McCain Unequivocally Supports Federalist Solution to Abortion
Left begins attack on McCain for Moderate Abortion Stance
By Adam C Posted in 2008 — Comments (97) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
First, on abortion polls show a pretty consistent national picture. 25% of the country supports ending abortion in all cases except the life of the mother. About 30% support the current regime of abortion-on-demand without restriction. The other 45% or so generally support major restrictions usually defined as legal abortion in cases or rape, incest, and threats to the life of the mother. That moderate position is where Sen. McCain lies.
Second and more important to pro-lifers is where 2008 prospects fall with respect to Roe v. Wade which polls show over 60% of the country supports, generally under the mistaken notion that overturning Roe would outlaw all abortions due to a rather atrocious miseducation via the MSM. According to leftist media group ThinkProgress, here is a recent exchange between Sen. McCain and Mr. Stephanopoulos:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You’re for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.
MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So is President Bush, yet that hasn’t advanced in the six years he’s been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn’t done?
MCCAIN: I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And you’d be for that?
MCCAIN: Yes, because I’m a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don’t believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade.
If Rudy wants to keep his lead among conservatives, it would behoove him to declare that he is also a federalist and opposed to Roe v. Wade's usurpation of the legislative role on abortion. Otherwise, he will be answering questions about this issue for most of 2007.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Obama's Blank Screen — Comments (14) »
McCain Unequivocally Supports Federalist Solution to Abortion 97 Comments (0 topical, 97 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Rudy has to be pro Scalia to get the nominatin. He will be. Whether he follows through when President is anyone's guess.
Same with McCain. But, McCain is passionately supportive of making sure his baby, aka BCRA, is upheld by future Supreme Courts. Please explain to me how you appoint a judge in the mold of Scalia who will uphold BCRA.
Rudy is a wildcard. We've seen McCain is full of himself and full of ****. I'll take my chances with the wildcard.
consistant with his stance on abortion. It is his willingness to give into globle warming (among other things) that pushes me away from him and Rudy.
"It ain't over till it's over"
Yoggi Berra
It's nice that McCain is a federalist on those issues, but lets not kid ourselves. This is the man who came up with CFR and wanted the federal government to regulate baseball. He is a federalist when it suits him, not in principle.
Abortion and the definition of “civil marriage” fall within the police powers reserved for the States. There’s no contradiction between saying that the federal government should regulate something which clearly falls within its commerce power but that it should leave matters regarding the police powers back to the States.
Rudy's position on Roe vs. Wade is the same as McCain said his was today in his interview with (the partisan hack) Stephanopoulos. Rudy has said distinctly that he pro-choice on abortion but anti Roe vs. Wade.
For what it's worth, I believe that Mitt Romney also supports a federalist view on the abortion question.
Of equal importance was Senator McCain's response and past positioning on the Bush tax cuts. Supporters of John McCain need to face up to the fact that he opposed one of the three main achievements of the George W. Busy presidency: the tax cuts--especially in 2003--that jumpstarted a stalled economy after the triple whammy of 9-11, the tech/Internet overhang and Enron/corporate scandals. (The other two achievements, it seems to me, have been the successful War on Terror and the Supreme Court appointments.) McCain simply is not a supply-sider. He obviously does not believe in the power of cuts in marginal tax rates, dividend taxes and capital-gains taxes to spur the economy and cost the government a lot less in "lost" revenue than the static arbiters in government, media and the academy calculate.
"Rudy's position on Roe vs. Wade is the same as McCain said his was today in his interview with (the partisan hack) Stephanopoulos. Rudy has said distinctly that he pro-choice on abortion but anti Roe vs. Wade."
Can you provide a source? I've never seen Rudy say he was anti-Roe.
Rudy has made very clear that he supports Scalia-type judges. As detailed in a recent diary:
While in Ohio, Rudy called into the Bill Cunningham radio show. Speaking about the Supreme Court, Rudy said: "Justices Roberts and Alito were both colleagues of mine [in the Reagan Justice Department] - people I worked with and I admire tremendously. I thought that they were inspired choices that the President made - inspired in many ways, because they also were people who had a strong conservative background and strict constructionists." He added, "Justice Scalia was also a colleague of mine...and he probably would have been my choice for Chief Justice."
There is nothing in that quote saying he wishes Roe to be overturned. I don't think he has ever said such a thing unless someone can show me a source for it.
Supporting "Scalia-like judges" is easy for any R nominee. However, taking a minority position such as wanting Roe overturned is more difficult. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find even President Bush saying such a thing. I recall the President focusing on the "culture of life" to avoid talking about Roe.
McCain coming out against Roe puts him to the right of almost every major 2008 nominee and, I believe, President Bush.
Arlen Specter supported Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito, but there is no more ardent supporter of Roe v Wade than him. No way is Rudy in favor of overturning Roe.
"Life is too short, can't we all just eat pork and kill some terrorists?"
Right. I never heard Rudy say he wants. Roe v. Wade overturned. Maybe Rudy should become a Democrat and seek the nomination of the Dems. Strong on national defense, but liberal on social issues. Could work.
People give McCain a lot of grief about the Gang of 14 Deal, but I don't think it's a big minus for him. Some of the language in the deal was way off base, like the notion that the Constitution requires the president to consult with the Senate before making a nomination. But the reality is that the Deal helped get some good judges confirmed, including two for the Supreme Court.
I didn't like hearing McCain claim that the filibustering of Bush's nominees was somehow comparable to what the GOP did to Clinton nominees, because the filibustering was in fact a huge escalation. But give McCain credit: that particular genie is now back in the bottle, and if it breaks back out of the bottle during the next two years then McConnell is ready to shut down the Senate. So, all in all, I don't think the Gang of 14 Deal was so terribly bad, whatever people like Hugh Hewitt may say. And McCain has an awful lot of things going for him that outbalance whatever negatives there were in the Gang of 14 Deal.
