Unmasking McCain: His Reactionary Record on Reproductive Rights

We've seen the exit polls. We've read the unequivocal quotes. Many women who are avowed Hillary Clinton supporters are declaring they won't vote for Barack Obama in the fall.

I get the anger and the disappointment. But to quote SNL's Amy Poehler and Seth Meyers: Really? You'd rather vote for John McCain, a man who has a 25-year history of voting against a woman's right to choose? A man who over the last eight years that NARAL has released a pro-choice scorecard has received a 0 percent rating (in his time in office, Obama has received a 100 percent rating)? A man whose campaign website says he believes Roe v. Wade "must be overturned"? A man who has vowed that, as president, he will be "a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement"?

Really?

In Clinton vs. Obama, the policy differences were minor (hence the overriding focus on minutiae like flag pins, Bosnian sniper fire, and the real meaning of "bitter"). In McCain vs. Obama, the differences are enormous. Staying the course in Iraq vs. ending an unnecessary and immoral war. Universal health care vs. less regulation for insurance companies. Rolling back the Bush tax cuts vs. making them permanent.

And nowhere is the difference more profound than with reproductive rights.

For anyone -- male or female -- who cares about reproductive rights, family planning, and women's health issues, the choice this fall is not even close.

And yet many voters have no idea how extreme McCain's position on these issues is.

I was in Seattle last week giving a speech at a fundrasing lunch for Votes! Washington, the political arm of Planned Parenthood in Washington State. At the event, the group's CEO Elaine Rose told me about a poll that Planned Parenthood had commissioned of women in 16 battleground states [pdf]. The results are startling:

Over half of all women in these states have no idea what McCain's positions are on reproductive health. Forty-nine percent of women in battleground states who currently favor McCain are pro-choice. Twenty-three percent of them believe McCain agrees with them on choice.

The good news is, 36 percent of pro-choice McCain supporters are less likely to vote for him after learning that McCain opposes Roe v. Wade and favors making most abortions illegal. That number hits 38 percent when those voters learn that McCain has also consistently voted against expanding access to programs that reduce pregnancy and the need for abortion, consistently voted in favor of abstinence-only programs, and against legislation requiring insurance companies to cover birth control.

The poll's encouraging conclusion:

The simple arithmetic of these findings suggests that just filling in McCain's actual voting record and his publicly stated positions on a handful of key issues has the potential to diminish his total vote share among battleground women voters by about 17 to 20 percentage points.

Clearly, when it comes to this key issue, the more voters learn about McCain, the less they like him. So let me add to the educational process:

Since 1983, in votes in the House and the Senate (where he has served since 1987), McCain has cast 130 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues. 125 of those votes were anti-choice [pdf]. Among his voting lowlights:

He has repeatedly voted to deny low-income women access to abortion care except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life (although McCain is now wavering on trying to put these exceptions into the party platform).

He voted to shut down the Title X family-planning program, which provides millions of women with health care services ranging from birth control to breast cancer screenings.

He voted against legislation that established criminal and civil penalties for those who use threats and violence to keep women from gaining access to reproductive health clinics.

He voted to uphold the policy that bans overseas health clinics from receiving aid from America if they use their own funds to provide legal abortion services or even adopt a pro-choice position.

Of his anti-choice voting record, McCain has said, "I have many, many votes and it's been consistent," proudly adding: "And I've got a consistent zero from NARAL" through the years. And last month he told Chris Matthews: "The rights of the unborn is one of my most important values."

What's more, McCain has made it very clear that if he becomes president he will appoint judges in the Scalia, Roberts, Alito mold. His big judicial speech earlier this month was filled with coded buzz words that make it clear that, if given the chance, he'd replace 88-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens with an anti-choice Justice who would tip the scales against Roe v Wade. Throw in an additional anti-choice replacement for the 75-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and you can kiss the right to choose good-bye for a long, long time.

That's why the unmasking of John McCain is job Number One between now and November.

The only way John McCain can win is if his reactionary views on choice and women's health issues remain obscured by his faux maverick reputation and the blinding disappointment of Clinton die-hards.

There is too much at stake to let that happen.

Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

Comments

[JudgeCrater]

Scrolling down this page of comments I don't see anything substantive from the die-hard HRC supporters. I happily predict that the "HRC Supporters for McCain" demographic will be vanishingly small in November.

[cartecay]

You are probably right. We'll be staying home and watching the fiasco on CNN.

[paganmist]

You disgust me. As a black female whose forebears had to work on two separate fronts for me to be able to vote, whose relatives were BEATEN in attempts to take advantage of their right to vote, I am truly disgusted by people who believe this right is something that should be thrown away or squandered.

People who take voting for granted don't deserve the right. If only it could be taken away and given to people elsewhere who'd appreciate it so much more.

[bigfro]

The hottest parts of hell are reserved for those who take no side in a time of great moral conflict. Again "Uncle Tom" Woman like you will give up the right to choose just to spite Obama because you didn't get your way. Whaaaaaa!!!

[Annette]

So why are you a Clinton supporter? You don't seem to give a damn about her positions.
You are willing to let McCain waltz in? Out of pique?
The guy who wnats to cut the availabilty of health care, one of Clintons major concerns.
You actually want Roe overturned, McCain has said he wants to and all it takes is one more judge.
You don't think women should be paid equivelent to men. McCain has voted against it.

what is your reason for stbbing Clinton in the back?

[MsDoc]

Please don't do that. The fight for a woman's right to choose was very very difficult and the alternative to victory was a page right out of the Middle Ages. If for no other reason, vote for the Democratic ticket...although the other big issue, an endless war in Irag, should hit a note as well. There is far too much riding on the November election for anyone to be willing to sit it out. We truly have come to a fork in the road...

[chlllfactor]

I agree - Hillary supporters are in a state of denial right now but many will slip into Obama's camp with little fanfare - assuming, of course, they really do support women and not just Hillary.

[112985]

I am a Clinton supporter - i might be in denial but I am not voting for Obama - I will vote McCain and I am a woman!!!!!

[skalu]

As a member of two groups of people that have experienced injustice ( Blacks and Women)I am pretty familiar with the victim psychology that believes that everything is about keeping them down.

Women, stop being sore losers. This race is not about everyone being against women. Obama came with just as much against him as Hillary. More so because Hillary's life is not on the line just by running. She had more money, more clout, and more support. Imagine what it would have been like if Obama had run the victim campaign that Hillary has.

What if Obama had said,

" The media is ganging up against me"
" She only got those votes because she is white"
"She only got those votes because she is a woman"
" Susan B. Anthony did her part, but it took a man to pass the legislation"
" Clinton can't get the support from hard working blacks. Only 5% of blacks support her and no democratic candidate can win without the black vote."
" I didn't lie, I misspoke"
" Most of her experience was just as a first lady"
What if Obama said " he is staying in because she may be sexually assaulted ( as opposed to assasinated) then did not appologize to Hillary but blamed her for it blowing up.


STOP BEING VICTIMS!. If we are to be strong women we have got to stop screwing ourselves and yelling foul play!

[paganmist]

HuffPost's Pick

Thank you, skalu. My mother was born before segregation and lived after it. I have an uncle who was beaten to death for flirting with a white woman (who was flirting back, I should mention), and another uncle who was beaten while trying to vote in South Carolina. My mother was consistently deprived of the opportunity for higher education, and had *no* sex education and no proper instruction on contraceptives. There were diaphragms then, which she could not afford - she was pregnant at 16, in a "home" for pregnant girls that year, and was forced by a religious aunt to give my oldest brother up for adoption. Her entire life has been spent taking care of children. That's just what women did, when she was growing up.

I am so incensed by people whose lives have been so blessed that they can cavalierly discuss such things as "not voting" or using their vote to protest, or voting for people who are openly against equal rights for women and minorities. Or have the GALL to cast a "revenge" vote against anyone who doesn't share their opinions.

Every time I see it, I hope and pray that these people experience - in this life or the next - what it is like to fight and die for equality, and then watch it pissed away by women and men who think "standing by their principles" means putting the happiness of a wealthy woman over the well-being of themselves, their children, their neighbors,

[BlackWidowPilot]

Thank you, "paganmist!"

