Reproductive Rights Prof Blog

Katha Pollitt on McCain's Vote Against Contraceptive Coverage

And Another Thing (The Nation): McCain Opposes Contraception -- Pass it on, by Katha Pollitt:

I realize it's not as world-shaking as the caricature of the Obamas on the cover of The New Yorker, which has the high-end media in a total tizzy. It's probably not even as important as the raunchy joke Bernie Mac told at an Obama fundraiser last week, which was bumped from the tizzy list by the New Yorker story. But can't the commentariat take a break from itself and let the world know how much John McCain opposes birth control? Vastly more people rely on contraception than read The New Yorker or know Bernie Mac from mac'n' cheese. In fact, vastly more people use birth control than believe Obama is a secret Muslim. They might like to know that when it comes to contraception, McCain is no maverick.

Here's the story. Last week, Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard who has been helping McCain look bright-eyed and estrogen-friendly, told reporters that women wanted more choice in their health care plans; for example, it bothered women when plans covered Viagra but not contraception. Big mistake! McCain had voted against a bill that would have required plans to cover birth control if they covered prescription meds at all, like, um, Viagra. McCain's nonresponse when queried about this by a reporter was astonishing. As posted on Youtube, he squirms and grins and smirks (Viagra! embarrassing!) and fumfers about evasively. ""I don't know enough about it to give you an informed answer," he manages to splutter, " because I don't recall the vote, I've cast thousands of votes... it's something I've not thought much about."

Bush Proposal to Redefine Abortion as Contraception Incites Uproar

ABC News: Bush Proposal to Change Abortion Definition, by Matthew Jaffe:

Congressional Democrats are criticizing the Bush administration for a draft proposal they say would change the definition of abortion and limit women's access to contraception.

The draft proposal from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which began circulating around Capitol Hill earlier this week, would withhold government funds from health-care providers and organizations that don't hire people who refuse to perform abortions or provide certain types of birth control.

It immediately incited an uproar from leading Democratic lawmakers, including Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

Sens. Clinton and Patty Murray, D-Wash., warned in a letter to HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt that the proposal has the "potential to affect millions of women's reproductive health."

"One of the most troubling aspects of the proposed rules is the overly-broad definition of 'abortion,'" write Clinton and Murray. "This definition would allow health-care corporations or individuals to classify many common forms of contraception  including the birth control pill, emergency contraception and IUDs  'abortions' and therefore to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it.

See also: Bush abortion furor takes down Nancy Pelosi's website (Countdown to Crawford (LA Times), by James Gerstenzang and Johanna Neuman) and HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion (Huffington Post, by Cristina Page).

Bush Administration Moves to Impose Onerous Conditions on Birth Control Funding

New York Times: Abortion Proposal Sets Condition on Aid, by Robert Pear:

The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control.

Under the draft of a proposed rule, hospitals, clinics, researchers and medical schools would have to sign “written certifications” as a prerequisite to getting money under any program run by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Such certification would also be required of state and local governments, forbidden to discriminate, in areas like grant-making, against hospitals and other institutions that have policies against providing abortion.

The proposal, which circulated in the department on Monday, says the new requirement is needed to ensure that federal money does not “support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law.” The administration said Congress had passed a number of laws to ensure that doctors, hospitals and health plans would not be forced to perform abortions.

Obama and the "Abortion Minefield"

Politico: Obama walks the abortion minefield, by Carrie Budoff Brown:

For the past week, some activists in the abortion rights community have been trying to figure out why Barack Obama, a Democrat praised for his strong defense of reproductive rights, appeared to be turning soft.

Those who work on the front lines of the abortion debate couldn’t quite believe what they were hearing: Obama, in an interview with a Christian magazine, seemed to reject a mental health exception to the ban on late-term abortions. They feared that Obama, like Democrat John Kerry in 2004, was adopting a view favored by abortion opponents to appeal to conservatives.

