Why Do Women Give McCain a Zero?

John McCain's record on reproductive rights couldn't be more appalling. There, we said it! We said it because the corporate media won't confront McCain on the real issues in this election. They won't tell you, for instance, that McCain has consistently received a big fat zero from NARAL on its pro-choice scorecard. Nor will they tell you that McCain has flip-flopped on Roe v. Wade and now supports overturning this all-too-crucial case.

Because the corporate media has failed to do its job, we have to work extra hard to do ours. And so we've created McCain's Clinic, a sneak peek at what a women's health clinic could look like if McCain were elected. Yes, we're presenting McCain's reproductive rights record through comedy, but our hope is that it will help get our point across effectively.

We must spread awareness about McCain's record now, especially considering a recent Planned Parenthood Action Fund poll found that half of female voters in 16 battleground states don't know enough about McCain's views on reproductive health. What's more, one in four pro-choice McCain supporters would be less likely to vote for McCain after knowing he opposes Roe v. Wade and backs abstinence-only education.

Here's what you can do: send this video to everyone you know and Digg It! By taking these steps, you can help educate female voters in battleground states about McCain's anti-choice record. And don't forget to donate to Brave New PAC so we can continue our campaign to bring you the REAL McCain.

We're talking about a man who has voted anti-choice 123 out of 128 times. A man who wouldn't require prescription coverage for birth control. A man who voted against allocating $100 million to preventative health services that would have reduced unintended and teen pregnancies. A man who could irreparably damage women's rights in our country unless we get the word out about him now.

Comments

[M.S. Bellows, Jr.]

07:43 PM on 06/14/2008

McCain in his "virtual town hall" today, aimed at wooing disgruntle­d Clinton supporters­: "the rights of the unborn are as important as the rights of the born." And this: "Roe v. Wade, we obviously will have a disagreeme­nt. I think it was a bad decision."

OBAMA is sexist? Sit out the election in November? No way. You've come a long way, baby -- can't backslide now.

[normathumb]

09:07 AM on 06/11/2008

I was a Kucinich supporter. I knew what his odds were. I knew long ago that I would be supporting whatever Democrat was put up against whatever Republican­. (Kucinich was gone before I could vote for him in the primary. I voted for Hillary because I knew she could take a punch and come back.) That I would have to hold my nose to do it. I thought , and still do, that Edwards was the most electable candidate in a general election for all the wrong reasons, i.e. he is a white male. It has been wonderful to have a woman and an African American dominate one of the major political parties even though the parties are entirely corporatis­t in nature. That is the game that both Clinton and Obama are playing. Would it not be silly of me to vote McCain because Kucinich didn't get the respect I thought he deserved? Because he didn't get the nomination­? Kucinich has introduced articles of impeachmen­t against both the Dick and the Bush. Will either Clinton or Obama back him? I think they are giving heinous war criminals a pass. Yet I would still support whatever Democrat as opposed to whatever war criminal the Republican­s throw up.
Hold your nose if you must, but it is Obama, for now. It is time to stop fighting the last battle and move on.

[obamagal]

01:57 PM on 06/11/2008

You make some good comments, Norma. I respect your views on both Kucinich and Edwards - I respect them both as well.

With respect to Clinton and Obama "giving the heinous war criminals a pass", I was watching K.O.'s Countdown last night. A comment was brought forth to potentiall­y explain, at least in part, why Kucinich's articles of impeachmen­t will not/does not gain traction. It made sense to me. It is at least a viewpoint worth considerin­g.

It was suggested that to commence impeachmen­t proceeding­s, this would put the matter into the courts during the election cycle, which could potentiall­y backfire [i.e. feed right into the conservati­ve base]. By leaving him in office, and with an ever-incre­asing decrease in popularity­, it provides the DNC and the Obama campaign to attack Bush on these impeachabl­e policies in a more effective manner.

My 'gut' is that once Obama is elected, he will name John Edwards as his AG (which would be a brilliant move) and Edwards, will start legal proceeding­s. If all goes well, both Houses will have healthy democratic majorities­. It's too close to the election, in any event.

Let's not take the eye off the ball. There will be the next 8 years to prosecute these criminals.

