmm. Real tough choice for anyone who considers themself a human being.
Hmm: one guy supports life, one guy supports infanticide. Hmmm. Real tough choice for anyone who considers themself a human being.
During a 2004 audience with executive Shiite clergy in Iraq, I had opportunity to close with a narrow question to the senior ayatollah: What is the Muslim position on when a soul is imputed to a human being?
The ayatollah quickly raised his hand with his finger pointing towards me and retorted, "At conception!"
To that, I replied that many, many millions of Western people held this same value; however, much of the information about Islam and (Arab) culture was compartment-ed amongst the religous, military, and political communities.
The ayatollah smiled and said, "You know, it's really the politicians we can't trust!"
During a 2004 audience with executive Shiite clergy in Iraq, I had opportunity to close with a narrow question to the senior ayatollah: What is the Muslim position on when a soul is imputed to a human being?
The ayatollah quickly raised his hand with his finger pointing towards me and retorted, "At conception!"
To that, I replied that many, many millions of Western people held this same value; however, much of the information about Islam and (Arab) culture was compartment-ed amongst the religous, military, and political communities.
The ayatollah smiled and said, "You know, it's really the politicians we can't trust!"
Thanks for the article. I'm now more inclined to vote for McCain.
Thanks for the article. I'm now more inclined to vote for McCain.
Whether or not the article is well-research and written is wholly irrelevant because the article is irrelevant. Only the already-dedicated left will be shocked. The already-dedicated right will be happy and further encouraged to vote McCain. Most of those who may be undecided (as I am) are likely to already assume that McCain is pro-life and Obama is pro-choice (as their basic party credos say). So, what's the point of wasting TNR "space" and time? Most people, upon reading even just the title are likely to say, "duh! So what's your point?"
Whether or not the article is well-research and written is wholly irrelevant because the article is irrelevant. Only the already-dedicated left will be shocked. The already-dedicated right will be happy and further encouraged to vote McCain. Most of those who may be undecided (as I am) are likely to already assume that McCain is pro-life and Obama is pro-choice (as their basic party credos say). So, what's the point of wasting TNR "space" and time? Most people, upon reading even just the title are likely to say, "duh! So what's your point?"
What is the difference between a pro-life zealot and pro-lifer? You either believe it's wrong to murder innocent unborn or you don't. I guess your a "zealot" in the eyes of those who are pro-choicers....or should I say abortion zealots?
What is the difference between a pro-life zealot and pro-lifer? You either believe it's wrong to murder innocent unborn or you don't. I guess your a "zealot" in the eyes of those who are pro-choicers....or should I say abortion zealots?
Your candidate is a monster who endorses the literal murder of new born babies and you want to call McCain names? I'm not talking about abortion nor partial birth abortion. I'm talking about Obama's support for killing babies AFTER DELIVERY. Not one Senator, Dim-ocrat nor Republican, supported his position. He stands beyond the boundaries of even the looney left.
Your candidate is a monster who endorses the literal murder of new born babies and you want to call McCain names? I'm not talking about abortion nor partial birth abortion. I'm talking about Obama's support for killing babies AFTER DELIVERY. Not one Senator, Dim-ocrat nor Republican, supported his position. He stands beyond the boundaries of even the looney left.
And Obama is on the vanguard supporting the culture of death. His support for partial birth abortion is unequivocal and his votes in the IL State legislature against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act prove it. I will take a pro-life zealot over someone who condones and supports death any day. Millions of babies are snuffed out in the wombs of African American women each year. It is the largest genocide visited upon any people in history. Obama's support for abortion rights is just another example of him wanting to pull the ladder up behind him. Wake up -- your savior is a plaster saint!
And Obama is on the vanguard supporting the culture of death. His support for partial birth abortion is unequivocal and his votes in the IL State legislature against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act prove it. I will take a pro-life zealot over someone who condones and supports death any day. Millions of babies are snuffed out in the wombs of African American women each year. It is the largest genocide visited upon any people in history. Obama's support for abortion rights is just another example of him wanting to pull the ladder up behind him. Wake up -- your savior is a plaster saint!
1. mcCain wants Roe v. Wade to be a state issue, not a federal one. 2. He supports abortion in cases of incest and rape. 3. we don't know anything--from this article--about what other items were contained in the pro-life bills McCain voted in favor of. 4. BUT the idea that just bc we've a democratic congress behind us, doesn't mean the issue is "balanced." McCain would have the power to nominate supreme court justices. Ifyou're a 1 issue person, this gives a lot to think about.
1. mcCain wants Roe v. Wade to be a state issue, not a federal one. 2. He supports abortion in cases of incest and rape. 3. we don't know anything--from this article--about what other items were contained in the pro-life bills McCain voted in favor of. 4. BUT the idea that just bc we've a democratic congress behind us, doesn't mean the issue is "balanced." McCain would have the power to nominate supreme court justices. Ifyou're a 1 issue person, this gives a lot to think about.