After days of examining his initial comments and a subsequent clarification that he supports a mental health exception — as long as the woman suffers a diagnosed illness and is not just “feeling blue” — some activists are satisfied, while others are far from it or just plain confused.

Obama's Pro-Choice Stance Complicates His Efforts to Appeal to Evangicals

CBS News: Obama's Call For Unity Faces Abortion Test, by Brian Montopoli:

...Obama has made a point of reaching out to evangelicals during his presidential campaign, a group that Democrats have largely ceded to Republicans in recent years. He has come out in favor of faith-based programs and stressed social justice issues that appeal to evangelicals in his speeches. There is even a radio ad running on Christian stations highlighting Obama's religious rhetoric, including statements like "I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth."

Mahoney's media offensive, which CBN's David Brody writes "represents the broader feelings with many conservative Evangelical groups," reflects an effort to counter Obama's appeals by spotlighting his stance in favor of abortion rights, which is at odds with the anti-abortion beliefs of many of the evangelicals he is now courting....

I found this part of the article highly misleading:

Obama has come under some pressure from Sojourners founder Jim Wallis and others to consider what's known as an abortion reduction agenda. Anti-abortion voters might be more willing to look past Obama's views in favor of abortion rights, some believe, if the candidate were to embark on a serious effort to reduce the number of abortions performed in America each year.

But the Obama campaign has resisted calls to adopt an aggressive abortion reduction agenda, possibly over fears that doing so could alienate voters - among them former Hillary Clinton backers - turned off by what they perceive as anything less than a total commitment to the abortion rights position.

This implies that pro-choice voters (including all those "former Hillary Clinton backers"), as well as the Obama campaign, oppose efforts to reduce abortions. 

To the contrary, it is pro-choice Democrats who support the most effective strategies to reduce unintended pregnancies.  Granted, pro-choice advocates often prefer to focus not just on abortion, but on the the underlying social problem, unintended pregnancy.  If we "reduce abortions" simply by preventing or dissuading pregnant women from getting them, without reducing unintended pregnancy, we haven't addressed the underlying social problem at all. 

Obama and other Democrats have promoted legislation aimed directly at reducing unintended pregnancy by increasing access to birth control, supporting comprehensive sexuality education, and other efforts.  Obama is a lead co-sponsor of the Prevention First Act, which proposes a number of preventive-health and education measures designed to reduce unintended pregnancies.  This kind of legislation has far more promise than anything Republicans have put forward.

 

Planned Parenthood Action Fund Endorses Obama

On the heels of Barack Obama's recent equivocations on abortion and sexuality education (here and here), Planned Parenthood Action Fund yesterday endorsed Obama, only the second time the organization has endorsed a presidential candidate.  From the PPAF website:

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund is very excited to officially endorse Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for president of the United States. The board of the national Planned Parenthood Action Fund voted unanimously last month to recommend endorsing Sen. Obama, a decision ratified by Planned Parenthood’s local action organizations, which represent the interests of all 100 Planned Parenthood affiliates.

"The Planned Parenthood Action Fund is proud to endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States," said Action Fund President Cecile Richards. "He is a passionate advocate for women's rights and has a long and consistent record of standing up for women's health care. As president, he will improve access to quality health care for women, support and protect a woman's right to choose, support comprehensive sex education to keep our young people healthy and safe, and invest in prevention programs, including family planning services and breast cancer screenings."

Read the press release.

Obama Explains Remarks on "Mental Distress" and Abortion

Following recent controversial remarks in Relevant Magazine (see previous post) that seemed to dismiss the need for a mental health exception for abortion, Senator Obama clarified those comments for reporters.  Frank James of The Swamp has posted the transcript.

The Swamp (Chicago Tribune), Obama Backs Late, Mental-Health Abortion, by Frank James:

Here's a transcript of the interchange as provided by the campaign.

Reporter: You said that mental distress shouldn't be a reason for late-term abortion?

Obama: "My only point is this -- historically I have been a strong believer in a women's right to choose with her doctor, her pastor and her family. And it is ..I have consistently been saying that you have to have a health exception on many significant restrictions or bans on abortions including late-term abortions.