While I have not known the sort of deprivation your mother experienced, my family survived destitution during the Great Depression. I was at least raised with a sense of "There but for the Grace of God go I," and to treat everyone with utmost respect (at least until they proved me wrong about their character!). I was also taught to prize the truth of a matter above all things, no matter how much it may fly in the face of my cherished beliefs and hopes.

Being a victim only invites the bullies of the world, whether schoolyard or of the socio-economic and political variety.

As the happily-married Lesser Half to a most magnificent and fiercely independent woman of African descent from the UK, I can say that neither I nor my wife tolerate such whining nonsense of "woe is me," nor do we allow nay-sayers and "haters" as our children call such creatures to interfere with our enjoyment of our shared life together. Both of us know what freedom costs in our own way, and how precious it is, never to be squandered with petty nonsense such as revenge voting and tit-for-tat behavior.

Stay strong, Citizen paganmist, and keep fighting the good fight.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

[kellysmalltowngirl]

YOU ARE SOOOOOOO RIGHT!!

[FirstShirt]

Excellent post. I would make this point. Presidents don't decide the constitutionality of abortion. There are pro choice republicans and pro life democrats. Anyone who is pro life and throws the lever for democrat deserves what they get without investigating the beliefs of the candidate.

[bigfro]

Amen. This my ladies is an example of a woman with equal rights. because she is willing to take equal responsibility, she doesn't beg men for them. She is a valuable part of a family as opposed to a dependent.

[elbzee]

BRAVO SKALU!!!
applause! applause! applause! applause! applause! applause! applause! applause! applause! applause! applause! applause! applause! applause! applause! applause! applause! applause!

[obamagal]

YES! YES! YES!

This victim role playing is actually HURTING the cause for women. Don't you understand that her campaign has continually USED your allegiance and desire for the first woman to be nominated - over and over again. It was all calculated and as Bush used the fear card, Hillary has used the gender/victim card.

As a 55 year old white female, I'd relish having a woman President as well. Just not this one. Not after the way she campaigned.

Wake up.

[mbh78213]

Many HRC supporters seem to operate under the assumption that Hillary is the only viable female candidate there ever will be. How is that a feminist position? There is no telling who might establish herself within the next few years.

[JohnJames]

Hasn't her campaign shown just how far women in this country have to go to prove that they're tough? The Wellesley/ Yale educated femininist had to transform herself into a whiskey swilling Annie Oakley screeching about "San Francisco values" in front of factory workers. No wonder women don't think they'll get another shot. It's been a disgusting display that no one else is soon likely to repeat.

[Annette]

She didn't have to transform herself, she chose to do so. She made the decision to say "I am not consistant in my beliefs and I will change for perceived political benefit. That is one reason why she was not my choice in the primary, there were several however.

When a politician "transforms" themself it sends a message loud and clear. "You cannot trust my positions," When that happens the politician is viewed as not trustworthy. Clinton has huge "not trustworthy" numbers. There will be women who are secure enough in their positions that they will be consistant, they will win. Cinton is smart and talented but she is not the only smart and talented woman in the U.S.

[missy53]

Thank you for writing this. I hope there are 527s out big time this fall to let people know that McCain is hardline against abortion. He even I think believes no abortion for rape or incest victims. He is hardline. People need to know that.

[eclectro]

I'm not too sure how the 527 thing would work. There is a significant number of people that are anti-abortion, in which case they would be encouraged to vote for McCain. The thing that McCain has going against him is not his views on abortion, but the apparent gross mismanagement of the last seven years, not the least of which is a failed energy policy leading to ridiculous oil prices. Econmic issues (and a seemingly endless war) will eclipse and make other things secondary issues. And I haven't even mentioned health-care.

[paganmist]

Most anti-abortion democrats are for abortion in instances of rape or incest.

I think once they realize that McCain's goal is not only to ban abortion across the board, but to also eliminate Plan B, to push an "abstinence-only" educational agenda, and (to add insult to injury) counter all legislation to force insurers to cover birth control OR make it affordable to low-income people, they will vote against him.