I was an early member of the Coalition of the Chillin' on the filibuster deal. Here is the main outline of the Coalition.
And as for me personally, here was my "day after" analysis of "The Deal."
The bottom line: For a filibuster to happen, 3 of the "moderate" Democrats must choose on their own that a nominee creates an "extraordinary circumstance." Then Sens. Graham and DeWine must agree with those Democrats on their assessment. To be honest, if Sens. DeWine, Graham and 3 of the Democratic moderates agree on a candidate, then they probably wouldn't get voted up by the whole Senate. Thus, the filibuster is dead for this Congress but perserved for the future.
I admit that I was one of those who initially called for the (political) heads of the members of the Gang of 14 but in hindsight the only loss was that our ineffective Senate leadership failed to stage a showdown over an issue that they could have resolved at the beginning of the 2001, 2003, and 2005 sessions when they adopted the Rules of the Senate. IMO they were either incompetent for not foreseeing that their Democratic “colleagues” would or could pull something like filibustering a judicial nominee that had the support of a majority of Senators or they figured they would get more political mileage by having a dramatic showdown and whip up the base into a frenzy before the election.
So, all in all, I don't think the Gang of 14 Deal was so terribly bad....
I respect your opinion a great deal, so I'm trying to figure out how to put this in perspective.
* It seems to me that the Gof14 was a great deal if you felt the alternative was getting nobody through, so rather than just give up on all of them it's preferable to sacrifice some to get others in.
* On the other hand it was a horrible deal if you felt the alternative was changing the rule (or at least trying to change it) that some might say violates the Constitution by having the effect of creating a supermajority requirement for appointments.
Would you mind commenting further? Thanks.
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.
Frankly that was one of the arguments that bothered me the most was hearing people who ought to know better spinning the “Constitutional option” line of BS and the willingness of people to believe it largely because they didn’t like the outcome of the filibustering of Bush’s judicial nominees.
Each House of Congress has the right to set whatever voting requirements they want to except for a few cases where the Constitution requires that they have a supermajority requirement. The fact that the Constitution doesn’t require (as opposed to forbidding) a supermajority for certain votes does not forbid them from adopting one in their own rules. The constitution no more requires that the Senate approve judicial nominees with a simple majority vote than it requires that the Senate actually have a vote on a judicial nominee. The place to challenge this rule IMO is at the beginning of the Senate session when the Senate adopts its rules by a simple majority vote.
Filibustering has no constitutional status at all - on any level.
You are right to pick the previous comment on this point, but calling abolishing the filibuster 'the constitutional option' is perfectly legitimate. It would be an entirely constitutional thing to do.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
That the Senate must advise and consent on judicial nominees and by filibustering they are not fulfilling their constitutional obligation. I don't have a problem with that argument. By refusing to vote on judicial nominees they aren't fulfilling their constitutional obligation. It is reasonable to think that they must take action one way or the other on them.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Well, they don't have to consent, but they do have to advise, and that's what a floor vote does.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
consent, they don't have to advise. I favored the constitutional option until I heard Bork discuss it. I now think the best way to combat this issue is via senate rules. Senate rules are not sacrosanct and shouldn't be. The majority party can change the rules really any time, not just at the beginning of the session, though that would be preferable in order to avoid, in Lindsey Graham's term, the blowoing up of the Senate. But as I have called for disbanding the senate in the past...
But I wouldn't care if the senate became more like the house except with regard to what the constitution says to distinquish the senate. The GOP can win the political battle over the role of judges, and thus the tactics the dems use to block them if they muster the courage to make the argument, ie that they stop fearing and cowering to the MSM demonization and fire back.
If Bush has to, he should snd bork clobe after Bork clone up there and wives cry on TV until the 2008 election.
But I actually think that the GOP can prsuade enough dems to not fillibuster to get floor votes. And the GOP can fillibuster everything else but judges and shut it down. In conjunction we would need a PR strategy to put the blame on ther dems and have Bush promise emergency aid to those with mortgages!
This will be even more powerful as Romney takes on the MASS court and legislature over gay marriage.
more later
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
I favored the constitutional option until I heard Bork discuss it. I now think the best way to combat this issue is via senate rules.
That's what the constitutional option was... a majority of the Senate agreeing that the filibuster was not in order on judicial nominees. It is ridiculous that we were not able to use it. Both the G14 and the leadership are to blame for that. If the Democrats were in the same position, they would've used it in 2001... as they've already used the exact same tactic several times in the past for other purposes.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
The parliamentarian had at least 3 options:
1-to declare the senate created rule allowing fillibusters of judicial nominees unconstitutional under art II
2-simply change the rule by majority vote
or
3-declare that rule allowing fillibusters does not apply to judicial niminees
Weren't those the distinctions Z?
I do know that Bork argued that the advise and consent clause does not REQUIRE a floor vote but that the senate majority can make whatever rules it wishes.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
#2 actually requires a super majority... so that was out. The only real options were #1 and #3... But so long as the Senate itself is making a decision on which to pursue, I have no preference as to which one of the two they pick. I don't see any harm in saying "there must be a vote one way or another" and I don't see any harm in saying "filibusters are out of order."
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
The Constitution indicates super majorities in certain instances, thus implying simple majorities elsewhere. Like you said, it all boils down to the rules that are set on how to conduct business.
The best description I've heard of the problem with filibustering nominees (whether judicial or other) is that a large minority can use the filibuster to force tweaking of a piece of legislation, but with a nominee you either take the person or not - there's nothing to tweak.
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.
Condi has intimated this as well. No one who lives on Sanity Island can be for Roe. It was poorly reasoned as a result of being constructed to achieve a political end. This allows Republicans like Rudy, McCain, and Rice to finesse the abortion issue in a way that doesn't drive the Olympia Snowes of this world into the cold embrace of the Clintons.