In the past there has been some fear on the part of people who, not only people who are anti-abortion, but people who may be in the middle, that that means that if a woman just doesn't feel good then that is an exception. That's never been the case.

I don't think that is how it has been interpreted. My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, It can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue. I don't think that's how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don't think that's how the courts have interpreted it and I think that's important to emphasize and understand."

According to Linda Douglass, the Obama campaign's senior spokesperson, the senator from Illinois was making a distinction in the magazine interview between medically diagnosed mental illness and the kind of mental distress that an unwanted pregnancy causes many a pregnant mother.

"Mental distress is not an illness." Douglass said. "He absolutely believes and has always said there has to be a health exception for serious physical and mental illness."

Here is Jan Greenburg's response to Obama's clarification.  Greenburg's main point is that Obama's refusal to include "mental distress" is more limiting than the Supreme Court's articulation of a health exception in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton:

This standard has long been understood to require less than "serious clinical mental health disease."  Women today don't have to show they are suffering from a "serious clinical mental health disease" or "mental illness" before getting an abortion post-viability, as Obama now says is appropriate.

It's hard to know what Obama means by all of these terms, though.  Certainly, the notion that women get late abortions because they are "blue" echoes accusations that anti-choice advocates have hurled for decades, namely that women seek late abortion for trivial reasons.  It would be nice to see Obama attack that accusation directly.  It would also be reassuring to hear him reaffirm his support for the Freedom of Choice Act which, as Greenburg points out, includes an unqualified exception for health-protective, post-viability abortions.

Does Obama Object to a Mental Health Exception for Late Abortions?

Relevant Magazine has published A Q&A with Barack Obama on its website.  The magazine invited readers to submit questions.  According to the magazine, "Most of the questions submitted centered on Obama’s personal faith and abortion.... He aimed to clarify his position on late-trimester abortions and addressed rumors surrounding his controversial vote on the 'born alive' bill."

During the Q&A, Obama was asked to clarify his position on "third-trimester and partial-birth abortions."  He responded, in part:

...I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

This an unfortunate comment coming from a pro-choice candidate.  Abortions in the third trimester are rare (accounting for less than 1% of abortions in the United States).  But compelling mental health concerns, no less than physical concerns, account for the need for late abortions.  For example, when women seek abortions in the late stages of pregnancy, it is often because they are carrying a wanted pregnancy and have discovered that the fetus has a severe anomaly.  Should a woman be forced to carry to term a fetus that has Tay Sachs disease?  Imagine her daily life for those remaining weeks, having strangers congratulate her, ask her whether she's having a boy or girl, what she plans to name her baby.  Imagine her going through hours of labor and giving birth in the delivery ward, among all the ecstatic new parents.  Is this woman's situation not "significant" enough to merit an abortion?

Obama's answer seems to suggest that mental health issues arising from a pregnancy aren't "real."  Dismissive attitudes toward mental health are prevalent in the abortion context (although one would not expect Obama to share them). Disregard for the mental health of women seeking abortions clashes notably with the progress made by advocates seeking parity in the treatment of mental health issues.  As Cynthia Dailard writes in a 1999 article, Abortion Restrictions and the Drive for Mental Health Parity: A Conflict in Values? (Guttmacher Institute):

[R]ecent actions beg the question of why providing equitable treatment for people with mental illness is gaining currency in virtually every public policy context except abortion, where it is fast losing ground.

Obama was also asked how he planned to achieve "a reduction in the number of abortions under your administration."  He responded:

I think we know that abortions rise when unwanted pregnancies rise. So, if we are continuing what has been a promising trend in the reduction of teen pregnancies, through education and abstinence education giving good information to teenagers. That is important—emphasizing the sacredness of sexual behavior to our children. I think that’s something that we can encourage. I think encouraging adoptions in a significant way.