Women who want a career would have to be chaste or risk discrimina­tion/termi­nation. Women would have to marry as "insurance" in the event that the condom breaks. Female college students who can't afford increased out of pocket prices for birth control (again, thanks to McCain-backed legislation!) would have to drop out for health reasons. Not to mention that pregnancy and motherhood is not the happy earth-bles­sing-mirac­le some women consider it, and leaves many women physically deformed, mentally/e­motionally unstable, and unable to pursue career or education at the rate of their male counterparts if at all.

The effects of this kind of legislation will ensure that women are once again relegated to the kitchen, the bedroom, and the nursery, little more than breeders who have no rights to decide what happens to their bodies.

This is what the so-called feminists who support Hillary will be voting for, in their crusade for women's rights. It's such a backwards stance that it blows my mind.

[bigfro]

Yes, Exactly

[Daly]

Sad how people like McCain are willing to offer up such foolishness. Bush too feels this way yet in his youth he fathered and paid for an aborted child.

Young and poor women will pay dearly for this because they will try all sorts of back room methods. Many will die, many will be rendered sterile; women may be questioned in the workplace , asking why she is not married or if she is married.

I guess that Mc wants to educate Obama about Iraq and use their fine reporductive rights as a model because absolutely NO first world nation outlaws or attempts t control a womens reproductive rights.

[FreeSpeech200854]

Not only does McCain want to overturn Roe V Wade. He voted againist equal pay for women!! He said we needed more training and education!! This man is so anti-woman...a man that calls his wife a c..t! Is not a friend to women!!! He's a disgrace.

Isn't anybody worried about him possibly having PTSD?! No word on his mental health...thats suspicious to me. He is known for his temper....do we want this mans finger near the button??!!

[paganmist]

He called her a c*nt and a trollop... for mussing her fingers in his hair and playfully pointing out that he was going bald.

In front of a bevy of advisors.

This is the kind of thing for which I would divorce a man - it is so incredibly offensive and disrespectful.

In fact, those women who claim they are voting for McCain because they are turned off by the sexism of this election would be placing a vote for the ONLY candidate who has actually engaged in sexist behavior.

Show me proof, please, that Obama has behaved in a disgracefully disrespectful manner towards a woman in sexist terms. And I don't mean calling Hillary out on political issues - that is what he's supposed to do. I mean, calling her names, diminishing her based on her gender, etcetera.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

[FirstShirt]

He is the Anti Slick Willy. More akin to Ronald Reagan than JFK. Reagan was considered the teflon president because nothing stuck to him. So is Obama. To suggest that any person has NO dirty laundry is ludicrous. True, it may not matter in the big picture but having no negatives is beyond comprehension. If I was a democrat I would just hold my breath until after the vote in November.

[Jovlaan]

Really? Well yes - really... This was our opportunity to have one of the greatest presidents ever; a women president; and it was about time. This was stolen from all of us by another case of gender bias. It doesn't mater if it was a black man a red man or a pink man; its men still unwilling to give up the rule no matter what. So they get some no experience novice who effectively steals all the black vote which would have certainly have gone to Sen Clinton. The media loves the new guy and as they are all run by males they decide the election before it has hardly begun. The all male Repug club loves it. They were playing their very own Hillary Hater Card but this is even better. Of coarse I'll vote for McCain. I hope he becomes an even worse president then Bush and in 4 years we'll try it again.

[spartacus275]

I am a Big Picture African American supporting BO who would vote for HRC in a heartbeat even if she were to secure the nomination through some under handed means. I believe that many HRC supporters (and I hope I'm wrong) will not vote for Obama but will vote for congressional candidates in their respective districts and states, with the hope that the Dems will garner a veto proof House & Senate. To me this will be an even bigger crime, Jovlaan - you just dont get get it do you?

[FirstShirt]

Actually he/she does get it. Jovlaan is a Reagan democrat. So is Jim Webb. Webb called himself a Reagan democrat in an npr interview last week. You have conservative democrats. One in our state is pro life and pro gun. The one just elected in Mississippi is also pro life and pro gun. Democrats were hailing the victory and did not spend much time on the core values that make many of these democrats just opportunists and republicans in drag.