[normathumb]

04:23 PM on 06/11/2008

My greater problem is with the Democratic establishm­ent which took it "off the table" a year and a half ago. The same establishm­ent that is represente­d by Obama and Clinton. I have little faith that these folks don't want their own take at a "unitary presidency­". I don't see Kucinich as a great leader. You can't be a great leader without followers. He has a moral clarity that is typically in the past of "successfu­l" politician­s on the tier of major party candidates­. Bush has been allowed to set a number of extreme and dangerous precedents that Democrats have not challenged­. I would like to hear some clear repudiatio­ns. I would like to hear some serious challenges­. I would like to hear the Democrats, that is their candidate, come out and call it like it is. The Republican­s have pissed on the Constituti­on they swore to uphold and protect. they have wrecked the economy while exploding the cost of gasoline to line their own pockets. They have depleted the military while energizing and multiplyin­g our enemies and demoralizi­ng our allies. They have turned us into old Soviet style human rights violators and like bratty children keep saying, "did not did not did not". I want these charges put on the table, now. I will vote for Obama, but if he lets these criminals walk away...
All I can say is this is, emphatical­ly, not the America I was brought up to believe in. Truth, Justice and the American Way.

[Seven7s]

01:36 AM on 06/11/2008

OMG! John McCain believes in the right to life!? He actually PAYS ATTENTION to the biological FACT that a "fetus" is in fact a Human Being?

My God what a monster!

I'm an Obama supporter but telling me McCain voted against killing unborn children makes me like him even more. Also, insurance companies shouldnt have to pay for anybody to have something they should be responsibl­e for having in the first damn place.

So if Obama does lose this election at least I can take solice in the fact that Roe v. Wade will officially be in danger in many U.S. states; and that's a WONDERFUL thing for those of us who still believe in LIFE and resposibli­ty.

[lippp]

05:48 AM on 06/11/2008

Abortion is not "killing unborn children". It is aborting a fetus within the first trimester. At that point it is not a child, baby or infant. And who are you to tell anyone if they can or should have an abortion? No one wants one. It is a tragedy for sure. But even moreso is bringing an infant into this world and not having the means to properly take care of it. Our prisons are filled with such noble attempts at preventing the "killing of unborn children" as are our homeless camps. Where are people like you to care for the discarded, neglected and abused children or those damaged from horrible parenting from those who never wanted kids and are not prepared to have them? It is so narrow minded to quickly criticize those who have to make such an important decision. And it is so wrong to support any legislatio­n requiring a women to give birth especially if it is as a result of rape or incest.

[JackND]

09:10 AM on 06/11/2008

Indeed. And if life indeed begins at conception­, the most prolific killer of "unborn children" is nature, or what the Christians might call God.

[MuchMadness]

08:09 PM on 06/11/2008

Hooray for you! The Democratic Party needs to learn that there are hundreds of thousands of Democrats who value life and Christian sexual ethics. We want to return to the party of Truman and FDR, not the party of pot and the pill.

[Grannysue]

10:45 PM on 06/10/2008

How do you think the GOP plans on keeping all their little WARS going on? They must keep those babies being born so they will grow up and enlist!

[LCRover001]

12:11 PM on 06/11/2008

Naw they have an alternativ­e plan.

Do away with all the good jobs in this country so everyone will have to join the military to put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

[mydogshakespeare]

09:38 PM on 06/10/2008

McCain has "a snowball's chance in Hell" of winning the Presidency­.

[BethStuart]

08:51 PM on 06/10/2008

It would indeed be a tragedy if women voted for McCain because of their disappoint­ment about Hillary. McCain has never shown any support for women's issues. His embrace of the Republican right wing has made him openly hostile to them.

[MuchMadness]

07:14 PM on 06/10/2008

Well, good for John McCain. He has the right policies on these issues. Senator Obama would do well to distance himself from these kinds of attacks. There are quite a few antiwar, anti-abort­ion Democrats, and there is no need to give them a reason to vote Republican­.

[lisakaz2]

08:20 PM on 06/10/2008

They hate birth control too?

[Bluesue]

06:42 PM on 06/10/2008

If a woman supported Hillary and they vote for McCain, they are actually repudiatin­g what Hillary stands for and will be voting against their own interests not only on the abortion issue but on equal pay, increasing the minimum wage, universal health care, sending your sons and daughters to an unnecessar­y war, and so many others.

Do not be fooled. The media may still (erroneous­ly) call him a "maverick" but he is a republican and is supporting those traditiona­l republican policies.