Clearly, on abortion as on so many other issues, Obama is conscious of the need to appeal to a broader swath of voters in the general election. But, as with his brushing aside of pregnant women's mental health concerns, it is disheartening to see him parrot the ineffective responses to the problem of unintended pregnancy, such as abstinence education, that conservatives have championed.

Rev. Jim Wallis Denies Urging New Democratic "Abortion Reduction" Plank

Newsweek: Reducing Abortions, by Sarah Kliff:

Jim Wallis devoted a significant chunk of his latest book, "The Great Awakening," to outlining his views on abortion. The evangelical leader wrote in favor of "protecting unborn life in every possible way, but without criminalizing abortion." And when he talks, people listen; the editor of Sojourners, a magazine that champions "the biblical call to social justice," Wallis is a leader of a liberal wing of the evangelical movement.         

So Wallis was a bit confused when he saw those same views on abortion making news on Wednesday, first in an ABC News article and then on Good Morning America and in the blogosphere the next day. The stories reported that Wallis wanted Obama to add a plank to the Democratic Party platform urging a reduction in the number of abortions performed. "I've been talking to Barack for 10 years and didn't start any new initiative lately," says Wallis. "I've been on record for years supporting a new approach." Wallis told NEWSWEEK that he isn't all that interested in revising Democratic Party ideals. "If either platform discussion moves in that direction, it'll be a big news story for a few days and then the candidates will run on whatever they want to run," he says.

Family Research Council Ad Attacks Obama on Abortion

The Caucus (NY Times): New Ad Hits Obama on Abortion, by Michael Falcone:

The lobbying arm of the Family Research Council, the conservative Christian organization, is going on the air in several cities on Friday with a television ad featuring a personal note from the group’s president, Tony Perkins, to Senator Barack Obama. The message: Mr. Obama’s abortion rights stance is hypocritical.

In the 30-second ad,  Mr. Perkins appears seated and cradling his young son, Samuel. It begins with a clip of Mr. Obama’s recent Father’s Day speech in which he said: “We need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn’t just end at conception.” (In the speech, which he gave at a Chicago church, Mr. Obama spoke about the problem of absent black fathers.)

As he holds his toddler, Mr. Perkins turns Senator Obama’s words back on him, asking, “If, as you say, fatherhood begins at conception, when does life begin?”...

Amy Sullivan on Whether Pro-Choice Women Will Support McCain

Time: Will Pro-Choice Women Back McCain?, by Amy Sullivan:

The 2008 presidential race may have been branded a "change" election, but abortion rights advocates have seen this movie before. Once again they face a Republican nominee who supports abortion restrictions yet is widely viewed as moderate and unthreatening to pro-choice voters. Eight years ago, it was George W. Bush who convinced pro-choice Republican and independent women that he was a safe bet, asserting that "America is not ready to ban abortions." This time, according to a poll released last week by NARAL Pro-Choice America, voters have a fuzzy sense of John McCain's views on abortion — which is just the way the McCain campaign wants it.

James Dobson Attacks Obama on Religious Views, Abortion

NY Times: Evangelical Leader Attacks Obama on Religious Views, by Larry Rohter:

Just days after Senator Barack Obama met quietly with religious leaders, including the son of the Rev. Billy Graham, another of the evangelical movement’s most prominent names, James C. Dobson, has sharply attacked Mr. Obama, accusing him of having “a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution” and twisting the meaning of both the Old and New Testaments.

...One focus of Mr. Dobson’s objections was abortion, which provoked his attacks on Mr. Obama’s view of the Constitution. Mr. Obama, who supports abortion rights, wants “to go to the lowest common denominator of morality,” Mr. Dobson said, and impose “his bloody notion of what is right in regard to the rights of tiny babies.”

 

Dobson didn't seem so concerned about the rights of those "tiny babies" when he applauded the Court's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, in which the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on abortion procedures that the Court claimed would not prevent a single abortion, but rather would only steer doctors to different methods.  See Supreme Court Ruling Brings Split in Antiabortion Movement (Wash. Post) and Open Letter to Doctor James Dobson (Colorado Right to Life).