[Mattylock]

Actually, Hillary threw the black vote in the garbage. Initially, she had the majority, but thanks to her and Bill's ill-advised comments and pandering to racists, she's lost black support, most likely irrevocably. This is what really disgusts me about Hillary supporters, you never want Hillary to take responsibility for running a lousy campaign. Her loss is everyone's fault but her own. She went in with overwhelming odds of beating every other democratic contender and blew it by running her campaign as the heir apparent.

[frantaylor]

You are operating under the very dangerous assumption that there will still be a United States and free elections after four years of McCain.

[LittleTart]

Do you honestly believe that the power structure in this nation prefers a black man over a white woman? Especially a white woman who is in bed with their lobbyists and vacations with their CEOs? Come on.

[nomadic]

You do know this scorched earth policy that you're advocating equates to the worst form of racism, right? You could possibly be aiding in the sending of thousands to continue dying in Iraq and other places like Iran, including a whole lot of women and children, with this level of spite, right?
I really hope you're just venting because otherwise there are no words to describe this kind of hate and denial. It most certainly is not any form of feminism I've personally encountered and actively supported, ... unless you're try to prove Rush Limbaugh and other neocon pundits are right about the alleged fiminazis in our midst.
That's scarier than I want o contemplate. Don't we have enough to contend with?

[ashenthorn]

I just don't understand the big historical implications of Hillary Clinton for President. Would it be a big step in gender equality and advancement of women? Not really. Hillary Clinton likes to tout her "experience", but any relevent experience she has that's applicable to the position of President is only a result of her spouse being President. Absent that, would she be a two term US Senator from New York? Who knows what path Hillary Clinton's life would have taken had Bill not become President, however wouldn't we want our first female president to be someone who risen to that position based soley on her own merits and accomplishments?

[obamagal]

You're making too much sense ashenthorn. [I've thought the exact same thing myself. Sadly, I think Hillary's decision to use Rovian tactics will hurt future females running for the highest office. Unfortunately some may/will associate playing the victim and gender cards, not having a Plan B, the new 'message of the week' with the female sex. Let us not kid ourselves that when the next viable female candidate decides to run for POTUS, her opponent, as well as the story-hungry media, may/will use Hillary's campaign techniques against her. Hillary, therefore, may very well have hurt the feminist cause.]

[BetterDays]

It is beyond me how people identified as Pro-life can also be Pro-war. I guess 'life' only means the lives of those defined by the right, i.e. fetus in utero. I guess the lives of innocent Iraqis or soldiers killed during our occupation don't count as 'life'.

As my father always says, "If men had the ability to become pregnant, the question of the right to choose would NEVER be a political one; it would simply be a right and a choice.

[zenlikejen]

Too true!

I've always said that all of those crazy pro-lifers only cared about life BEFORE birth...once your @ss hits the pavement...you're on your own!

[elbzee]

once your @ss hits the pavement...you're fresh fodder! We're gonna wear the ones out that we've got now. Remember, we'll be at war for a looooooooong time!

[FirstShirt]

They distinguish between adults who swear an oath and go into battle with an adult decision and those beings who are unable to decide their fate because they aren't considered to have any rights.

[BlackWidowPilot]

"You men just signed away every right you ever had! I _ OWN_YOU!"

That was my Father's DI in January 1942 upon arrival in San Diego. I suspect you've never served in the Armed Forces, as you clearly do not understand the implications of what follows once a recruit signs on the dotted line.

Don't believe me? Ask a 'Nam vet who was drafted, then exposed to Agent Orange, only to have their VA benefits denied. Ask any vet who was exposed to something toxic by their own brass, then denied VA benefits as an apparent matter of official VA policy under the current regime. Ask any surviving "atomic veteran" used as a human guinea pig; they signed up to serve their country and perhaps fight in battle, not to be expended as mere test subjects in a perverted radiation experiment.

To assert that some 18 year old recruit with a GED properly understands what can happen to them once they're in uniform is intellectually bankrupt, especially in light of the knowledge that the human cognitive brain isn't even finished growing to full capacity until around age 24.

The hypocrisy of the so-called right to life movement is IMHO of epic proportions, from the deliberate bombing of clinics to the deliberate assassination of doctors willing to perform abortions, as so many of these true believers demonstrably believe that the right to life begins at conception, but ends at birth.

Bah.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

[TOOO]

Just a few random thoughts.

