Mocking Women's Health and Losing Their Votes (with "Air Quotes")

Do you hear that?

It's the sound of even more women voters in swing states like Colorado, New Hampshire, and Virginia moving to Sen. Barack Obama after John McCain's response to questions regarding a woman's right to choose in last night's debate.

McCain reiterated his call to overturn Roe v. Wade. (Even George W. Bush didn't make this statement when he was running for president.)

McCain used "air quotes" as he insulted women who need an abortion because their health is threatened. (A friend of mine who was at the debate said the crowd gasped at McCain's callous disregard for women's health.)

McCain looked every bit as out of touch with women's everyday lives as his 25-year record of voting against women's freedom and privacy demonstrates.

McCain even used the right-wing rhetoric of sending the issue "back to the states" (a baseless argument that we've debunked on multiple occasions).

Take a look:

Sen. Obama, on the other hand, provided all Americans -- especially women voters in swing states -- with a different vision and respect for women and the difficult decisions they have to make.

Sen. Obama reiterated his support for Roe v. Wade and for the constitutional right to privacy this landmark decision represents.

Sen. Obama's response reflected his respect for women making the decisions, including adoption, that are best for them.

Sen. Obama outlined how he will unite Americans behind commonsense, common-ground ways to improve women's health-care options and prevent unintended pregnancy. His record of support for these measures is strong, and we have worked with him and other pro-choice leaders to advance Prevention First initiatives that do just that.

The contrast Americans saw on TV last night will be magnified in the next three weeks as NARAL Pro-Choice America contacts more than 300,000 pro-choice households in eight battleground states numerous times. With polls changing daily in Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, NARAL Pro-Choice America will be communicating with women in these states to make the case for Barack Obama's presidency.

McCain doesn't understand a key principle that, for many women, is central to their choice of a candidate for president. The same woman who wants a president to address the difficulty of paying to put gas in the car while other bills pile up on the kitchen counter also wants a president who respects her ability to make the personal, private medical decisions that are best for her and her family. She doesn't want a politician like McCain mocking protections for her health or voting against birth control.

As the election enters its final phase, and these key voters hear from NARAL Pro-Choice America about the stark differences between John McCain and Barack Obama about a woman's right to choose, women will choose the candidate who will stand with them. That candidate is Barack Obama.

Nancy Keenan is the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Follow Nancy Keenan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NARAL

Comments

[Lombard1006]

01:56 PM on 10/17/2008

Pro Life may want want Roe v. Wade overturned but their politician­s do not. Are you kidding? This is one of the biggest carrots in their conservati­ve arsenal. If a Republican President Bush and three Republican majority Congresses didn't make it a priority to overturn, then it's not going to happen at a federal level. Every four years they dangle the carrot to get the votes, but they will not risk alienating the moderate side of their party that are pro-choice­.

[bubbainca]

02:02 AM on 10/17/2008

The whole abortion debate nauseates me. Pro-life people pretend that mothers have abortions because they couldn't cancel a spa appointmen­t on the date of delivery. But I have to say, pro-choice advocates go overboard with the my-body-I'­ll-do-what­-I-damn-we­ll-please-­with-it-pe­riod argument.

Somewhere we have lost sense of the soul-sappi­ng, gut-wrench­ing, heart-brea­king decision that a decision to abort, or for that matter the decision to keep the baby in the face of terrible odds, really is. The "choice" in pro-choice is not a choice between navy blue and apple green. It's the choice between terminatin­g a part of you, your blood, and bringing into the world an infant with, say, a devastatin­g illness.

Ask yourself, if your mother had chosen to abort you would you really hate her for that (the question is not literal, but you know what I mean)? Let me give you my answer. Knowing what I know about my mother, it would have killed her to make that decision, and it would have been something terrible that drove her that way. I would gladly forgo my existence if that made her feel any better. My only regret would be that I wasn't around to help her through such trying times.

The more we empathize with the often devastatin­gly terrible situation of an unwanted pregnancy, the more sane this debate will get.

[prd mom to 4]

02:34 AM on 10/17/2008

My mother was actually in the clinic (she was 16 at the time) in her hospital gown about to have an abortion and she couldn't do it. Even though everyone but my father (he was 18) and grandmothe­r (her mother) told her that I would ruin her life, she didn't care. She just couldn't go through with it. I actually just found this out last year (I was 27!). I have to say that I was shocked, especially knowing my mother now! Needless to say, I'm glad to be here, but would I hate her for her choice? No. She would have made a decision that was best for her.

[anniegirl9]

12:45 AM on 10/17/2008

Why cant pro-lifers just be honest. Palin tried to say that she would "reach across" to pro -choicers to help reduce the number of abortions. Not olny did she steal that from Obama, she has no intentions of doing that after they get Roe V. Wade over turned. It was a blantant attempt to soften her real position for moderate voters.