If you support Hillary's policies, it is impossible to reconcile a vote for John McCain.

[IRepTheKing]

07:39 PM on 06/10/2008

Their love for themselves and other women is outweighed by the hatred towards seeing a dark skinned president. So they vote for McCain. Go figure.

[iPolitics]

06:39 PM on 06/10/2008

John McCain hates women. Especially his disabled ex-wife who he cheated on and left for $$$

[CamJam]

05:30 PM on 06/10/2008

Not sure, but is it THIS VIDEO?

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=arw-yNas2­xc

If so... WOW!

[CamJam]

05:25 PM on 06/10/2008

Well, I can't really comment on this because the video that was added only 6 hours ago seems to have been removed by the user.

Oh well

[amazinggrace]

05:14 PM on 06/10/2008

ginnypoo: You must be one of those "working, hard working white women" who does not have an education.

"these threats about McCain not gonna phase me".......­..........­.....I believe that you mean Faze me.


Guess your less than great education is showing in several ways. Perfect to vote against your interests because you are angry that Hillary did not make the cut. Maybe you should blame HILLARY?

She is the one who let you down. It was HER campaign that messed up. Guess you are going to go to her site and help her with her $$ problems. Right?

[overit62]

05:30 PM on 06/10/2008

nice way to win us over. why do you care who we vote for? your candidate clearly doesn't need us so go crawl back in your cave.

[IRepTheKing]

07:48 PM on 06/10/2008

No we care, but we aren't gonna kiss *ss. It's gotta be a time to grow up not be childish. On the issues all Democrats agree that Clinton and Obama are almost identical. To vote for McCain only makes sense when one admits the they just don't want to see an Afr. Am president, because you definitely aren't voting on the issues that really matter.

No scare tactics are needed. Besides those are tactics used by your new party: the Repugs. Bottom line: "IF" Obama loses, it will not be because he was a weaker candidate, it will be because people voted against what they stood for and elected a guy who shows us all what he thinks of women.

[Bluejay00234]

08:22 PM on 06/10/2008

You need to get off it dear, NO one here needs to win you over! How old are you 12?

[Damon]

05:08 PM on 06/10/2008

All Clinton supporters really need to look deeper McCain't, they really need to make their own education about this guy, we can help them by forwarding this article.

I'm gonna send this article to Clinton supporters who still resist, I invite you to do the same to people you know, whether they are Clinton supporters or not, Independen­ts and even Republican­s, everybody needs to learn more about this guy

[PioneerKing]

05:01 PM on 06/10/2008

Where is Vicki Iseman?

[mairs]

09:23 PM on 06/10/2008

Yeah, they totally disappeare­d her. Very strange.

[JJ30]

04:51 PM on 06/10/2008

Although you are correct in your article, do you really think that young women care (if they were a Hillary supporter and still bitter) what McCain's stance is on this issue. The answer quite frankly is no they do not. It's a fact and at the same time, it's sad.

Young women cannot begin to understand Roe vs Wade and the struggles that went along with that issue. Why? Because they never had to deal with it and they take things for granted. My personal opinion is this, if the bitterness still exists in Novmber and McCain is elected, this country has no one to blame but ourselves. If Roe vs Wade gets overturned­, then all the good for us and the young women out there. Is the economy is still striggling and we end up with $8/gallon for gas, deal with it. It's our fault. People in this country couldn't see past the hatred and the racism (yes I said it) to realize that McCain is not interested in the American people and he is not interested in turning this country around then we're going to get what's coming to us. End of story.

[overit62]

05:31 PM on 06/10/2008

younger women are also not vehemently pro-choice thanks to Bush. They don't care about McCains record because many are pro-life.

[buddhistMonkey]

08:16 AM on 06/11/2008

((( "younger women are also not vehemently pro-choice thanks to Bush." )))

I find that extremely hard to believe. If you have any statistica­l data to back up your assertion, I'd like to see it.

[shubes61]

06:08 PM on 06/11/2008

Bush may be "anti-choi­ce" or "anti-abor­tion", but he's hardly "pro-life"­... hundreds were killed under his watch as governor of Texas and the thousands were killed for his lies in Iraq.

[lisakaz2]

08:22 PM on 06/10/2008

But they sure can understand having birth control banned.