McCain’s record on abortion not so pristine

Gerard Bradley says he has “an unmatchable record on life issues.” Deal Hudson proclaims: “McCain IS pro-life!” Oswald Sobrino one-ups Hudson, declaring McCain “extremely” pro-life. Maybe these three men are not very informed on McCain’s record on life. Would it be charitable to borrow a term that Christopher Blosser slings at Doug Kmiec and call them suckers? Perhaps ideologues is a bit kinder and more accurate.

Before I get into this, a brief caveat is in order: I am not interested in comparing McCain’s record on life to that of Obama. They’re both dreadful, and I believe that when Catholics get into the business of trying to determine who is “better” on life they are promoting a concessional and cowardly rather than prudent and principled exercise. That said, this post, like the one I wrote on Obama, ought to be read as a freestanding critique.

We know that McCain has a checkered record on life issues, having fully supported federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. That’s an issue that the pandering Hudson once deemed non-negotiable. Truth is, Bradley, Sobrino, and Hudson (among many, many others) either deliberately marginalize the ESCR issue or they leave it out of the discussion altogether in order boast of McCain’s pro-life cred. Candor has never been the strong suit of the ideologue. When it comes to partisan politics, it appears some will overcompensate by sacrificing honesty and Catholic perspective for the good of the party, using terms like “IS” and “unmatchable” and “extremely” in order to quell any would-be objections from those of us who live in reality and think with our faith.

Really, there is no where for them to abscond when it comes to the ESCR quandry, and I have discussed this specifically at length. No candidate for office deserves to be dubbed “pro-life” when they have consistently supported ESCR at the federal level. But let’s take a closer look at McCain’s record on abortion in order to test the claims made by what Hudson calls the “Catholic Right.” Is McCain’s record on abortion impeccable from the Catholic standpoint? Are there any reasons for a Catholic to be leery of McCain on abortion? Let’s look.

In terms of legislative action, McCain has a sterling voting record on abortion to which both Republicans and Democrats can attest. Whether it was the Partial Birth Abortion Ban or freedom to access to the entrance of abortion clinics, McCain’s voting has mirrored, I believe, the ideal Catholic image of legislative participation with regard to abortion when he has decided to vote. This is all to McCain’s credit. Of course, there were those times when McCain decided not to vote on certain abortion bills, such as in 1999 when he did not vote on the Harkin Amendment to S. 1692, which intended to “To express the sense of Congress in support of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade.” The amendment passed 51-47. Strangely enough, McCain did vote later that same day on other amendments to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000. Omitting to vote on particular amendments to this crucial piece of legislation certainly raises some questions as to the level of McCain’s commitment to voting pro-life.

Supporters of McCain like to point out the fact that he received a 0% NARAL rating. But I’ve always found learning about someone from friends is generally more helpful and accurate than taking the word of someone’s foes. The National Right to Life Committee rates McCain as 75% (the highest rating being 100%), indicating that NRLC considers McCain’s record on abortion to be “mixed.”

How does McCain’s campaign rhetoric match up with his voting record and does it leave us as confident as his legislative actions may? It shouldn’t. McCain has not been consistent in how he speaks about abortion, and this ought to give us due pause. McCain is no longer campaigning to be a U.S. legislator; he is running for President of the United States. His ability to affect abortion in the U.S. broadens beyond his Senate record if he takes the Oval Office.

Think back to the 2000 Republican primaries. John McCain, George W. Bush, and Alan Keyes were engaged in a debate on abortion which got rather tense. Both McCain and Bush were committed to exceptions to abortion restrictions in the cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. While Bush did not desire to push his view into the Republican Party’s platform, McCain wanted the party’s position on abortion to soften to permit the exceptions. Keyes jumps into the debate with a rather insightful lead:

One individual who doesn’t really accept the pro-life position of the party [McCain] and another who says he accepts it, but then takes positions that are inconsistent with it so that when push comes to shave he won’t be able to defend it [Bush], and both willing to take at the personal life a position that will destroy you in debate against the Democrats.

Keyes’ familiarity with McCain’s personal position on abortion led him to declare in a February 2000 interview: “John McCain is not pro-life. Anyone who votes for John McCain betrays pro-life proponents.”

If elected to the presidency, McCain’s position on Roe v. Wade would become all the more important. The problem is, can we trust McCain? In 1999, McCain told the San Francisco Chronicle:

I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.

Two days later, McCain made a remark on CNN that sounded straight out of a Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer script:

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.

In January 2000, McCain drew fire from the American Life League. Reporters in New Hampshire, likely aware that McCain’s platform on abortion conflicted with that of the Republican Party, asked him whether or not he would permit his fifteen year-old daughter to have an abortion. His answer implicitly invoked the “right” accorded to women by Roe v. Wade:

The final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel. I would discuss this issue with Cindy and Meghan, and this would be a private decision that we would share within our family and not with anyone else. Obviously I would encourage her to bring, to know that baby would be brought up in a warm and loving family, but the final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel.