See also CNN: Obama says Dobson 'making stuff up', by Alexander Mooney:

Sen. Barack Obama said evangelical leader James Dobson was "making stuff up," when he accused the Illinois senator of distorting the Bible and taking a "fruitcake interpretation" of the U.S. Constitution.

Rev. Jim Wallis Urges Obama to Add "Abortion Reduction Plank" to Democratic Party Platform

Substitute "unintended pregnancy" for "abortion" and I'd be right with this program.  It doesn't make sense to talk about reducing abortion, when unintended pregnancy is the root problem.  You could reduce abortions without reducing the rate of unintended pregnancy at all.  But what kind of a social policy is that?  Talking about reducing abortions will only fuel the demonization of abortion and the women who choose it.

Political Radar (ABC News blog):  Obama Friend Pushes for Abortion Reduction Plank:

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Gregory Wallace Report: Before the Democrats convene in Denver, the Rev. Jim Wallis plans to urge Barack Obama to go along with adding an “abortion reduction” plank to the party platform.

“Abortion reduction should be a central Democratic Party plank in this election,” Wallis told ABC News. “I’ll just say that flat out.”

Wallis, who hosted a Democratic candidates’ forum on CNN last year, discussed his plans after defending Obama against Dr. James Dobson’s charge that the Illinois Democrat distorted the traditional understanding of the Bible when he spoke to Wallis’s Sojourners group in 2006.

Oregon Woman Discusses Abortion, Relationship With "Pro-Life" Congressional Candidate

The Oregonian: Oregon City woman details abortion, relationship with Mike Erickson, by Janie Har & Steve Mayes:

Now a "pro-life" congressional candidate, he gave her $300 and took her to the clinic in Northeast Portland, Tawnya says

An Oregon City woman who dated congressional candidate Mike Erickson seven years ago said she asked him directly whether he wanted to have a baby. He shook his head no, she said, and paid for her abortion.

In interviews with The Oregonian, the woman said she met Erickson in September 2000, and she had the abortion in January 2001. They saw each other afterward, she said, even going on a trip to Mexico in March, before the relationship ended. She spoke on the condition that only her first name, Tawnya, be used.

Her story is backed up by medical and other records, and the accounts of two friends, one of whom was with her at the abortion. Their story conflicts directly with Erickson's version.

McCain's Charm Offensive Aimed at Female Voters Meets Fierce Resistance

AFP: McCain's courtship of women runs into trouble:

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Republican John McCain is courting the loyalty of female voters, including disaffected supporters of Hillary Clinton, but faces a fierce counter-offensive from Democrat Barack Obama.

With fulsome praise for Clinton and a high profile on his campaign for female business executives, McCain is targeting the 54 percent of the electorate whose sway will prove vital to success in November's election.

But Obama is highlighting the economy, abortion and equal pay to say the Republican is on the "wrong side" of nearly every issue of concern to women, including Clinton backers still angry at her loss in the Democratic race.

John McCain's Talk Not So Straight on Abortion

Via the SF Chronicle, quotations from John McCain that show how his "straight talk" has swerved on whether Roe v. Wade should stand.  (He now asserts that it should be overturned.)

-- *"I'd love to see a point where (Roe vs. Wade) is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations." McCain said he would support legislation banning abortions in the third trimester. - Interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 20, 1999.

-- *"After a lot of study, a lot of consultation and a lot of prayer, I came up with a position that I believe there should be an exception for rape, incest or the life of a mother...(the issue) is one of the most difficult and agonizing issues that I think all of us face, because of our belief -- yours and mine -- that life begins at conception." - reported in the New York Times, Jan. 22, 2000

-- *"John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. '' - McCain for President website.

Obama Disarms Another Abortion Rights Foe

More praise, this time from Doug Kmiec, for Barack Obama's meeting with religious leaders.  Top of the Ticket (LA Times): Prominent abortion foe extols Barack Obama, by Don Frederick:

Douglas Kmiec, a Justice Department honcho under two previous Republican administrations and an abortion foe who once headed Catholic University's law school, raised eyebrows within some conservative circles earlier this year when, in a Slate.com posting, he endorsed Barack Obama for president.