In Michigan, proposal 2 would allow people who have gone through fertility treatments to donate any unused eggs for stem cell research, seeing as how they will be destroyed anyway. Of course there is opposition to this from the neocons. My problem isn't the opposition (okay, maybe it is a little) but it's more that they wont just say that they are against it because they believe that any exploitati­on of a "human life" for any reason is wrong. I may not agree with that, but I can respect their opinion. But knowing that pupblic support is for the proposal, they turn to a common tactic in the face of potential defeat - they lie.

Commercial­s claimed that proposal2 will raise your taxes - obviously exploiting peoples financial anxieties. My mother asked me to research this claim. My sister has MS, so stem cell research is popular with us, but my mom's also worried about her taxes.

I read the proposal as well as researched arguments for and against it. There is absolutly nothing in it that would raise anyones taxes. It flat out allows people to DONATE fertillize­d

[The Lorax]

01:21 AM on 10/17/2008

Let's even say why can't they be honest in the selectivit­y of their efforts. Babies in the US should be protected, babies in Africa should be watched to dwindle without help? Babies in the US should be saved while... people in Iraq are killed. A life choice cannot be selective. If you believe in life it should be for all life. You don't get to pick and choose which life is convenient for your platform or your views. If you tout to be pro-life, you believe in all life. Why support war? Why not stand up to the injustice that is the suffering and genocide of Burmese and those in Darfur? Why so selective in the quest to save?

I want Palin (yeah, THAT one) and McCain to answet this. Answer me now, this means a lot to me.

[luckyrico1]

11:34 PM on 10/16/2008

I'm an RN and worked for 25 years in women's health. "Partial birth abortion" is not a term that medical experts use and the procedure is exceedingl­y rare. In my years of experience I only knew of the procedure being performed twice. Both times were, indeed, to save the life of the mother.

When this procedure is used, time is of the essence and there are very few physicians who are skilled enough to perform it. Those who perform the procedure are often "terrorize­d" by the anti-abort­ion fanatics.

It is blatantly offensive that McCain used his "air quotes" when referring to the health of a pregnant woman.

If I had any thoughts as to voting for McCain, he certainly knew how to make me change my mind.

Women once faced the prospect of death with each and every pregnancy. Thank God we have advanced women's health to the point where a healthy young woman no longer fears death in bearing a child. However, pregnancy and childbirth still carry risks. Occasional­ly babies and women die despite medical advances.

Before you use your air quotes again Mr. McCain, I suggest you talk with a perinatolo­gist about the possible health reasons for aborting a fetus. You might be a little less cavalier about women's health.

[The Lorax]

01:28 AM on 10/17/2008

You and Anniegirl above, you go! Tell it. Say what you need to we are listening.

Guess what, ya'll. Obama showed how his stance was last night and why, Constituti­onal rights which we all get here and in life. Constituti­onal right to privacy which should be all encompassi­ng, not defined by state. If anyone listened to Obama last night they'd see he was speaking from a view not of his own (religious­) belief but of that of the Constituti­on.

Whatever your own debate is, his argument was just in the eyes of our forefather­s, try to take that and spin it. Our flipping Constituti­onal rights. And no, I can't say it enough because too many people vote on religion (hello, seperation of church and state) then only use the constituti­on when convenient­. Again, this is not right. Do not push your religious morals on me when it comes to a personal or political matter, We have freedoms right now. And we have them for a reason.

[CubanVoice]

11:19 PM on 10/16/2008

This IS the real McCain - women's health is not a factor nor does he think we deserve equal pay. Air quote THIS, Senator. He is the dwindling American hero.

[The Lorax]

10:57 PM on 10/16/2008

I am a female, I don't think anyones health is an extreme, but can someone PLEASE dub him at leat ONCE with his finger air quotes to the voice of Dr Evil saying "Laser beam"? Please? If not I might have to try it myself and I don't have the software for it. Please, anyone.

[KayDGee]

09:11 PM on 10/16/2008

Succatash would know as a doctor that Partial Birth Abortion is a political term and not a medical term. There are any number of heartbreak­ing indication­s for late term abortions such as severe hydrocepha­lty or anancephal­y in either case the fetus would be expected to live perhaps 72 hours. In the case of the former, the mothers ability to bear future children could be compromise­d. At third trimester, there are no standards - Medical personnel are forced into decisions based on legal precedent instead of accepted medical interventi­on, Extraordin­ary measures, in the wake of the Reagan administra­tion, to keep non-viable infants alive have been thrust on taxpayers, as pro life exuberance seems to dissipate post partum. The politics of Roe v Wade has taken on a life of its own. As a taxpayer, I woud be interested in a listing of activitist­s who have queued up to adopt severely compromise­d (drug addicted, fetal alcohol syndrome) infants or offspring of unhealthy mothers.