You wouldn't believe how much lard I took from Freepers about this simple distinction who will now, quite willingly, be able to accept the same distinction from a Mitt Romney that they would never have accepted from a black woman. All because she let the term "moderately pro-choice" pass through her lips.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
...comment is supposed to insinuate, since I'm not a "Freeper" as far as I know, but I can't stand Condi (and likely wouldn't vote for anyone who picks her as his running mate) because she seems to believe that the best way to guarantee American security is to appease anyone who asks for it, including the major terrorist sponsoring nation in the world, Iran. I would never accept any candidate of any color/gender/hairstyle who has that sort of worldview, not in the sort of world we live in today.
McCain is a great guy to have on your side, but not someone I trust. He is not someone I consider to be a "member of my church" (i.e. a movement conservative).
I love it when I read these soundbites, which reflect my own views. But I deeply suspect these are "positioning for 2008", and as such of questionable value.
If McCain gets the nomination, I will of course support him against whomever the Dems put up. But he is far from a 'first choice'.
One other little prediction. McCain loves to think he has the media in his pocket. The drive by media will turn on him big time - bring up his current wife's controversies with narcotics (she was supposed to have abused her nursing license), among other things.
If he loses the Republican Presidential nomination, the Drive By Media will again come to his side, cheerleading him to go Third Party, to defeat whomever the Republicans nominate.
Referring to a poll done by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life in July of this year---which comes to a similar conclusion that opinions on issues like abortion have been remarkably consistent over time--Pew's conclusions diverge somewhat from those being discussed here.
http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=150
For instance, a majority of those polled prefer a "federal" abortion policy in this country, not a "federalist" policy:
"The survey, conducted July 6-19 among 2,003 adults, also found that 55% prefer that abortion laws be decided at the national level rather than each state deciding for itself. This desire for a national policy prescription extends to other social issues as well. Despite growing antipathy toward Congress and low levels of trust in the federal government generally, majorities or pluralities also favor a national rather than state-by-state approach to policymaking on stem cell research, gay marriage and whether creationism should be taught in the schools along with evolution."
Where should policy be set on issues:
……………………………………………National Level……………State Level
Stem Cell Research------------69%----------------26%
Abortion----------------------55%----------------39%
Teaching Creationism----------51%----------------44%
Gay Marriage------------------48%----------------46%
*
On abortion, opinions have been consistent over time:
……………………………Jun-96…………Jun-97…………Jul-05…………Jul-06
Generally
Available----------32%---------30%---------35%-------31%
Allowed but
More Limited-------24%---------21%---------23%-------20%
Illegal-Few
Exceptions---------33%---------36%---------31%-------35%
Never
Permitted----------9%----------12%----------9%-------11%
The crux of the abortion debate is--of course-- what is meant by a "moderate" position on abortion.
Looking at the Pew poll results--I think that more people would view moderate to mean restrictions on what is understood to be the position described as "generally available"--- but not as restrictive as only having exceptions for abortion in the case of rape, incest and the mothers life being in danger..
Certainly--the Pew poll results show that majorities have not favor restrictions as severe as those advocated in what I interpret as the "illegal with few exceptions" position.
.
There are many polls, each with different wording, and my synopsis in the main article comes from looking through all of them. Here is a larger sample of abortion polls using different wordings.
Use the same sources anyway. :-)
Anyway, I only saw one poll on there that supports your statement. The CBS news poll does pretty consistently show something like 51% of respondents favoring positions that range from outright ban to rape/incest/life exception. I'm honestly not sure why, because almost every other poll shows a pretty consistent, albeit small, majority in favor of a moderate pro-choice position.
Unfortunately, a most polls use the "all cases", "with restrictions", "outright ban" terminology, which IMO is totally worthless. Duh, most people support abortion with restrictions! I'm pro-choice and I support abortion with restrictions. The important question is, of course, which restrictions are supported.
The Pew wording seems very skewed. It should read more like this:
Generally Available --> Available on demand (no restrictions)
Allowed but More Limited --> Available but with some limitations
Illegal-Few Exceptions --> Available in very limited situations only
Never Permitted --> Unavailable (no exceptions)
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.
Sorry, you aren't agreeing with me. I think that the Pew poll is acceptable. My problem with most polls is that they only give three options:
Legal
Legal with Restrictions
Illegal
Then, something like 60% of people pick the "Legal with Restrictions" option. This option is completely useless, because it covers everything from "Legal with parental notification" to "Legal in the first trimester" to "Legal only to save the life of the mother".
We are trying to figure out what the "moderate" option in the debate is. Obviously, this is going to be some variant of "Legal with Restrictions" but these polls don't give us any idea what restrictions people favor. Thus, they are useless.
Johnny Mac talks a good game, but when the ball is in his hands I just don't trust the guy. Taking a federalist stance on abortion runs contrary to what he said in 2000 when he said he did not want Roe v Wade overturned because it would lead to illegal abortions that would kill women... blah blah blah... typical liberal argument against originalist judges. Now the guy all of a sudden figures out he is for a federalist solution to the problem?
Seriously, can we trust anything this guy says while he's ramping up his run to the Presidency?
On the other hand, Mitt Romney has changed his personal views on abortion and can easily be called a flip-flopper on the issue. However, there is one position on abortion he has been consistent on even when he was pro-choice: that each state should be able to choose for themselves what to do with abortion. He said it then, he says it now. That's why I trust Romney infinitely more than McCain or Giuliani on judges - no contest.
--------
Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same. -The Fray, "All At Once"
This is somewhat tangential to whether McCain has a chance of getting through the primary, but I think you guys are mistaken to call banning except for rape/incest/life to be a "moderate" position.