Personally, I think a lot of these people who say, "Well, if my Democratic candidate isn't chosen, I'll vote Republican out of spite," are probably trolls, just trying to inflame everyone. When it REALLY comes down to it, I think the majority of Democrats/­Independen­ts/what-ha­ve-you will rally behind the Democratic nominee.

As far as abortion is concerned, I did a little research on Planned Parenthood. It's supposed to be one of these 501(c) not-for-profit groups. Actually, that's a good thing for them, but I get the impression they really DO push for abortion rather than prevention. As I understand it, a doctor can make more money performing surgery than pushing prevention. (Even a not-for-profit has to pay its employees.) Personally, I think abortion should be kept legal, but only as a last resort. From my experience with PP, they tend to follow more the letter of the law than the actual spirit.
(I should also mention that in my experience, the poor women I've talked to are horrified by the thought of abortion, and would never consider it, under ANY circumstances. Apparently, the majority of women seeking abortion come from middle and upper incomes.)
One last thing. The Pro-Life protesters at my local PP are very quiet, peaceful and courteous. The (occasional) Pro-Choice protesters tend to be rather loud and rowdy. But that's just where I live. Maybe your experience is different.

[demigod]

SO - you are weak on womens' choice. Is that one of the areas that Obama will "work" with Independents and Republicans ? Sending women back into the back alleys ? NO THANK YOU.

[Annette]

So your response is to encourage McCainwho actively wants to make it illegal. GOSH !!

[Choicelady]

Most women I've seen at clinics over 12 years of helping them in, have been poor and often minority. This is a hard decision but one they are must assume to prevent doing harm to a future child. PPFA does NOT "push for abortion" nor does any reputable provider, but they do ask in blunt terms whether you are capable of raising a child which has generational consequences. "Mommyhood," the rose-colored anti-abortion version at least, is not available to everyone, and real, live children deserve at least basic competence and economic security from their parent. And if you have peaceful protesters, count your blessings because that is NOT the national norm! Yup - pro-choice people can be rowdy, too, but why are they there if everything is so wonderful? Pro-choice people have real lives and don't spend time countering the anti side for no reason. You can be quiet - and still block cars, say massively gross ,insulting things to patients, and generally break the law, all in a sweet and demure way. Don't be so easily fooled. Your local protesters may not be as sweet as you think.

[bigfro]

Yes nothing is a big deal thinking fort us eight years of George Bush. I believe people will hurt us all for spite and I believe they should be shamed so they know better. You don't get to force a tyrant like McCain on Woman and still get my respect or my business.

[nomadic]

TOOO, so i guess you advocate the worst possible parents give it a go because abortion should be a last option?
That makes no sense. Aren't there enough abused kids who were once lauded as the thing that'll change that women's life from bad to good?
Let people make up their own minds and let the chips fall where they may. Keep it safe, keep it accessible and let the potential parents make up their own minds. I always find it odd that so many people vote to deny poor folks access to affordable health care while then criticizing agencies like Planned Parenthood for offering abortion as a viable choice to poor and troubled people.
Fix the holes by voting for more health care options and then criticize.
To do otherwise id illogical.

[Annette]

Planned parenthood, is a major provider of contraceptives. They provide pap tests for low income people, in fact for almost anyone who walks through their door. They can help arrange abortions though not all branches do so. Last time I looked it up an abortion costs about $160.00 show me what doctor is getting rich off of that.

Exactly when wass the last time you actually looked into what they provide. If you are basing your opinions upon how polite the supporters of each side are you really need to get informed.

[dawlishgal]

What scares me even more about some Hillary-supporters than their lack of knowledge about the realities is how vindictive they are. They are hell-bent on punishing Obama for doing what they call "jumping the line"...something that Bill Clinton did in 1992, but it didn't bother them then.

I know three women who remain stubbornly behind Hillary, even after her careless "assassination" remark, and it is impossible to convince them otherwise because they freely admit that they don't care about the issues, or even about Hillary's reprehensible behavior.... they just want a woman in the White House. If some women don't get that woman THERE , they will view it as Obama's fault., never mind the kind of campaign Hillary has run that has alienated a lot of decent people who might have otherwise continued to support her.