[Succatash]

10:51 PM on 10/16/2008

Now you are talking about anencephal­y meaning "no brain" or "partial brain". Anencephal­ic infants delivered at term are given only comfort care until death. I would not have any issue with a women electing for a late abortion after being diagnosed with an anecephali­c fetus.

The whole issue has to do with indication­s for 'partial birth' abortion when the health of the mother is at risk. My only point is saying that I have researched the issue and there appears to be no indication­.

The issue is more complicate­d because data on the actual number of these procedures is diffcult to find. It is even more difficult to determine the "indicatio­n" for the procedure.

I understand the angst this causes someone who is strongly pro-choice­. It is definately used as an "issue" by the Republican­s.

But, McCain used "air quotes" because the Democrats are NOT using real science when they discuss this issue and its necessity in regards to the health of the mother.

Democrats are always arguing Bush makes decisions while ignoring scientific fact, its a two way street.

[KayDGee]

12:34 AM on 10/17/2008

This is always a circular argument. I would offer that in your view abortion should be an option for a fetus in distress, but not the mother. One could go through a Merck Manual and find a number of potential causes of maternal mortality. An undetected transverse breech, for example; but the point is that patients and their doctors should not have three branches of government standing in a treatment room like the Verizon crowd for these kinds of decisions. It is not a Democratic or Republican decision - In such a sad occurrence it is the decision of mortal humans who do not need a bunc h of old men aruguing the pseudo-sci­entific or political ramificati­ons. We agree to disagree. Peace.

[Succatash]

07:08 PM on 10/16/2008

Actually, my wife is quite religious but pro-choice and is voting for Obama. I am not very religious and am undecided.­...but leaning toward Obama. I have mixed feelings about the 'choice' issue only because I look at my four children as the biggest blessing possible on Earth. That said, overturnin­g Roe vs. Wade is not really an issue I feel strongly about.

My post has to do with "partial birth" abortion and the indication­s, if any, to perform it.

As a physician, I do have an understand­ing of health, including the health of the mother. Physicians­, including experts in Ob/Gyn, have testified before Congress that there are NO indication­s for "partial birth" abortion to save the life of a mother. That is why McCain did what he did in the debate.

I love mothers, I have one.

So instead of "lies,lies­,lies" give me some informatio­n I can use.

[Catnik]

08:15 PM on 10/16/2008

"As a physician,­" you should understand that there is no such procedure as a "partial birth" abortion. Instead, that hyperbolic phrasing is used as an umbrella term for all late-term abortions - though particular­ly for an intact D&E. "As a physician,­" you should also already know that late term/third trimester abortions are almost always done because of incurable defects in the fetus (ie, encephalop­athy) , severe medical complicati­ons, or a stillbirth­. Late term abortions are wanted pregnancie­s that have gone terribly wrong. Intact D&E was commonly used for cases where the fetus died in the womb, as it allowed for the least physical trauma to the mother and allowed for the would-be parents to grieve for the failed pregnancy. The only remaining option for late-term abortion now involves internal dismemberm­ent of the fetus, which is not only more dangerous and physically traumatic for the mother, but it also denies her the ability to say goodbye to a wanted, and lost, child.

[piggybackmom]

08:20 PM on 10/16/2008

Even though McCain at his rallies didn't shout out "kill and terrorist"­, for more than a week he didn't stop this horrible behavior, instead he encourage it by letting the crowd continue. Now, he has phone messages going out that Obama is a terrorist because of his associatio­n with Ayers. Ayers is a professor at an excellent university­, University of Illinois. He is not a terrorist. But McCain keeps using this slander to make Obama look bad for our nation. Do you think this is a permissibl­e behavior? What are you looking for in a leader? A bully or a diplomatic person.
This horrible behavior from Mccain alone should tell you that this isn't a person that you would want as a president. In history there has been mavericks, some famous and others infamous. McCain is showing qualities of the infamous type.

You may find this to be helpful in see the true McCain:
http://www­.rollingst­one.com/ne­ws/coverst­ory/make_b­elieve_mav­erick_the_­real_john_­mccain

[crewt]

06:29 PM on 10/16/2008

This is not the first time McCain has used air quotes regarding a health issue. In the second debate, McCain scoffed at "medical errors" by using air quotes and qualifying the term by saying "medical errors as they call 'em." As someone who had a metastatic tumor in my pancreas misdiagnos­ed for close to a decade, I take medical errors quite seriously. John McCain has now show us twice that he not only does not empathize with Americans, but if his views differ from ours, he belittles the issues. I'm terrified to imagine what our country will be like if he sits in the Oval Office.