Some samples from pollingreport:
Which side of the political debate on the abortion issue do you sympathize with more?
Right-to-life: 39%
Pro-Choice: 53%Which comes closer to your view? Abortion should be:
Generally Available: 31%
Stricter Limits: 20%
Rape, Incest, Woman's Life Only: 35%
Not Permitted At All: 11%Do you favor making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion?
Strongly Favor: 15%
Favor: 22%
Oppose: 32%
Strongly Oppose: 24%Which comes closest to your opinion on abortion? Abortion should be....
Legal in All Cases: 19%
Legal in Most Cases: 32%
Illegal in Most Cases: 27%
Illegal in All Cases: 16%
Banning except for rape/incest/life is certainly a moderate Republican position, but I think that most polls show that, while the public supports some limitations on abortion (parent and husband notification, banning partion birth and probably all 3rd trimester abortions), at least a slim majority supports generally keeping abortion legal and supports keeping it a national issue.
There are polls where the question is direct, should abortion be legal when X?
In those cases, rape, incest and life of the mother show high majorities supporting legal abortion. "Can't afford" or "Don't want" usually have narrow majorities in favor of illegality. Those abortions make up the vast majority of abortions in the United States.
If the Republican position is that since majorities oppose abortions that are come under the categories of "can't afford" or "don't want"---these abortions should be illegal---what alternative is being offered to prevent pregnancies in those two categories--especially among teenagers.?
Appointing a person to lead the office that oversees federally funded teen pregnancy, family planning and abstinence programs who is known to oppose contraception seems like Republicans want to take women back into the 19th century on issues of reproduction...
and a supermajority of Americans believe the issue is a moral one.
First, you misunderstood me slightly. You said, "If the Republican position is that since majorities oppose abortions that are come under the categories of "can't afford" or "don't want"---these abortions should be illegal." The survey said that a majority of Americans believe abortions should not be legal "If the pregnancy is unwanted." Using that wording, 43% of Americans think abortion should be legal and 49% think it should be illegal. This is not just a Republican position.
Abortion-on-demand is not popular; neither is a total abortion ban. The public has wanted for a long time to compromise on this issue, but Roe v. Wade has made the status quo one extreme.
Second, any child or adult who has a child before they are ready to raise him or her is able to give the child up for adoption. Many pro-life families adopt children to help share the burden and assist those who are in the unfortunate position of growing up to fast.
The problem arises in that 9 month period between conception and when the pro-life groups are willing to adopt babies.
If federal policy opposes contraception---then the public will make a choice as to what abortions fall under the category of "on demand" and you make not like the public's answer to that question if you close off all avenues that prevent pregnancies in the first place and just leave adoption on the table as the only alternative for unwanted or unplanned pregnancies..
I have no idea where that came from. Contraception is all over the country in readily accessible forms. The debate is over abortion, not contraception. If you want to debate contraception, start a diary or something.
I think that chicagorich was probably referring to something like this or this. Or the current debates over whether pharmacists should be allowed to refuse to dispense the pill or the morning after pill. Or the debates that we've had over giving out condoms in schools or having abstinence-only sex-ed.
Actually--I was referring to this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR200611...
.
contraception. I'm not sure where the government gets off forcing people to sell certain things. And the problem with public schools is still the belief in one-size-fits-all. I still think a universal voucher system would fix that. Some schools do A, others do B. Parents choose. Then both sides can stop trying to "impose their values" on the other.
RvW (and subsequent decisions) protects abortions on fetuses before "viability", which is currently about 22 weeks. RvW is "extreme" in that it goes against popular opinion in protecting abortions for most of the second trimester.
The problem with this argument is that it is irrelevant. 90% of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks. Even according to the poll that you used to show public support for significant restrictions on abortion, 66% think that abortion should be "generally legal" in the first three months (with only 29% saying "generally illegal").
As a pro-life Catholic, I personally believe that abortion should ALWAYS be illegal--even if a woman doesn't want to raise the child of a rapist, someone else might want to adopt the child, who would not tell the child who his/her father was. As one pro-lifer put it on a T-shirt: "My father was a rapist, but why should I get the death penalty?"
But, if our goal is to save as many unborn babies as possible, and Roe v. Wade has been the "law of the land" for 33 years, it seems like McCain has "nailed it": an abortion ban with exceptions only for "rape, incest, and life of the mother" does have majority support in America. There's something heart-wrenching about the idea of a terrified young girl carrying the child of a rapist (or incestuous father) which leads a lot of voters (especially women) to favor the rape/incest exception, although most people are against abortions "of convenience", for which adoption is a viable solution.
It may not be "pure" in a moral sense, but an abortion ban with a "rape/incest/life-of-mother" exception seems to be the politically feasible way of eliminating 90+% of abortions. This would certainly be better, from a moral standpoint, than insisting on a total abortion ban, and letting another million babies be aborted every year until enough people come around to that point of view, which might take decades.
If Senator McCain is serious about this (or any other GOP candidate for that matter), we should strongly promote this as the platform of the Republican Party and its nominee for President. We should also be looking among appellate court judges (susceptible to be promoted to SCOTUS) for potential nominees who are willing to state such a position before a Senate confirmation hearing (there are a few Democrats in the Senate who embrace this position), as well as being judicially competent on other issues.
One point on which Presidential and SCOTUS candidates need to be clear: the exception may include "LIFE of the mother", but should NOT include "HEALTH of the mother". While there are some medical conditions late in pregnancy that can endanger the health of the mother, they can usually be resolved by a Caesarian delivery at an opportune time that saves both mother and baby. The problem with a "health" exception is that it gives abortionists a loophole to claim that the abortion was necessary for the "mental health" of the mother, or to avoid "depression" (this was recently used as an excuse by abortionists in Kansas, as exposed by Bill O'Reilly on Fox News).
