The McModerate
With detractors like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rick Santorum, Tom Delay and James Dobson, most thinking people might conclude that John McCain comes highly recommended. But just because John McCain is an enemy of some of our most cartoonish villians does not make him a friend. This is most true on reproductive health issues.
Pro-choice Americans haven't yet pegged McCain as the extreme anti-choice copy of George W. Bush he is. For close watchers of pro-choice politics though, he's John McSame.
In fact, the Straight Talk Express has skidded off the road that most Americans drive. He is more extreme than even some who consider themselves "pro-life." For example, most Americans would be stunned to learn McCain won't -- or can't -- say whether he even supports the right to use contraception. Last March, according to the New York Times, McCain fumbled through this exchange about contraception with a reporter aboard his campaign bus;
"Reporter: "Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?"
Mr. McCain:"Well I think it's a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes -- and I was just reading the thing he wrote -- that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn't succeed, then he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I'm not very wise on it."
(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)
Mr. McCain: "I haven't thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don't know if I would use taxpayers' money for it [contraception]."
Q: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush's policy, which is just abstinence?"
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president's policy."
Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "You've stumped me."
Q: "I mean, I think you'd probably agree it probably does help stop it?"
Mr. McCain: (Laughs) "Are we on the Straight Talk express? I'm not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I'm sure I've taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception -- I'm sure I'm opposed to government spending on it, I'm sure I support the president's policies on it."
Q: "But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: 'No, we're not going to distribute them,' knowing that?"
Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) "Get me Coburn's thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn's paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I've never gotten into these issues before."
The Coburn that McCain has chosen as his mentor on all things reproductive is Senator Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, which is like having the Taliban head up the Office for Women's Initiatives. (Think that's an extreme comparison? Keep in mind Coburn wants the death penalty for abortion providers.)
One story about McCain mentor Coburn is particularly telling. Coburn, in recent years, led a sneaky offensive against the condom. In 1999, Coburn drafted legislation mandating that condom labels state that they cannot prevent the transmission of HPV. In 2000, at Coburn's request, the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, USAID and the CDC (the agencies responsible for condom research, condom regulation, condom-use recommendations, and HIV/AIDS and STD prevention) hosted a meeting of experts to compile and examine 138 peer-reviewed papers on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing transmission of STDs. In its report, the panel explained the difficulty in making definitive conclusions based on available studies. For one thing, there exist ethical boundaries that prevent ideal studies from being conducted. Researchers cannot ask study subjects to go have sex without a condom and come back and see what they caught. They also cannot ask those with treatable diseases, like HPV, to remain untreated, have sex with others using a condom, and see how likely transmission was.
Thus NIH took the cautious route. It pointed out that given the studies out there, it was not always possible to say with certainty that the condom stopped everything, like, for example, HPV or chlamydia. With regard to HPV, it stated, "The panel stressed that the absence of definitive conclusions reflected inadequacies of the evidence available and should not be interpreted as proof of adequacy or inadequacy of the condom to reduce the risk of STDs." In other words, a definitive answer was not possible either way. Still the panel was able to conclude, " Study results did suggest that condom use might afford some reduction in risk of HPV associated diseases, including genital warts in men and cervical neoplasia [or cancer] in women." With HPV, the diseases are what you care about.
The panelists knew how their careful words might be construed by those with a political agenda and explicitly cautioned anyone against using the report to discourage condom use. On cue, Coburn reacted as if the CDC's careful wording proved his case. Somehow he managed to conclude that the government was covering up for "condom pushers." Coburn issued a press release entitled "Condoms Do Not Prevent Most STDs" and joined anti-condom groups the Physician's Consortium and the Catholic Medical Association to call for the resignation of the director of the CDC.
President Bush rewarded Coburn for his good work by appointing him to co-chair, of all things, the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS. When it comes to the preventing the spread of AIDS, Bush clearly prefers Right-thinking anti-condom crusaders to scientists. It would appear McCain does too. And might similarly reward Coburn -- to oversee HHS, perhaps.
Sadly, though McCain often appears to be the palatable Sunday talk show conservative, the good-humored, apparently moderate Republican, on reproductive rights he's a lot like Coburn. Down the line, positions will leave even the middle-of-the-road reader wondering if we can really afford more of the same.
When asked about his position on reproductive rights, McCain told The National Review, "I think the important thing is you look at people's voting record because sometimes rhetoric can be a little... misleading." And there's no truer statement. McCain's voting record, which NARAL Pro-Choice America scrupulously tracks, is telling. He has consistently voted against the right to a legal abortion and he has also consistently voted against contraception. McCain voted to end the Title X family planning program which is the only way millions of Americans have been able to plan their family. Title X has also been heralded as having prevented more than nine million abortions in the last two decades. Without Title X, the number of teenage pregnancies would have been 20 percent higher, too.