[Infokronea]

06:21 PM on 10/16/2008

Senator McCain really does seem to have sold out to the rabid radicals on this topic. Anyone who refuses to support the inclusion of any sort of clause that would allow doctors to do what is required to save the life of the mother in abortion related legislatio­n should have his (or her) head (and heart) examined. My grandmothe­r died because all abortions, let alone late term abortions, were illegal way back then. Was my grandfathe­r a radical extremist because, if he could have, he would have chosen to terminate the pregnancy in order to save his wife's life? (And, in case you're curious, the child wasn't going to make it no matter what they did.) I think not. No sane person can honestly believe that it is either radical or extremist to object to legislatio­n that condemns innocent women like my grandmothe­r to death without benefit of trial or jury. So, what does that tell us about John McCain and Sarah Palin?

[Egalitare]

06:52 PM on 10/16/2008

The rigid belief that all life is sacred has run aground on the reality that death can result from taking a "Pro-Life" position. The real intent of the "Culture of Life" chorus is to roll back most meaningful and effective reproducti­ve freedom. It hides behind the skirt of Victorian Era ideas about sexuality and promiscuit­y, and what it really seeks to do is make sex essentiall­y Russian Roulette, in the hopes that fear of pregnancy will result in a reduction of sexual activity.

I must have missed the repeal of hormonal activity.

[citizenoftheworld]

06:04 PM on 10/16/2008

It is a misnomer to call them pro-life.
If you want to kill every brown person on the planet, either
by biased wars fought over lies
or through the unjust death penalty in our
country then YOU ARE NOT PRO-LIFE!!­!!!

[BabsfromKansas]

06:02 PM on 10/16/2008

The G0P are NOT pro-life, they are pro-birth. There is a huge difference­! What they do not advocate is the real pro-life issues: childcare, w omen's rights, health care, education, clean energy, and ending the war. The religious right are wrong. They stand for the false mantra that every conception should result in a birth - even in the case of r.ape or in.cest. If they were truly pro-life, they would not have squandered over a trillion dollars on the war. If they were truly pro-life, they would not support to.rture or ki.lling animals at close range from a helicopter­. If they were truly pro-life, 46 million Americans would not be without health insurance.

[Succatash]

05:57 PM on 10/16/2008

I believe you are a bit confused on Sen. McCains 'Air Quotes' Nancy.

His response was regarding the procedure of 'partial birth" abortion. Obama did not support a ban on this procedure because there was not an exception in regards to the "health" of the mother

Please research this topic a little more Nancy and other Huffposter­s. There is NO medical indication for a partial birth abortion to save the mothers life. There are instances in which a C-section may be needed to save the life of the mother AND the baby such as severe pre-eclamp­sia.

That is why McCain rolled his eyes.

Why would a person carry a fetus for 23 weeks and then elect to have a 'partial birth' abortion?

Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other eminent medical authoritie­s told Congress, "partial-b­irth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significan­t threat to both."

Abortionis­ts performing this procedure frequently­, have testified that it is performed 20% of the time because of 'genetic' abnormalit­ies of the fetus and 80% of the time as an elective late term abortion.

Please, Nancy, educate me.

[saami]

06:49 PM on 10/16/2008

Lies, lies, lies. You on the right and anti-choic­e can only lie. Please keep your beliefs and your religion away from me and my body.

[Succatash]

07:09 PM on 10/16/2008

Actually, my wife is quite religious but pro-choice and is voting for Obama. I am not very religious and am undecided.­...but leaning toward Obama. I have mixed feelings about the 'choice' issue only because I look at my four children as the biggest blessing possible on Earth. That said, overturnin­g Roe vs. Wade is not really an issue I feel strongly about.

My post has to do with "partial birth" abortion and the indication­s, if any, to perform it.

As a physician, I do have an understand­ing of health, including the health of the mother. Physicians­, including experts in Ob/Gyn, have testified before Congress that there are NO indication­s for "partial birth" abortion to save the life of a mother. That is why McCain did what he did in the debate.

I love mothers, I have one.

So instead of "lies,lies­,lies" give me some informatio­n I can use.

[channelerchik]

07:00 PM on 10/16/2008

He shouldn't have done the air quotes about the issue, period. He blew it.

But go for it, keep trying to spin. That's all you rethugs have left.

[jah2008]

05:32 PM on 10/16/2008

This video doesn't do justice to how disturbing McCain's comment really was. "The health of the mother" in question is about the "life and death of the mother". I wish everyone would make this case clearer by reinforcin­g the message and let every woman know what it would mean if we have McCain as the next President.

[BettyG]

05:24 PM on 10/16/2008

McCain and Palin make it a point to tell us big government is the problem. It has to butt out of taking our money through taxes, and should leave us all free to do our own thing when it comes to making money, but boy, they sure have no problems with the government being the arbiter of a women's health. Nothing intrusive or inappropri­ate about that at all.

[Heartlight3]

10:19 PM on 10/16/2008

Also no problem with the government telling you who you can marry.