When I supported Edwards (until he dropped out) nobody called me a "cultist" or a "hater." Apparently, what a lot of supporters have against Obama is not that he entered the race, but that he is winning it. And, according to many of them, anything she says and does to beat him is OK with them because that is what is necessary to defeat a man. They think.

How can these self-defeating (and very creepy) attitudes be helping to advance the cause of more political power for women?

[nomadic]

The polarization of politics is not one-sided. Both Dems and Reps, and within those parties, people are engaged in destructive politics. I have supported Obama for some time but I still resented those horrible excuses for broadcast debates. Why were contenders like Kucinich treated with such disdain? What about Ron Paul on Republican side? Here is a smart guy with an old style conservative voice that's been forced to the fringes. We really need to force the media to open up all elections to more contenders. I resent party politics as usual.
What I see today is the reason I remain a registered independent.

[huffnpuffn]

The question of abortion does not belong in national politics. We should not be choosing a president based on who may or may not step down from the supreme court in the next four years and who may or may not be nominated to replace him or her with the expectation that in the next four years a case may come before the court that will have some bearing on the availability of abortion in this country.

Yes, end Roe v. Wade. Send the issue back to the states. We have more important things to base our votes on this election.

[bigfro]

Be a slave on your own time kiddy. I don't need to ask you or the states for permission to be free in a free society.

[Annette]

American women don't own their bodies? Each state owns the bodies of American women??

Sorry all you pro lifers, you haven't put McCain in the White house yet.

[3Ons]

Dear Arianna;

Outstanding Op-Ed. I share these concerns.

But this isn't just a 'what politicians say' issue. It isn't just a 'what the religious-fanatics' say either.

It's about religious-freedom, and abusing it. Abuse of religious-freedom to abuse the free-expre­ssion/free­-speech of others. It's about concocting excuses to place conditions against one's own so-called 'love' for one's own so-called 'beloved-neighbors' via superstitionizing religion, then hiding behind those religions, then stuck in the 'middle,' attempting to write 'appeasing' notes to everyone.

Government is then forced to intervene, as the religious are the first to take up arms against government and so-called 'equal-fel­low-citize­n-beloved-­neighbors' -- ANY EXCUSE WILL DO, including WORDS, including PIECES-OF-CLOTH, including MUSIC, ART, BOOKS, ADVERTISEMENTS, GAMES, including LOVES -- including crotches (what's in it or what's done with it).

It would do the world a big favor for Mr. McCain and I to butt heads on this topic. Everybody else is too VESTED in their own special-interests to have the COURAGE.

We need new in-roads between the govt/religion relationship. It costs far too much to clean-up after the EXTREMISM the so-called 'moderates' subtly-ins­tigate/enc­ourage/HOP­E-for in their selfishness to demand 'more equality' (no such thing) for their own selfish selves while abusing the rights of others. We can work it out. Who HATES it? Church-goers. Go figure.

McCain/Winton '08 -- SpiritOfLiberty

Kind Regards,
3Ons

[MyOwnPerson]

What in the world are you talking about?!?!?!?

[elbzee]

Wow! "new in-roads between the govt/religion relationship. " 30ns have you ever considered SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE? What in God's name would cause you to search out new roads to involve religion with government? And, frankly, what on earth are you trying to say?

[Annette]

Write a coherant rant.

[AnathemaZed]

I'm an Obama supporter. I will vote for him in November. However, I hold this truth to be self-evident: abortion destroys the most defenseless and vulnerable people among us, and painfully. Abortion rights in my view have no place in a platform that seeks to protect "little people" of all kinds. I hope for the day when the Democratic Party will realize that a pro-life stand is more in keeping with the rest of their principles than it is with the "I've got mine" Republican platform.

[queotic]

With all due respect, you are confusing "pro-choice" with "pro-abortion." One can be against abortion, but believe in the right of a woman to choose for herself.

[tschlak]

It must be a very difficult and emotional decision for you, I don't envy you your position.

Overall, though, I think the Democrats really are more all-inclusive with their platform positions and their long history regarding defending life and liberty and promoting the common good. It was Democrats who historically have been for the "little guy", with the Great Society, all the Depression-era legislation and economic initiatives, civil rights and so on.