McCain voted against legislation that would have required insurance coverage of prescription birth control and would also have provided more women with prenatal health care. (So, throw in anti-baby too. It's also worth noting that in 2004, McCain ranked among the 25 worst Senators for children, scoring 38%, according to the Children's Defense Fund Congressional Score Card.)
He's an unapologetic proponent of the failed abstinence-only approach as well. He voted against making "abstinence-only" programs medically accurate (the most authoritative study found that more than 80% of abstinence-only curricula, used by more than 2/3 of federal recipients, contains false, misleading, or distorted information.) He also wanted to take $75 million from the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant to launch an abstinence‐until-marriage program that prohibits sexually active teens from learning about birth control. Yet another time he tried to route one‐third of all HIV/AIDS prevention funds to the completely ineffective "just say no to sex" programs.
It's clear; Iraq is not the only unpopular war Bush started that McCain hopes to continue. The war on Americans' sex lives is another and McCain has already proven himself a good, loyal general.
This article originally appeared on rhrealitycheck.org
Follow Cristina Page on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cristinapage
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
You liberals never cease to amaze me. When McCain finishes his Presidency, people will still be able to have abortions and use contraceptives. Why don't you try to focus on some real issues.
Well, let's see, for those of us who actually LIKE living in a democratic republic we would like to continue living in one. And as far as real issues, since this was made a real issue by the anti-abortion crowd, I'm going to fight back.
And by the way, theres' no way on Earth that McBush will ever be elected president!
Not necessarily. A McCain Presidency wouldn't just give you John McCain. He'd be bringing the whole traveling freakshow that is today's GOP along with him.
I stopped voting Republican altogether quite a few years ago due to their platform on abortion and sexual relationships both. When you have a political party that's more driven by the abortion and sex promiscuity issues than they are real issues that effect our every day lives. There is a major problem in that party that voting for them isn't going to solve. That's the single biggest reason this country is such a mess. These people are being guided by Christian fanatic's who are only interested in imposing their draconian views upon us. I have no doubts if McCain wants the Evangelical vote he will be just like Bush on reproductive choice. Because that's all the fanatic's care about. He will in short order become a Bush clone. This country could fall in around their ears and they will still want to ban abortion! It seems to be all they care about. They are very sick people!
Oh my god?! He has to ask his assistant to find out what his position is on contraceptives?! We are really in la-la land now folks.
Citizen McCain wants a punic Hundred Years War or his middle name isn't Milhouse and Homer Simpson never heard of rebranding.
Shocker...he is pro-life. When was the last time we had a pro-choice Rupublican run for president. So I'm not too sure what the point of the article was but to state the obvious.
Another shocker...he doesn't want to pay for birth control. Notice he doesn't say he is against birth control, he just doesn't think the Federal government should pay for it. This is in line with his conservative economic position which is to get the government out of people's lives.
In other words, your statement that: "...most Americans would be stunned to learn McCain won't -- or can't -- say whether he even supports the right to use contraception..." is a pure fabrication because the issue isn't about the "right to use", but the government spending taxpayers money to hand out free goodies. When he proposes to ban condoms give me a call and I'll be the first one to protest, but until then either tell the truth or shut up.
So if he's for "getting the government out of peoples lives" I suppose he'll be shutting down the warrantless wiretaps if he's elected?
No, I believe he's in favor of warrantless wiretaps targeted against terrorist suspects in order to prevent terrorist attacks. He isn't in favor of "warrantless wiretaps" in general for your average American. In this particular case the intrusion into a known or suspected terrorists "privacy rights" on the telephone must be weighed against the rights of Americans to not be blown up by these same terrorists. Personally, I think this is a good trade off, but I guess you believe otherwise and would trade away American lives in the process. So, his position is again consistent with a modifier: he wants to keep the government's interference in our lives to a minimum while at the same time also keeping terrorists' interference in our lives to a minimum.
No, cause that's not the gov't in your life, that's just the gov't in your PHONE!
According to this article, he wasn't voting against government spending for birth control. Notice he voted against requiring insurance to cover prescription birth control, as well as providing medically accurate information, etc. While he isn't calling for a ban on condoms, it all seems to be promoting an anti-birth control agenda. Why does a politician interfere with people's desires to prevent unwanted pregnancies? What about married couples who'd like their insurance to cover birth control?
EXACTLY! Not to mention that fact that crime and poverty are all directly related to populations whoch tend to not have or use birth control (this does not apply in third world nations, please don't burn me about that!) and making it easier to control one's own reproductive life is the best way to reduce abortions, provide better education for all that are left, and reduce violence
"Reporter: "Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception..."
I would say the article touched on both points. The position he stakes out is consistent with his view of the role of government. In one case he is not in favor of the U.S. taxpayers paying for other people's birth control. In the other case he is against government interference in a private contract between an insurance company and an individual. His position is government non-interference. To put it another way, his position is anti-spending/interference, not "anti-birth control".
he is NOT pro-life. He is most decidedly anti-choice as regards a woman's right to her own privacy and decisions as far as her medical well-being. He IS pro-death - as in a war-monger and for the death penalty. Get real.