If Senator McCain is willing to stick to this position for the next two years, and act accordingly if elected President (a big if!), this could be a good reason to suppport him as the GOP candidate for 2008.
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
I am puzzled where you read in any of these polls that there is majority support for banning abortion except in cases of rape, incest and ONLY if the mother's life is in danger.
That may be an acceptable pro-life compromise, but I doubt that it is one that will get very far with the public at large..
It appears as though you are referring to the 2003 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, which does show a majority in favor outlawing abortion when the mother "can't afford" to raise the child. I will counter with the point that there is a clear majority that favors legal abortion when the mother's "mental health" is at risk. These poll results negate your assertion that rape/incest/health is the most moderate position. In fact, mental health is the most moderate position that enjoys majority support. The mental health exception, as has been pointed out here numberous times, is essentially carte blanche to receive an abortion.
The only other thing I can say is that, on the whole pollingreport page on abortion, there are only a few polls which show majority support for some version of the Pro-Life agenda, with most of the polls showing majority support for the Pro-Choice agenda.
Obviously, in a debate as charged as that on abortion, there is going to be a lot of "noise", both in polls and in public debate. But I think that your attempt to take a position that does not appear to enjoy majority support and call it the "moderate" position is somewhat disingenuous. I can only point out, again, that most polls appear to show majority support for some variety of Pro-Choice position. I would also point out that, despite several decades of work on the part of Pro-Life advocates, there has been very little change in the federal policy on abortion. The voters seem to be content with this.
"The voters seem to be content with this."
If by content, you mean elected pro-life Presidents 5 out of the last 7 chances. And the President is really the only elected official that can affect abortion policy until Roe is overturned and compromises are allowed in the states.
In the 2000 election--more voters chose the pro-choice candidate than chose the pro-life candidate.
That a slight majority of the "voters" in that quirky Constitutional construct called the Electoral College chose the candidate who came in second place in the popular vote does not mean that said candidate had the support of the majority of the public on any particular issue--and its the public view that we are discussing here--not the views of the Electoral College...
Maybe some voters didn't realize he had switched over to pro-choice... or maybe that flip-flop helped him lose his home state and the election.
The platform that Gore ran on in 2000 said:
"The Democratic Party stands behind the right of every woman to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of ability to pay. We believe it is a fundamental constitutional liberty that individual Americans – not government – can best take responsibility for making the most difficult and intensely personal decisions regarding reproduction. This year’s Supreme Court rulings show to us all that eliminating a woman’s right to choose is only one justice away. That’s why the stakes in this election are as high as ever.
Our goal is to make abortion less necessary and more rare, not more difficult and more dangerous. We support contraceptive research, family planning, comprehensive family life education, and policies that support healthy childbearing. The abortion rate is dropping. Now we must continue to support efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies, and we call on all Americans to take personal responsibility to meet this important goal."
This is **not** a platform that pro-lifers would find acceptable..
Or voters seem to be content to elect representatives that pay lip service to being Pro-Life but don't actually do anything to forward the Pro-Life agenda.
I think the reality is that most voters don't think of Presidential elections in terms of judicial appointments. If/when, you win the RvW debate, I think that a lot of Republicans politicians are going to find themselves in a very complicated position. It is easy to be Pro-Choice now, because they know that, as long as RvW is around, they don't actually have to do anything about it. If Republicans actually try to take any significant steps to limit abortion access, I think that this will have a significant negative impact on them electorally.
I don't buy anyone's view of what a post-Roe political world would look like, except that abortion politics would be out of the Presidential contest and focused on local races.
After Roe was handed down, polls showed support for abortion jump. There is a common theme that people change their view to align with what they think is "moderate" or normal. If an abrupt shift occured in the other direction (say 5% go from "pro-choice" to "pro-life") that would be huge. More importantly, the terms used in the debate would have to shift. The AP could no longer hide behind "pro abortion rights" and "anti abortion." Compromises in different states would reflect their local views. Places like LA would have bipartisan abortion bans and places like NY would have bipartisan pro-abortion laws passed. How would this affect the overall national political scene? I do not know.
I think it would matter how far activists tried to go. The SD abortion ban that lost was an example of overreach. But a similar ban could probably win in LA, UT, or WV. If parental notification can't even pass in CA, then no one is going to even bring up abortion in their next election. Perhaps some states would try to put pro-abortion clauses into their state constitutions... but honestly, I don't know what would happen.
I do know that we would join Europe in having abortion decided by elected legislatures rather than judges. And in the long run that usually lead to a longer term concensus where no one feels disenfranchised as many pro-lifers feel now.
I will counter with the point that there is a clear majority that favors legal abortion when the mother's "mental health" is at risk.
I would love to see such people asked a follow-up question along the lines of:
"If Planned Parenthood can tell a woman the right words to use with the right doctor so that the doctor will always say a 'health' exception applies, would that change your answer?"
Isn't that what this boils down to? I believe there are few people who feel that if a mother's life is at risk if she continues a pregnancy that you should roll the dice and tell her too bad. But on the other hand, the way the left clings to this "health" business makes it pretty obvious to me that the abortion on demand crowd intends to use that as being pretty darn close to abortion on demand.
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.
Rudy Giuliani (Presidential Candidate) supports the appointment of the types of Judges that will defend life, support the second amendment and not interfere with the war on terror:
The million dollar question (in my humble opinion) was asked by myself next- the importance of strict constructionist judges in reforming the federal judiciary.
Rudy absolutely hit this one out of the park. My wife had to talk me down from a ledge upon my return last night after I realized that my audio recorder was broken and I did not get this speech on tape. But rest assured, Rudy is as far to the right on judges as anyone in the American Conservative Movement. Imagine a far more eloquent George W. Bush on the issue.