I'm REALLY trying to stay away from the abortion debate in the TNR blogs this year, because everyone knows it just goes round and round, and has for years. But Sarah Blustain does such a wonderful job here of answering Eric Zimmermann's question of last week, "What place can otherwise left-leaning pro-lifers find in the Democratic party?" (A: "None whatsoever.") So I just had to pen a quick note to thank her (and Zimmerman, and Kate Michelman and Kathy Kneer, whom he quoted in his article) for my quadrennial reminder of why a center-left independent like me can never be welcome in their party. Thanks, guys!
I'm REALLY trying to stay away from the abortion debate in the TNR blogs this year, because everyone knows it just goes round and round, and has for years. But Sarah Blustain does such a wonderful job here of answering Eric Zimmermann's question of last week, "What place can otherwise left-leaning pro-lifers find in the Democratic party?" (A: "None whatsoever.") So I just had to pen a quick note to thank her (and Zimmerman, and Kate Michelman and Kathy Kneer, whom he quoted in his article) for my quadrennial reminder of why a center-left independent like me can never be welcome in their party. Thanks, guys!
John McCain will do nothing to stop abortion.
Neither the Democrats or Republicans will heal this infected sore upon America.
George Bush said 8 years ago that he would strive
to change the abortion laws,but no progress has been made towards that goal. He started a war instead.
Neither party holds the high ground on this issue.
It's up to the individual to make right decision.
John McCain will do nothing to stop abortion.
Neither the Democrats or Republicans will heal this infected sore upon America.
George Bush said 8 years ago that he would strive
to change the abortion laws,but no progress has been made towards that goal. He started a war instead.
Neither party holds the high ground on this issue.
It's up to the individual to make right decision.
fetus = living human being
killing a fetus = a perfectly fine & moral act
Yes, opposing abortion makes you a horrible right wing zealot nazi.
fetus = living human being
killing a fetus = a perfectly fine & moral act
Yes, opposing abortion makes you a horrible right wing zealot nazi.
When Hillary Clinton supporters finally see how far right McCain (zealot was the perfect word for John McCain) is on the abortion issue, he will lose their votes in droves.....Probably all of the Clinton supporters are pro-choice, they will never vote for someone whose even further to the right on the abortion issue than George Bush is...Even Bush has said in past that the country was not ready for a ban on abortion, but McCain thinks Roe V Wade should be overturned...
John McCain - when your position on abortion becomes clearer as this general election season progresses, say goodbye to all your Clinton supporter votes....
When Hillary Clinton supporters finally see how far right McCain (zealot was the perfect word for John McCain) is on the abortion issue, he will lose their votes in droves.....Probably all of the Clinton supporters are pro-choice, they will never vote for someone whose even further to the right on the abortion issue than George Bush is...Even Bush has said in past that the country was not ready for a ban on abortion, but McCain thinks Roe V Wade should be overturned...
John McCain - when your position on abortion becomes clearer as this general election season progresses, say goodbye to all your Clinton supporter votes....
McCain will do little or nothing to keep selfish, depraved women from murdering their babies to avoid inconvenience. Abortion is never about health, it's a convenient method of birth control. Obama supports infanticide - to him, children are "punishment". A very sick individual. As are all liberal fascists.
McCain will do little or nothing to keep selfish, depraved women from murdering their babies to avoid inconvenience. Abortion is never about health, it's a convenient method of birth control. Obama supports infanticide - to him, children are "punishment". A very sick individual. As are all liberal fascists.
Amy, the knee jerk conservative reaction on the death penalty is to ask, "What if it was your child who was killed?" Yet a journalist can't ask this to a politician?
Amy, the knee jerk conservative reaction on the death penalty is to ask, "What if it was your child who was killed?" Yet a journalist can't ask this to a politician?
Judging by the comments to this story, most of your readers appear to be anti-abortion. I suspect it is because they, like Senator McCain, inherently recognize the simple principle that nobody, regardless of age, sex, religion, political philosophy, or financial situation, knows what is going to happen next.
Judging by the comments to this story, most of your readers appear to be anti-abortion. I suspect it is because they, like Senator McCain, inherently recognize the simple principle that nobody, regardless of age, sex, religion, political philosophy, or financial situation, knows what is going to happen next.
I find it shocking that so many people simply take it for granted that a woman has the right to take the life of her own child, and make it the centerpoint of their campaigning without actually caring to debate of WHY the sanctity of life is irrelevant when it comes to unborn children, instead masquerading the issue under the labels of "free choice" and "women's rights" instead of discussing it for what it is: murder.
I find it shocking that so many people simply take it for granted that a woman has the right to take the life of her own child, and make it the centerpoint of their campaigning without actually caring to debate of WHY the sanctity of life is irrelevant when it comes to unborn children, instead masquerading the issue under the labels of "free choice" and "women's rights" instead of discussing it for what it is: murder.
Thanks for reminding me that McCain is the better choice of two not so great candidates. It is good to know he supports life, clearly Obama supports death.
Thanks for reminding me that McCain is the better choice of two not so great candidates. It is good to know he supports life, clearly Obama supports death.