Let's be fair. Each group can call themselves whatever they want. Those people who are in favor of keeping abortion legal choose to call themselves pro-choice. Those of people who are in favor of making abortion illegal call themselves pro-life. Using anything else just gets too confusing, such as "anti-choice" and "pro-abortion".
The deal with the anti-abortion crowd--at least those who lead it and drink that koolaide--getting rid of abortion is only the first goal----their utlimate goal is to deny access to all forms of contraception and they think the only good and allowable sex is sexual relations between a married man and woman expressly for the purpose of pumping out babies---all other sex would be verboten if they had their way. They want to use the powers of the state to try to stop human behaviors they cannot get people to change through persuasion and by personal example--so much for all that talk of getting government "off the backs of people" as conservatives were so fond of saying back in the Reagan era.
McCain has been in Congress since 1982, and he is claiming he has had no reason in all this time to come to grips with the issues concerning family planning and contraception. This is either a complete falsehood or he is an unimaginably uniformed and lazy politician. Too many pertinent bills have come before Congress in the last 25 years for him to be unaware of these issues for any legitimate reason.
There are all kinds of reproductive choices now so if there was proper education and access there would be much fewer incidences when women would have to make the difficult decision to have an abortion procedure. Senator McCain is so totally uninformed that his position on contraception, abortion, HIV/Aids has absolute no basis in morality. This makes one doubt he can lead on decisions like taking a country to war or much of anything else.
You are expecting an Obamanation?
You prefer McCainations?
Great Caesar's ghost!
Let's talk about the vaunted GOP "family values" platform performance record:
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
We can then go into the 900+ lies about Saddam Hussein used to launch a war for oil and empire to benefit Bush family cronies, no-bid contracts, missing billions in taxpayer *cash* in Iraq, several hundred thousand missing weapons in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and "Heckuvajob Brownie," Enron, Jack Abramhoff, the foreclosure epidemic, the healthcare crisis enabled by the Bushevik regime and its policies, the warrantless wiretapping of innocent American citizens, defective body armour, inadequate supplies of armoured vehicles, mercenaries, veterans being denied VA benefits as an apparent matter of official policy...
Ad infinite nauseum. And AFAIK "Hundred Years War" McCain has been right there with Chimpy and pals these past seven and a half years-from-Hell.
Boss Tweed would blush with envy at the antics of Dear Leader Chimpy "Mission Accomplished" McFlightsuit and his fellow Busheviks, and the two-faced sleaze that is John "Hundred Years War" McCain.
If there's anything that is an abomination in the Biblical sense, it's the "Gang of Pedophiles" and their depraved agenda. By comparison, Senator Obama is one of the Seraphim, and the sooner he gets into the White House, the better off our entire species will be.
Leland R. Erickson
Citizen
Oy vey. This man is a moderate? Atilla the Hun is on the left. This guy would make us all miss W and "the good old days".
Republicans are socialists. What else is there?
No, socialist implies that they would want the gov't to provide for people as well as control their lives. The rethuglicants only want to control their lives, NOT provide anything for them!
Heck, even the leader of the GOP, George w. AWOL got an abortion for one of his Daisy Duke gal-pals back in the day!
And if their own Coward and Chief can't keep it in his pants, how can he, and his out of touch party, expect young people to keep it in theirs?
Remember, even Republicans like the right Reverend Ted Haggard and Senator David Vitter used condoms with their prostitutes...so why can't the rest of us???
Please provide link to support your contention.
McCain:
"Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception”
Mr. McCain had to ask another person what his position on contraception is?!?!?
This clearly shows Mr. McCain to be out of touch...even with himself.
Yup, Mr. McCain sounds like the perfect republican Presidential candidate to me too.
They'd rather look stupid than look disloyal to their owners in the GOP!
"I'll be right back to you as soon as my aides tell me what I think."
(Headline: MCCAIN HAS AIDES)
Thanks for this, Cristina. I've added the link to my continued series, "This Space Reserved For A Statement By Senator John McCain Which Is Neither Delusional Nor An Outright Lie" at http://tinyurl.com/2oj5mv.
Abstinence is all well and good but those who advocate abstinence only education are forgetting one thing:
It is human nature to have sex. While we do have ultimate control over our actions, sometimes our hormones make the decisions for us. Its better to be prepared when those occasions occur.
Abstinence is not a viable option for most normal adults, married or not.
So teach your children about abstinence and comprehensive birth control methods so that when they become adults they can make informed decisions about their choices. Telling people not to do something only makes them want to do it more. That goes double for sex.
So true. Hormones will have their way, and nature is ever "seeking to tenant an untenanted womb."
"Abstinence is not a viable option for most normal adults, married or not."
And it's even worse for teenagers who are less able to control their feelings caused by hormones, especially since nature wants us all to reproduce as much as possible, starting as young as possible!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