The money quote:
“I don’t understand how you cannot be for strict constructionist judges” (emphasis Rudy’s).
Rudy spoke of his time as a federal prosecutor and how he knows from experience the importance of this issue. He spoke glowingly of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito (I believe he mentioned something to the effect of “You have to be happy with the President’s choices of Roberts and Alito” [emphasis Rudy’s]). He ended this discussion by stressing that law is to be made by legislatures, not judges who base their opinions on how they happen to feel that day.
I think it's great that Rudy supports constructionist judges. But he has not come out against Roe v. Wade and neither have most 2008 candidates. Being for "constructionist" judges is an easy way to avoid the hard question. McCain just drove the "Straight Talk Express" right up to Roe v. Wade. Republican candidates for President have generally avoided talking about Roe directly. That's why this is news. When Rudy does that, let me know and I'll put it on the front page.
polipundit's rhetoric on the immigration issue prove him to be so irrational that he would be willing to believe anything if it helps tear down McCain.
Polipundit used to be one of the 2 or 3 blogs I read everyday, until he went crazy anti-Mexican and kicked off all of his co-writers over the issue.
was good enough to get Roberts & Alito on the Court. IIRC, they were asked at length about their views on Roe during the hearings, and refused to answer (and rightly so). They were also asked what role Roe played in the interview process, and answered none. Also a good answer.
In his two successful nominations, Bush and the nominees have purposefully stayed away from hinting/implying how they would rule on cases. This kept the debate to qualifications and strict constructionist philosophy, and foreclosed any Kennedy/Leahy fishing expedition on issues.
McCain has just blown up this precedent by hinting how his judges would rule on a particular case. Whenever we have fallen back on advocating for nominees based on personal views/history, the results have been an unmitigated disaster. O'Connor was a Goldwaterite, Kennedy was an observant Roman Catholic, and Miers was personally pro-life. Whenever we have stuck to strict constructionist philosophy and refused to show leg on particular cases, we've won.
I don't find it encouraging that McCain gave this answer, because he's just created a problem for his judges in their confirmation hearings. In this case, less is more.
I don't see this as any more difficult for his judges than Bush's "I will appoint judges like Scalia and Thomas." The nominees will be asked, they will say "I can't answer," and we move on.
The difference is that, if he wants to, Sen. McCain could help educate the media on Roe. There is still a widespread belief that overturning Roe will outlaw abortion everywhere. This isn't countered very often because national Republicans want to stay away from talking about Roe. If this is an indication that Sen. McCain will freely discuss the subject, it could win over other libertarian Republicans and moderate Independents to the federalist position, which is decidedly anti-Roe.
But that's certainly not the signal he wishes to send to the base. He wants the base to think he'll do everything in his power to outlaw abortion. "Educating" the media is not part of his plan.
The abortion debate focus needs to be on the definition of life. Then the rest is easy. Nobody will be for killing an innocent. What is the definition of life? This has to be settled.
When does a fetus have a heartbeat, brainwaves, able to feel pain?
Why does a perp who kills a pregnant woman get charged w/ double murder when that same woman could have gotten an abortion legally?
There needs to be some resolution. In order to solve the abortion debate, the definition of life has to be debated and decided on.
unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong...constitute the endless repetition of history.
-Churchill
The issue is NOT "what is the definition of life". Clearly, life begins at conception. There's really no debate here; indeed, debate here will only obfuscate the issues.
Rather, the question is "at what stage of development is life entitled to the protection of the law"? And those who don't agree that life is entitled to full protection of the law at all stages of development must then determine what partial protections if any (and at what stages) they will give to life in utero.
Returning to the main topic of this posting, the Federalist position is that these decisions should be made by State Legislators, not the courts.
You know, the one where he said the exact opposite of this... that he did not want to see Roe overturned. It seems to me he is pretty flexible on the issue and will take whatever side he thinks he needs to. The quote in 1999 came as he was running for the nomination last time around. It was pretty clearly a trial balloon. It didn't work. Now he knows he needs to be pro-life. If he were to somehow win the Presidency, that wouldn't be so important any more. That does not fit my definition of "unequivocal."
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
From 1999:
"I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary," McCain told the Chronicle in an article published Friday. "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."
On Sunday, on CNN's "Late Edition," McCain reiterated that he would not have an abortion "litmus" test for a running mate or Supreme Court nominees. He added that while he ultimately favors repeal of Roe, "we all know, and it's obvious, that if we repeal Roe v. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations."
Your defense is that he flip-flopped on the issue in the very same interview? Is that supposed to make him well qualified for the Republican nomination? That is a great NARAL KnownFact™ you quoted him regurgitating, as well:
"we all know, and it's obvious, that if we repeal Roe v. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations."
That's another quote that should be added to the list of why he's worse than 80% of the rest of the Republican caucus on this issue.
It seems to me the Democrats could make a pretty effective campaign ad by running this clip right before him repeating his recent quote saying that Roe needs to be overturned. Maybe they could pad it out with "American's won't pick lettuce for $50 an hour" and "Why don't you go vote Vegetarian?" and the flip-flop on the Falwell crowd.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
"we all know, and it's obvious, that if we repeal Roe v. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations."
Second and more important to pro-lifers is where 2008 prospects fall with respect to Roe v. Wade which polls show over 60% of the country supports, generally under the mistaken notion that overturning Roe would outlaw all abortions due to a rather atrocious miseducation via the
MSMStraightTalk Express™.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
McCain's comment to me sounds much like a dumb comment by Sandra Day O'Connor. Does what he's saying amount to something like: "I'll uphold Roe v Wade now, but in 25 years I think the need for it might go away."
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.