Only a far-left liberal would describe someone who supports life as a "zealot". I've always found it funny that liberals like Ms. Bulstain are so eager to dispose of unborn babies, yet so fervently oppose death sentences for violent killers and rapists. Thank goodness we have a candidate in John McCain who will not support Ms. Bulstain's dream of abortion drive-thrus on every corner.
Only a far-left liberal would describe someone who supports life as a "zealot". I've always found it funny that liberals like Ms. Bulstain are so eager to dispose of unborn babies, yet so fervently oppose death sentences for violent killers and rapists. Thank goodness we have a candidate in John McCain who will not support Ms. Bulstain's dream of abortion drive-thrus on every corner.
Just outlawing abortions isn't enough. Pregant women can do plenty of things that endanger the health of their unborn children. So we'll also have to make it illegal for pregnant women to drink alcohol or soda or coffee or the wrong kind of herbal tea, smoke cigarettes, or wear their seatbelts incorrectly. Just to be safe, maybe we should make it illegal for them to ride cars at all. And since people can still smoke outside, we should probably just confine pregnant women to their homes, in order to protect their unborn children from possible second-hand smoke. In fact, since pregnant women who tried to get abortions are already being thrown into jail (it is illegal, after all), we should pro ... view full comment
Just outlawing abortions isn't enough. Pregant women can do plenty of things that endanger the health of their unborn children. So we'll also have to make it illegal for pregnant women to drink alcohol or soda or coffee or the wrong kind of herbal tea, smoke cigarettes, or wear their seatbelts incorrectly. Just to be safe, maybe we should make it illegal for them to ride cars at all. And since people can still smoke outside, we should probably just confine pregnant women to their homes, in order to protect their unborn children from possible second-hand smoke. In fact, since pregnant women who tried to get abortions are already being thrown into jail (it is illegal, after all), we should probably just incarcerate all pregnant women. After all, it's the best way to insure the health and well-being of their unborn children. Of course, early on in a pregnancy you can't really tell whether a women's with child or not, and we can't risk anything bad happening to those precious blastocysts, so we should probably lock up all women, just to be on the safe side.
Just outlawing abortions isn't enough. Pregant women can do plenty of things that endanger the health of their unborn children. So we'll also have to make it illegal for pregnant women to drink alcohol or soda or coffee or the wrong kind of herbal tea, smoke cigarettes, or wear their seatbelts incorrectly. Just to be safe, maybe we should make it illegal for them to ride cars at all. And since people can still smoke outside, we should probably just confine pregnant women to their homes, in order to protect their unborn children from possible second-hand smoke. In fact, since pregnant women who tried to get abortions are already being thrown into jail (it is illegal, after all), we should pro ... view full comment
Just outlawing abortions isn't enough. Pregant women can do plenty of things that endanger the health of their unborn children. So we'll also have to make it illegal for pregnant women to drink alcohol or soda or coffee or the wrong kind of herbal tea, smoke cigarettes, or wear their seatbelts incorrectly. Just to be safe, maybe we should make it illegal for them to ride cars at all. And since people can still smoke outside, we should probably just confine pregnant women to their homes, in order to protect their unborn children from possible second-hand smoke. In fact, since pregnant women who tried to get abortions are already being thrown into jail (it is illegal, after all), we should probably just incarcerate all pregnant women. After all, it's the best way to insure the health and well-being of their unborn children. Of course, early on in a pregnancy you can't really tell whether a women's with child or not, and we can't risk anything bad happening to those precious blastocysts, so we should probably lock up all women, just to be on the safe side.
4000 does not equal 35,000,000
4000 does not equal 35,000,000
Jason nailed it: Hmm: one guy supports life, one guy supports infanticide. Hmmm. Real tough choice for anyone who considers himself a human being.
The American people want contraints on abortion and PP is "going to the matresses" to obtain an unrestricted right to kill all the babies that they can. If TNR is unhappy, I am ecstatic!
Jason nailed it: Hmm: one guy supports life, one guy supports infanticide. Hmmm. Real tough choice for anyone who considers himself a human being.
The American people want contraints on abortion and PP is "going to the matresses" to obtain an unrestricted right to kill all the babies that they can. If TNR is unhappy, I am ecstatic!
Thank you for this article. I have recently been pondering the problem of prudential judgment when both candidates favor killing innocent lives for the "health" and convenience of others. Now that the position of at least one candidate is clear, it makes my decision much easier.
PS, Has anyone seriously investigated the origin and reasons behind Planned Parenthood's penchant for setting up shop in lower income, predominately black areas? I guess we reproduce too fast for some folks.
Thank you for this article. I have recently been pondering the problem of prudential judgment when both candidates favor killing innocent lives for the "health" and convenience of others. Now that the position of at least one candidate is clear, it makes my decision much easier.
PS, Has anyone seriously investigated the origin and reasons behind Planned Parenthood's penchant for setting up shop in lower income, predominately black areas? I guess we reproduce too fast for some folks.