The current campaign likewise is a choice between universal access to health care (whichever Demo you choose) and whatever John McCain is selling in the guise of helping out those without affordable or any healthcare.

The Repubs likewise are widely seen as supporting capital punishment (pro-life?) while Dems are typically against.

[azyuwish]

AnathemaZed,

I understand that many people believe abortion is painful to the fetus and later in the term, it may well be. But here is a point I'd like to make relative to the people who are anti-choice:

They are against even the "Morning After Pill" which is a hormone/medication which makes it impossible for a fertilized egg to implant in the woman's uterus. Now, exactly HOW painful is THAT?
Additionally, they are against RU486, the hormone/medication which induces a spontaneous abortion, which, when happens naturally is called a miscarriage. This is at an early, early stage of pregnancy, approximately 7-9 weeks. These same people are even against BIRTH CONTROL for teens, the people most likely to have an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy. It is not out of care for the fetus, it is out of a strong desire to CONTROL other people! Let's be clear about this. Let us not forget, these are the same people who don't wish gays to have equal rights to marry; they are control FREAKS and want to extend their control beyond themselves, beyond their own families to be able to control the personal business of YOU and ME.

Since, abortion will not be ended by a Supreme Court decision, but will simply be made illegal and go to back alleys becoming unsafe, people who TRULY care about pain to the fetus should FUND RESEARCH that will enable Science to develop a method that is physically pain free for everyone.

[lisakaz2]

Yep. Because they want to deny access to birth control pills, McCain's already suggested a goal beyond Roe v Wade: overturning Griswold v CT (1967), which would restore the state's right to control birth control.

[Annette]

Abortion will not be ended by a court decision, however legal abortion may well be.

Why is it the "pro life" people" want to get rid of birth control?

[rinpochet]

If a clump of cells was a "person", everytime you scratched yourself you would be destroying life. It is potential life, which is a difference.

The law should be that no one should be FORCED to have an abortion but at the same time, no-one is FORCED to continue an unwanted pregnancy. It is all about not allowing the government to have control of our bodies and nothing else.

[MrsGreebers]

This probably sounds like a good argument to you, but did you know that half a million women worldwide die each year from pregnancy and childbirth? The statistics are much, much smaller in this country but fatal scenarios are still possible, such as an ectopic pregnancy so painful that you black out before being able to get medical care, and bleed to death. Or the Lacy Peterson scenario. The fact is that ANY outcome of a pregnancy has the potential to KILL the woman. So who gets to decide which of these risks to undertake? The GOP would dictate the decision themselves, for all women (except their own loved ones, who'll always be able to find a way). The only counter argument you can make is that you believe the decision to have sex constitutes an IRREVOCABLE surrender of ALL your personal rights, including the right to preserve your own life in the case of medical risk. Do you believe that? Do you believe that such a grave choice isn't subject to reconsideration? Do you believe that EITHER candidate on the Dem side believes that? Because McCain and at least one guy on his shortlist ("Barely Legal Bobby Jindal") publicly profess to believe exactly that.

[cindy4america]

We women have to stop this emotional madness really. We may like personally candidate A or candidate B, but at the end of the day, we want someone that will deliver for us. We want someone that will address the issues that affect us. That person is not John McCain. This whole primary mess has become so frustrating to me until I just had to make a personal issues list. My issues list includes a right to health care, ending the war, stimulating the economy and protecting the environment. McCain will not deliver that for us. He will continue to give us what we have had already. We can not punish Barack Obama by not voting for him. If he doesn't get elected and we get Mc Same, then we will be the ones at a loss. Bush III is to be avoided at all costs.
Insanity is doing the exact same thing,
the exact same way,
and expecting a different outcome.
We just can not afford that.

[CookieWrites]

>>>>Insanity is doing the exact same thing,
the exact same way,
and expecting a different outcome.
We just can not afford that

[bigfro]

You can'r punish Barack Obama, only yourselves

[realistic2008]

Well said..I don't think we want to make the same mistakes in the past, make gays and abortion a litmus test of all sorts. We must first elect the best candidate and then work on those issues.

[obamagal]

You're bang on.