Because in 25 years the technology used in illegal back-alley abortions will be so much improved that this will no longer be an issue:
"thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations"
I don't know what other explanation of this statement makes any sense. Besides the obvious one, anyway... that he was trying to move left of the rest of the nominees so he could capture the cross-over Democrat vote. That was pretty much his entire strategy in 2000.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan
I'd love to see someone find President Bush being this blunt about overturning Roe? Or elder Bush? Or Dole? Or Guiliani? Or Romney?
This is strongest anti-Roe position I have seen in recent memory from a major Republican Presidential candidate.
I've never seen a quote by President Bush supporting overturning Roe. It is well known that the First Lady is pro-choice and H.W. Bush was pro-choice before he became VP. It would not surprise me if W. avoided the topic successfully in 2000 and 2004 by talking about the "culture of life."
In 2000 - I think in one of the debates - a journalist tried to get him to say it. He asked if W thought the SOCTUS had ever wrongly decided a case, and W cited Plessy v Ferguson. This was later spun by at least one journo as W comparing Roe v Wade to Plessy v Ferguson, which is an outright lie, as W simply didn't mention RvW.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
With regards to abortion, I think the Supreme Court in the Casey decision, forecast that after a couple of decades of Roe V. Wade being in practice, that abortion would be accepted in America. Well, it's not. It's still highly divisive. And therefore, a one size fits all judicial pronouncement like Roe V. Wade, just isn't the right answer. The right way to approach a controversy of this nature is to allow the democratic process to be carried out in each state. Basically, to allow federalism to work, and let each state take its own course, as to whether or not they're going to be a Roe V. Wade state.
I would welcome the overturning of that portion of Roe V. Wade that says abortion has to apply in every single state, and removes from the state the opportunity it has to make important decisions of its own.
I would rather see each state be able to make its own decision on abortion laws..."
I'd say that's pretty clear, wouldn't you?
--------
Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same. -The Fray, "All At Once"
That's nice, but how is he on genuine federal abortion issues: Use of federal facilities for abortions including overseas military hospitals? Bans on taking a minor across state lines for an abortion without parental consent? The 'gag rule'?
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
You can dig through his record here. The only places where he crosses NRLC is on McCain-Feingold (not an abortion issue) and stem-cell research. His pro-life record is rather strong and consistent as opposed to say... Guiliani or Romney.
Harriet Miers was supposed to be personally pro-life & willing to overturn Roe at the drop of a hat. That wasn't sufficient for most of the people on this board.
I want judges who will overturn Roe. I also want judges who will overturn CFR and uphold the constitutionality of waterboarding.
What are the chances McCain would let those types of judges through? And what are the odds that those that are left can be really be trusted on Roe?
How about judges who will read the Constitution? It isn't hard. But that is the one thing on which 'MichiganforMcCain' consistently refuses to engage. While McCain says he will have no abortion litmus test MfM has ONLY an abortion litmus test, and adivses us that McCain must be sound on judges because he has voted against abortion. This is a simply absurd proposition. You cannot read anything into someone's judicial philosophy based on their legislative actions.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Reducing the whole judicial debate to Roe v. Wade is frankly an insult -- an insult that brings you judges who *claim* to be personally pro-life but are unreliable in every other way.
Strict constructionism is more than abortion. It's striking down excessive campaign finance restrictions, which the Court failed to do in 2003 in McConnell v. FEC but which the Roberts Court has been more willing to do (an end to contribution limits was a conceivable outcome in Randall v. Sorrell, I'm told, but the Court took a middle ground approach). The Hamdan case showed that there are tremendous implications for national security, with judges and the McCain Amendment on one side and the need to effectively interrogate terrorists on the other.
On gay marriage and abortion, McCain is a federalist. On everything else -- free speech, Kyoto, taxes, and even frivolities like steroids in baseball and boxing -- McCain is a believer in an all-powerful Federal government in the progressive tradition of his hero TR.
I would much rather have a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman, than an amendment banning abortion.
McCain was a chief obstructionist to such an amendment. I hope social conservatives remember that.
A constitutional amendment banning abortion is never going to happen. McCain is trying to woo the base on an issue he will never deliver. I hope social conservatives don't fall for it.
The smart path for the pro-life movement should be ensuring the appointment of constructionist judges.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
McCain unequivocally supports whatever will help him gain support among conservatives. He's more than willing to change his position on anything to trick Republican primary voters into voting for him.
"Rudy is a wildcard. We've seen McCain is full of himself and full of ****. I'll take my chances with the wildcard."
Don't forget the NYT factor. I absolutely believe that McCain will not cross the liberal media if he ever has a chance to actually change public policy on any controversial social issue.
I will listen with great interest to how Guiliani addresses abortion, affirmative action, etc. But I tend to think whatever he says is more trustworthy than what McCain tells us.
McCain, Guiliani and Mitt all need to build a conservative coalition for their nomination campaign. McCain has created a lot of ill will over the years on a lot of issues. This stance takes him where he needs to be.
Giuliani explicitly has to reconcile his commitment to strict constructionist judges with his policy preferences on abortion and gay rights. He can do it in a speech or in an article, but he needs to do it. If he does that and does it effectively, he also will be where he needs to be.
Romney also will need to explain his evolution, but he too should be able to get on the right side of this issue. Romney's got the best stance on embryonic stem cells, which represents a small plus.
So while Guiliani has the most to do, it's doable. All three should be able to get themselves to the point where abortion isn't a disqualifier. If these are the three main candidates, it's possible that a year from now, this issue won't be driving the nomination fight. Leadership, national security, taxes, and limited government will.
>>Giuliani explicitly has to reconcile his commitment to strict constructionist judges with his policy preferences on abortion and gay rights.
There is no contradiction between appointing strict constructionist judges and having any particular set of policy preferences. I agree with you that he has a way to go in satisfying most conservatives, but it is far from an insuperable problem.