Within an hour a panicked McCain campaign issued a brief clarification:

What I intended to say is that this is a family decision. This family decision would be made by the family and not Meghan alone.

In other words, whether the decision would be made by Meghan alone or by the whole family, McCain struggled to provide a genuinely pro-life answer by actually falling back on legalized abortion. The question, which Keyes raised in a debate, is: If McCain claims the “right” to abortion for his daughter, is he not implicitly supporting the right for all women? It certainly seemed so to the American Life League.

What about the 2008 campaign? I mean, a lot can change in eight years, right? Well, after emerging as the Republican nominee from out of a rather lackluster crew of Republican candidates, McCain is getting pressure on abortion like he never has before. His commitment to exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother is as strong as ever, but it appears that he may flip-flop on his official campaign position and not push for a change in the Republican platform. If he ends up choosing not to pursue a softening of the Republican stance on abortion, then he will become a political hypocrite, having slammed Bush for making that very concession in 2000.

McCain has already flip-flopped, so it seems, on Roe v. Wade. It’s really difficult to tell in which direction the “Straight Talk Express” is heading. Media Matters puts it succinctly:

As Media Matters noted, McCain said in 1999 that he “would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade,” but then issued a “clarification” several days later, reportedly saying: “I have always believed in the importance of the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, and as president, I would work toward its repeal.” In 2005, he adopted yet another position, saying that he agreed “to some degree” that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. In 2006, McCain also issued a statement indicating that if he were the governor of South Dakota, he “would have signed” a controversial bill outlawing all abortions except when the life of the woman is threatened, but that he “would also take the appropriate steps under state law — in whatever state — to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included.

When asked by Tim Russert in 2005 whether or not agrees with Justice Antonin Scalia’s statement that Roe was incorrectly decided, this happened:

MR. RUSSERT: Now, [Supreme Court] Justice [Antonin] Scalia, as you know, believes that Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal in this country, was incorrectly decided. Do you agree with him?

McCAIN: Yeah, I certainly do to some degree because it was based on medical knowledge and technology at the time that indicated that babies are, children are not viable at its earliest stage as they are today. So it certainly wasn’t based on sound, up-to-date medical technology. We save babies every day that are premature at a very early stage. Thank God.

So McCain says that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned in the short term, and that Roe v. Wade should be repealed, and that he agrees somewhat that Roe was incorrectly decided. However you slice it, McCain’s not consistent. Perhaps he’s trying to please all sides? Why so vague on how and when Roe is to be overturned?

Here’s McCain’s long answer in 2000:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Trbaufpok8″

Here’s McCain’s short answer in 2008 (note how eager he is to get to the next question):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQU0TF18ZfI&feature=related”

At least he’ll appoint pro-life judges, right? No way to know for certain. In 2000, McCain explicitly stated that, as president, he would have no pro-life “litmus” test for nominating Supreme Court justices. Last May, McCain promised to nominate justices in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, yet he failed to mention abortion within this context, remaining quite vague:

Not once during his 2008 campaign has McCain indicated that a goal of his presidency is to see Roe v. Wade overturned. Nor has he indicated that his Supreme Court nominations will blaze that trail. What we do have to go on is his comment that there is no pro-life “litmus” test for justices.

This deeply disconcerting problem in McCain’s campaign rhetoric is compounded by recent comments he made to Hillary Clinton supporters in Virginia this month. The event was closed to the public and media, and Will Bower, founder of PUMA and present at the meeting, revealed the possible reason why. When Bower asked McCain about judges, McCain “pointed out that he supported Bill Clinton with both Ginsburg and Breyer.”

So on Supreme Court justices, McCain goes on record stating he has no pro-life criterion for judges, yet he plans on supporting constructionists (sounds a lot like Rudy Giuliani). Off the record, he’s reminding the Clinton faithful the he “supported Bill Clinton” with pro-Roe Ginsburg and Breyer. The silence here is deafening: McCain has never once stated that he plans to nominate judges to overturn Roe v. Wade. In fact, the collective remarks he has been willing to made seem to indicate that he has no plan in this regard.

The inconsistencies, flip-flopping, pandering to Republicans and Democrats, and reluctance to speak frankly on abortion, at best, shows that no one really knows the full scope of McCain’s position on legalized abortion. While his Senate record bespeaks of a desire to restrict access to abortion, his presidential intentions are unpredictable in terms of how he would use executive power to affect abortion in the United States. Moreover, what convoluted material McCain does give us does not inculcate confidence in the Catholic voter. Only naivete could lead one to pronounce McCain a truly “pro-life” candidate.

No, dear Catholics, McCain is not “extremely pro-life.” No, dear Catholics, McCain does not have an “unmatchable record” on abortion. Rather, McCain has a very ambiguous, opaque, turbid, and inconsistent platform on abortion. McCain is not our pro-life candidate. But I suppose as long as he’s got Bradley, Sobrino, and Hudson in his corner making the case that he is, there’s going to be at least some duped Catholics. Just try not to be one of them.