Today, Kmiec delivers another valentine Obama's way, writing glowingly in the Chicago Tribune about a "private conversation" the candidate had recently with him, the Rev. Franklin Graham (the son of the Rev. Billy Graham) "and a diverse group of 30 or so religious leaders from Protestant, Catholic, Evangelical and other traditions."

See related post: Anti-Abortion Leader Finds Obama Is "Not a Crazy Leftist"

More on McCain v. Obama, Centrist Voters, and the Abortion Issue

Political Animal (CBS News): McCain and Abortion, by Kevin Drum:

McCAIN AND ABORTION....John McCain's reputation for cross-party moderation has been so ingrained for so long that a lot of people simply assume he holds positions he doesn't. In particular, an awful lot of centrist voters assume that McCain has fairly centrist views on abortion. So what happens when they find out that, in fact, McCain's actual position is pretty much identical to James Dobson's? A new Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll of battleground states provides a clue:

Once balanced information about Obama and McCain's respective positions on choice is introduced, Obama gains 6 points overall, with his lead in battleground states expanding from a net 2 points (47-45 percent) to a net 13 points (53-40 percent).

....Despite the fact that the national focus seems to be on the economy, among pro-choice Independent women, pro-choice Republican women, and liberal to moderate Republican women, the issue of abortion produces a larger advantage for Democrats than the economy, the war in Iraq, or health care. Moreover, among these three groups critiques on McCain's anti-choice position are the strongest attacks against him, trumping attacks on the economy, the war, and special interests.

Poll: Support for Obama Crosses Party Lines When Voters Know Candidates' Abortion Positions

US News & World Report: NARAL Poll Shows Abortion Issue Could Push Independents and Pro-Choice Republicans to Obama, by Liz Halloran:

The poll found if voters know the candidates' stances, they choose Obama over McCain

The nation's largest abortion-rights group today released a poll of likely women voters in 12 battleground states that suggests presumed GOP presidential nominee John McCain could lose the support of significant numbers of independent and pro-choice Republican women—if they are educated about the Arizona senator's antiabortion voting record.

And that, the pollsters predicted, could help expected Democratic nominee Barack Obama win that "critical bloc" of swing voters come November.

Barack Obama Explains the Meaning of Life

Political Punch (ABC News blogs), by Jake Tapper:

At a town hall meeting in Kaukauna, Wisc., Thursday afternoon, amidst questions about health care and the economy, a young man said he had a question for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and Obama should "please be as intellectual or spiritual as you would like."

"Well this is a lot of pressure," Obama said to laugher.

"My question is: what does life mean to you?" the young man asked....

Anti-Abortion Leader Finds Obama Is "Not a Crazy Leftist"

RH Reality Check: Obama "More Centrist" on Abortion Says "Pro-Life" Leader, by Scott Swenson:

Sen. Barack Obama met yesterday with several faith leaders, from a variety of political perspectives, in a private closed door meeting. Among the attendees, Rev. Franklin Graham, whose presence was deemed significant by CBN reporter David Brody, since Graham has yet to meet with McCain. Issues discussed included the senator's support for abortion rights and gay rights.

Steve Strang, the founder of Charisma Magazine, attended and wrote this about the private meeting on his blog, The Strang Report, describing Obama's response to his question on abortion as being "more centrist than expected."

Of course, Strang ultimately disagrees with Obama's position on abortion, but he believes that Obama "won over the loyalties of many."  Strang reports that Obama was "warm and personable" and seemed surprised to find that he was not a "crazy leftist."  I find this both heartening and sad: heartening that Obama made Strang reconsider his reliance upon stereotypes (at least as applied to Obama), but sad to see how seriously people like Strang seem to take the right-wing media's caricatures.  Strang reports that, initially, he didn't even want to attend "[s]ince I am opposed to the leftist political stands of the Democratic Party and of Obama specifically."

Lieberman's Pro-Choice Stance May Rule Him Out as McCain Running Mate

Bloomberg.com: Lieberman's Abortion Stance May Preclude Spot on McCain Ticket, by Hans Nichols:

John McCain might like to give Joseph Lieberman another shot at the vice presidency, this time as a Republican.           

The two senators have grown close in this election year. They are joined at the hip on foreign policy, staking their political futures on support for the war in Iraq. They also share a reputation as mavericks, which, in Lieberman's case, forced him to quit the Democratic Party in 2006, after losing Connecticut's senatorial primary and running as an independent.    

For his part, McCain, 71, has built his campaign around his appeal to independent voters. ``You can't win with Republican votes alone,'' said Mark Salter, a senior campaign adviser, who declined to handicap the likelihood of Lieberman on the ticket.    

While picking Lieberman as his running mate would allow McCain to reaffirm his identity as a trans-partisan politician, it also would burn the social conservatives who have propelled every Republican victory since 1980 and who may bolt the party....

Evangelicals need look no further than Lieberman's Senate record -- which includes support for abortion rights, gun control, gay civil unions and stem-cell research -- to find reasons to reject him.    

Does John McCain Support a Constitutional Amendment to Ban Abortion?

Media Matters: Gannett, AP claimed McCain opposes a constitutional amendment banning abortion -- but McCain said he supports it:

Summary: In recent comparisons of Barack Obama's and John McCain's positions, Gannett News Service and the Associated Press claimed that McCain opposes a constitutional amendment banning abortion. However, McCain has previously asserted that he supports such an amendment, and McCain advisers have reportedly said that he would not try to change the Republican Party's platform on abortion, which in 2004 called for a constitutional ban on abortion.

Either way, folks, it bears repeating: John McCain is NOT pro-choice!

Senator Specter's Abstinence Education Earmarks

Centre Daily Times: Specter has directed thousands to abstinence programs across state, by Barbara Barrett:

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter has spread $853,000 to 25 programs across Pennsylvania that teach teens to wait until marriage for sex.

• Millions directed to one local company
• A pay-to-play world
• As a rookie in U.S. Senate, Casey sponsored more than $200 million in earmarks
• New rules force more disclosure of earmarks
• Congressional earmarks come into focus
• Letting the sun shine on earmarks and on detainees

Specter, a Republican, is the only member of Congress making earmarks to abstinence-education programs. It’s a trend he has continued in recent years, and it marks an interesting move for one of the party’s best-known abortion-rights senators.

The Future of the Abortion Debate?

TheAtlantic.com: The future of the abortion debate, by Conor Friedersdorf:

An orthodox Catholic I know cares more about abortion than any other political issue. He votes for candidates based largely on his expectations about the kinds of judges they'll appoint or confirm, behavior I completely understand given the certainty he feels that every abortion is a murder. At the other extreme are pro-choice voters whose number one issue is protecting Roe vs. Wade from being overturned, preventing any restrictions on abortion, etc.

These are by their nature long term political struggles, or so you might think: the composition of the Supreme Court is always going to change, legislatures can be influenced to hue closer to one side or the other, etc.

But I predict that what we now think of as the abortion debate is going to radically change within our lifetime in a way that makes many of the strategic gambits employed by both sides irrelevant, or at least beside the point.

Here's a brief response from Andrew Sullivan:

The legitimate property interest that every woman has in her own body, and her right to be free of the state's interference in that respect, makes me a reluctant pro-choicer in the first trimester (for want of any better time limit). But if fetuses can live outside their mother's body, the debate shifts a notch. Not definitively, but intuitively.

Reuters News Analysis: Obama and McCain "Need Abortion Issue"

Reuters: Obama, McCain both need abortion issue, by Ed Stoddard:

DALLAS, May 28 (Reuters) - Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain has one ace up his sleeve in his bid to woo disgruntled conservative Christians: his unflinching opposition to abortion rights.

His likely Democratic opponent in the November White House election, Barack Obama, firmly supports abortion rights.

Few other big issues cut so clearly across partisan lines in the United States, a point underscored by McCain and Obama's positions on it. And analysts say while both candidates must be careful they may need the issue to stir their party's bases.

Waning Influence of Missouri Right to Life Over State Legislature?

Kansas City Star: On abortion, Missouri senators move toward the sane center, by Barb Shelly (editorial page columnist):

There's been some good research in recent years that shows that politicians tend to be pulled toward the fringes on issues, while most Americans dwell closer to the center.  In my observation, this holds most true for state legislators.

Closeted in places like Jefferson City and Topeka, the people who make laws and set policy for the state live in a world apart. They rarely have the close constituent connections that, say, a city council member does. The public generally has only a vague idea of what these folks are doing.

Ah, but the interest groups know. They keep score, and they let their clout be known at election time.

In no case has this been more true than the grip with which the anti-abortion group, Missouri Right to Life, has enjoyed over the state's General Assembly.  For Republican lawmakers, a Missouri Right to Life endorsement has been regarded as a must-have in a primary race.

But as The Star's Jefferson City correspondent Kit Wagar points out in a story today, Missouri Right to Life appears to have overplayed its hand.  Republican lawmakers who are very opposed to abortion have been disobeying the activist group's marching order.

"Right to Life" chapters in other states, including Michigan, exercise this same grip over their state legislatures (a fact that I find often surprises people).

Robert Novak on Kathleen Sibelius

Wash. Post: A Pro-Choicer's Dream Veep, by Robert Novak:

Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann, whose Roman Catholic archdiocese covers northeast Kansas, on May 9 called on Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to stop taking Communion until she disowns her support for the "serious moral evil" of abortion. That put the church in conflict with a rising star of the Democratic Party who is often described as a "moderate" and is perhaps the leading prospect to become Barack Obama's running mate.

Naumann also took Sebelius to task for her veto April 21 of a bill, passed by 2 to 1 margins in both houses of the Kansas Legislature, that would strengthen the state's ban on late-term abortions by authorizing private lawsuits against providers. Last year, she vetoed a bill requiring explicit medical reasons for a late abortion, and she vetoed other abortion legislation in 2006, 2005 and 2003.

See also: The Fix (Wash. Post): Novak Takes a Swipe at Possible Obama VP Pick, by Chris Cillizza.

McCain and Obama's Contrasting Visions of Supreme Court's Role

L.A. Times: John McCain and Barack Obama: Two visions of the Supreme Court, by David Savage:

WASHINGTON — John McCain and Barack Obama, the two leading presidential candidates, have set out sharply contrasting views on the role of the Supreme Court and the kind of justices they would appoint.

Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.), in a speech two weeks ago, echoed the views of conservatives who say "judicial activism" is the central problem facing the judiciary. He called it the "common and systematic abuse . . . by an elite group . . . we entrust with judicial power." On Thursday, he criticized the California Supreme Court for giving gays and lesbians the right to marry, saying he doesn't "believe judges should be making these decisions."

Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) said he was most concerned about a conservative court that tilted to the side of "the powerful against the powerless," and to corporations and the government against individuals. "What's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves," he said in response to McCain.

Do Women and Women's Organizations Have an "Obligation" to Support Clinton?

Time: The Feminist Divide Over Obama, by Amy Sullivan:

When the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America announced its endorsement of Barack Obama earlier this week, president Nancy Keenan and her colleagues knew their decision would raise eyebrows. The debate between Obama and Clinton supporters on the organization's board, according to those familiar with it, was "spirited." But they ultimately reached a unanimous decision to throw their support behind Obama, a longtime supporter of abortion rights, and the move was immediately assailed by Clinton supporters as a betrayal. In the process, they added new fuel to a furious debate that has raged mostly below the surface of this campaign, often dividing friend from friend and sister from sister. Do women have an