McCain on Choice: Federal Abortion Ban

Sorted under 2008 election, anti-choice extremism, politics on February 12, 2008

John McCain Feministing has a great post up on John McCain and his long-standing anti-choice record. McCain, as most have already realized, will be the Republican candidate in the upcoming election; McCain is also the biggest threat to reproductive rights, if elected into office. For the next few weeks I will be taking his past pro-life record and looking at it a little more in depth.

While John McCain speaks about his pro-life record any chance he gets, according to NARAL, he “has never cosponsored or supported legislation that would prevent unintended pregnancy or reduce the need for abortion.” So while he believes that under no circumstances whatsoever should a woman be permitted to have a safe and legal abortion, he also does not support in adequate safe-sex education or any other educational or otherwise legislature that would protect women from getting pregnant in the first place.

Today we are going to take a look at the Federal Abortion Ban.

On April 18, 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Abortion Ban case (or Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003) saying that it “does not violate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.”

This ban paves the way for states to say to their women “This state has banned abortion, looks like you have to go through with 9 months of pregnancy and a lifetime with a child and we don’t give a damn if you can’t afford it, don’t want a child, or even if it is medically necessary and your own health is in danger because of this pregnancy, but your fetus has more rights than you do.”

This ban no longer leaves the decisions involving pregnancy to a woman and her doctor, but to politicians; most of which will never experience pregnancy. It bans safe and effective abortions and limits the time a woman has to seek an abortion even more–in this case, before viability. This ban does not make any exception for women whose health is at stake, violating the protection that was placed more than 30 years ago. Like most legislature trying to pull a fast one on the American people, the ban uses colorful and misleading wording and broad language subject to many different interpretations making it impossible for doctors who perform abortions to know what is and what isn’t prohibited when dealing with an abortion case.

Senator McCain’s presidential campaign released the following statement in response to the Federal Abortion Ban on April 18, 2007:

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children. It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures. As we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life.”

With such a staunch position on giving fetuses and embryos more rights than already living and breathing human, do we really want McCain, the Republican candidate in the upcoming election who opposes abortion and does not support women (even more so than Bush) to claim the presidency and move our rights backward over 30 years? I know I don’t.



You May Also Enjoy:

  • For those of you who don't know about this Court, here are a few comments: "Court invokes an antiabortion shibboleth for which it concededly has no reliable evidence: Women who have abortions come to regret their choices, and consequently suffer from '[s]evere depression and loss of esteem.' Because of women's fragile emotional state and because of the bond of love the mother has for her child,' the Court worries, doctors may withhold information about the nature of the intact D&E procedure. The solution the Court approves, then, is not to require doctors to inform women, accurately and adequately, of the different procedures and their attendant risks. Instead, the Court deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety."
  • Cecily
    It's a womans (and mans) choice to have sexual relations. We can't have choices for consequences. A fetus is a life. If you don't have money to raise a child, give it up for adoption!! There are SO many couples in the United States alone who cannot have children. There would be a lot more happiness in this world of ours with less abortion in the world. If you don't have money to take care of a child, there are many couples that would pay medical bills through an adoption process.
  • nancyisdancing
    so i ask you....if you think abortion should be made illegal...what punishment should a woman have if she gets an illegal abortion? Death penalty you say? No punishment?.....a fine?.......or haven't you thought that far ahead.....and i don't believe there will be more happiness in this world if we had less abortions...we would just have more poor people or people in general...according to Christ we should live and let live......if you don't believe in abortion ...don't have one...if you have an unexpected pregnancy....do the right thing in YOUR heart and adopt it out....but leave other women and their choices for THEIR life alone.....
  • This guy is a douche. If he gets elected, I'm moving out of this country.
  • Don't worry, it was probably only so he could "pimp out" the fact that he adopted a child and to help his campaign.
  • Well of course Abortion is Evil, but women are eviler for having sex anyways. Obviously, only Men should be able to tell people when to have babies!

    I'll give him one thing though, he's one of the only pro-lifers I've ever seen adopt children.
  • "Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children."

    But don't worry, everyone. He's still supportive of the death penalty. Who cares about the innocent men and women who have died there. We're all safe for now.
blog comments powered by Disqus