McCain's is much bigger. McCain has personally sponsored legislation at the federal level which any strict constructionist judge would rule illegal. This is much harder to reconcile.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
As a moderately pro-choice Republican, I'd like to offer my two cents here.
1) I do not believe that no abortion at all, except in the cases of rape, incest and where the mother's life is in jeopardy constitutes a "moderate" position. That position suddenly seems "moderate" in the light of South Dakota's now defunct abortion ban, yet it is a position that is generally accepted as "conservative" by the public-- i.e., not "moderate," though also not "hardline."
2) I support McCain, but also like Rudy because I feel that both accommodate my views on abortion, even if they don't fit 100%, better than any other candidates. What are my views? Legal without questions only in the first trimester, thereafter, only legal if necessary to save the mother's life. No partial birth abortions. If it's big enough to need to part deliver it, it's big enough to survive in a premie tank. That's it. I've been accused of having a "cruel" line on abortion because of my "never after the first trimester" argument-- people say, what about if incest or rape occurred? My view is, after month 3, we know for a fact that a heartbeat is present, the fetus can feel pain, and so on. Therefore, the question of how it was conceived exits the debate. At that point, to my mind, it is just too likely to cross a moral line to permit an abortion unless the mother is going to die and take the fetus with her. All this being said, while I am pro-choice insofar as this is my view, as a lawyer, I do not think Roe was correctly decided. I've been reading about the case since I was 15, and frankly, it just does not make any sense to me from a constitutional perspective. Therefore, my view is that Roe should be overturned, and I would like (though I would not support federal action to ensure) abortion scaled back at a minimum to the position outlined above, though I recognize that in my home state of Washington, that is unlikely to ever happen.
3) I would like to take issue with the contention that since most abortions occur because the mother does not want to keep the baby, or because she can't afford it, if we restricted abortions so as to only allow them in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's life was in jeopardy, this would drastically cut the numbers. I had three friends get pregnant before the age of 14 (yes, in middle class Seattle). Of those, two sought abortions. Now, the principal explanation they offered to the clinic was "I'm 11/13, I can't afford to raise a baby." On that basis, one would think that if you restricted abortion as outlined above, they would be barred. But here's a question for you all-- given that these girls' boyfriends were, respectively, 19 and 22, and therefore, statutory rape was involved, would they have been entitled to have abortions? Prima facie, assuming we are not going to wait for the alleged rapist to go to trial (which would take more than 9 months), and we accept that a minor cannot give consent (therefore any sexual intercourse is against her will), and we are going to take the girl's word as to what happened and with whom, it would seem to me that these abortions would be allowed. As would an abortion for any other pregnant woman who claimed, legitimately or not, to have been raped. To my mind, restricting abortion by reference to the reasons why it is sought will do little to curb the numbers, unless the reasons are specifically defined as medically-related.
4) I am fairly sure that I have read somewhere that Rudy has espoused a federalist position on abortion. Which I support. And the fact that McCain has, too, makes me 100% comfortable with voting for either of them as, fundamentally, I, the moderate pro-choicer, do not want the federal government telling Washington State that we have to implement a South Dakota-like ban-- thought I accept that if Roe were overturned, a lot of states might do just that, which would (in my opinion) be excessive. That is, however, the federalist bargain.
Liz Mair is the editor of WWW.GOPPROGRESS.COM, a RedState-style blog for libertarian, mainstream and moderate Republicans
on strict constitutionalists.
The test for strict constitutionalists, as someone else has said, should not be abortion or gay marriage above and beyond everything else. It should, in my view, be matters like Campaign Finance Reform (shocking perhaps from a McCainiac, but since I have never loved that legislation, I really don't take issue with the Court chucking it), Kelo v New London (an abomination, in my view), and things like affirmative action.
Since abortion, and the Roe decision specifically, is not wildly popular amongst many judges, I would hazard a guess that it's not tremendously difficult to find "strict constitutionalists" on this single issue, who are prepared to rule against Roe. But more judges might see the merit in the Kelo decision, which in my opinion, was absolutely wrong. If you really want to find a strict constitutionalist, test their views on that case. It is, in my view, a little more complex and less debated than Roe-- and a discussion of why a judge believes the decision was right, or wrong, would be likely to yield a deeper understanding of how they really consider constitutional issues, and whether they are fit for the bench.
Liz Mair is the editor of WWW.GOPPROGRESS.COM, a RedState-style blog for libertarian, mainstream and moderate Republicans
It should, in my view, be matters like Campaign Finance Reform (shocking perhaps from a McCainiac, but since I have never loved that legislation, I really don't take issue with the Court chucking it)
So it is unlikely you will get nominations from McCain who want to overturn either CFR or Roe. He is going to want someone who won't rock the boat on political speech restrictions... maybe he can find someone that'll maintain the speech restrictions while striking down Roe, but I doubt he is going to look very hard, since he has already flip-flopped on that issue (in 1999 he didn't want to see Roe overturned) and it seems to be totally negotiable for him... just a part of the political calculus... unlike CFR or the terrorist bill of rights where he is a true believer.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
No to McCain, Giuliani, Newt, and Romney.
It ain't gonna happen.
NO SALE!
I'm lookin' for Life!
Someone who reminds me more of the air that I breathe than of cianide gas.
Rose
I also miss the ability to post polls.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Track takes forever to load, plus makes you search around for the posts in the thread.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
I note that Sen. McCain's consistency on pushing federalist solutions to same-sex marriage and abortion by opposing the FMA while supporting a same-sex marriage ban in AZ helps win over moderates and small government conservatives while lining up with conservative's goal of sending abortion back to the states and giving legislatures the power to deal with social issues.
This type of consistent federalism and small government viewpoint is what has been missing in Republicanism over the past 6 years. I hope other candidates start following McCain's lead.
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth