I would have thought that the issue would have produced a swing much greater than 6 points. I'm a bit surprized.

Abortion should be advanced by the Democrats as an important issue in this campaign. In past elections, the court hasn't been quite so close to tipping on this issue - the lower risk of losing access to abortion made this not quite so salient in the minds of many pro-choice people, women in particular. The anti-choicers, however, always had their zeal since Roe was decided.

This time around, with Roe in the balance more than ever before, pro-choice people should be placing more emphasis on the candidate's abortion positions, as this election may well determine Roe's fate. That such a big swing in polled preference is attributable to knowing the candidates' positions on abortion only serves to demonstrate that people recognize the greater importance of this election relative to previous ones.

Does McCain actually believe that abortion should be illegal? Has he taken that position? Or has he merely said that he believes Roe should be overturned?

I'm not saying that overturning Roe is a 'merely' kind of thing; it would be hugely important (in a BAD way). But to overturn Roe would not, in itself, make abortion illegal; it would merely remove the barrier that has prevented states from passing laws making it illegal.

Perhaps a distinction without much of a difference, but it is still a distinction.

... that has prevented states and Congress from passing laws making it illegal.

I don't believe letting voters know that John McCain is a hard Pro-Lifer is going to be all that easy. For starters McCain's base in the press isn't going to tell any one the truth about John's views on abortion rights. Moreover people tend to believe what they want to believe whether it is true or not. What most low information women will think is that McCain is a maverick after all and being a maverick means he is a pro-choice Republican. We have our work cut out for us.

McCain isn't merely willing to have Roe v. Wade reversed; McCain is also on the record as saying that if he were governor at the time, he would've signed the South Dakota abortion ban (from 2006), which would've only allowed abortion when a pregnancy was found to threaten the mother's life. No rape exception, no incest exception -- doesn't matter, John McCain would've signed it.

(Note: Sure, McCain is also on the record as saying that he would work to protect exceptions for rape and incest, under state law... but that's right after saying that he'd *sign* the ban. He *would* sign the ban; he would *work* to revive the exceptions.).

Maybe there's something I don't understand about today's politics, but I'm not sure why Democrats should be afraid of challenging someone who's not only pro-life, but would defend the rights of rapists to force rape victims to bear their kids.

If the Democrats had someone who tried to defend such a position, does anyone doubt that Newt Gingrich, or his modern-day equivalent, would jump down their throats with a brutally effective attack ad, using only their own words?

Of course it won't be a big issue - after all, the shillarybots only care about supporting kkkarl rove and rush limbaugh's girl.

Some of these wackos even say they will vote for mccain.

Of course, faux news and much of the blogosphere is doing what they can to make a few crackpots appear to represent the entire nation.

there ya go Hillary supporters, vote for McCain. He could support revoking a woman's right to vote, and some of them would still cast their last ballot for the guy.

There are some downsides to publicizing McCain's strong anti-abortion position, since there are a lot of religious Catholics out there who are disgusted with the war, torture and the like but that are also anti-abortion, so if they are confused it's easier for them to reject McCain. I have a number of relatives who fall into that camp (I personally am a pro-choice recovering Catholic).

What most low information women will think ... We have our work cut out for us.

Posted by: Ron Byers on June 17, 2008

Ron,
Would you care to take a second stab at that and not insult women while doing so? I know you are better than this.

All polls of this nature, whether by NARAL showing that being pro-choice dramatically helps Obama, by the Brady Campaign showing that being pro-gun control dramatically helps whoever, by the American Council of Life Insurers showing that the American people strongly oppose the taxation of inside interest buildup on whole life policies (I kid you not, I saw such a poll), by the tobacco companies showing that people oppose restriction on smoking, etc., are not very credible.

McCain is hardly "pro-life." His whole campaign is pretty much pro-death. More war, longer wars, etc.

He is, though, without a doubt, anti-choice.

"most low information women will think"

Adjectives (such as "low-information") could possibly be used to describe EVERY person in the group, or to narrow down the group. Why would someone assume the worst, unless such a person wanted to be offended?

I don't think it's "tricky" at all, politically speaking. This is why you pay pollsters, or rather attacksters, to do carefully targeted and carefully written push polls.

Does McCain actually believe that abortion should be illegal? Has he taken that position? Or has he merely said that he believes Roe should be overturned?

If memory serves me right -- and if not I'll cheerfully stand corrected -- McCain has said that he believes Griswold should be overturned, which would put not only abortion but access to birth control at risk.

Which, of course, is the goal of the more extreme elements of the anti-choice movement. They got a lot of mielage out of the phony "partial birth abortion" issue; it's time their own extreme positions were dragged into the light.

flubber,
Yes just go ahead and label voters of select groups as low information.
That will certainly help us democrats fling off the elitist label real quick.
Ya wanna win in November or not?

The elimination of legal abortion and contraceptives is good news for people trying to figure out a way to survive in the US economy. Even if abortion becomes illegal, the market (black) will provide plenty of opportunities for both entrepreneurs and pregnant women to end pregnancies.

"there ya go Hillary supporters, vote for McCain. He could support revoking a woman's right to vote, and some of them would still cast their last ballot for the guy."

Keep runnin' your mouth, Obamabot, and for sure some Hillary supporters will vote for the guy, if only for the guilty pleasure of seeing him require you to either fill your uterus with future snowflake babies, or plug your vagina with rubber cement to prevent its unauthorized use.

What most low information "voters" will think ... We have our work cut out for us.

Is that better?

There is nothing wrong with being a low information person. Most voters are. Informing them is our job.

McCain doesn't just want to overturn Roe vs. Wade--he wants to go further, and he supports a national abortion ban. He's radical on this issue.

11/19/2006

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You're for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.

MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So is President Bush, yet that hasn't advanced in the six years he's been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn't done?

MCCAIN: I don't think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it's very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you'd be for that?

MCCAIN: Yes, because I'm a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don't believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade.

I'm guessing flubber doesn't spend the sort of money Frank Luntz spends coming up with the right word for the right wing.

Much better Ron. Thank you.

It will be best, as suggested here, to stretch McStrain between the barrels of appeasing his base and getting enough moderates to accept him otherwise.

delver23

I think the topic's been covered and have nothing to add to the discussion. I just want to ask what kind of fucking moron troll doesn't have the nerve to even sign a fake name to his lunatic ravings of 4:56?

BTW, conservative opposition to privacy rights etc. because "not in the Constitution" is phony because of the Ninth Amendment in same, which says that there are unenumerated rights (i.e., some valid rights are not in the USC.) Griswold was decided correctly against phony "strict construction." Conservatives keep evading the Ninth Amendment, maybe because it ipso facto proves "strict construction" to be fallacious.

kidkostar:
Being prolife, and pro war is not inconsistent. Just think of prolife, as pro-cannon-fodder.

To follow up on bigTom:
In Republican-land, the right to life ends at birth.

I find it hard to believe someone that wants to bomb bomb bomb bomb is pro-life. Its doublespeak.

It is no fun bombing if people do not die.

For the nameless commenter at 4:56 who appears on thread after thread spewing the same bile, may I suggest "Desperate Republican" (or "Adolescent Twit")?

The nameless commenter at 4:56 PM has W. Bush Traumatic Stress Disorder (WBTSD). Many Americans have it.

I remember a number of years ago, a lawyer who had represented many anti-abortion organizations was appointed to the Federal District Court. Criminal defense lawyers I knew feared the worst. But I remember one young woman returning from her first sentencing with the judge saying, wide-eyed, "He actually believes in the right to life for the living." Too bad there aren't more "right-to-lifers" like him.

It's just little bear. If you guys would ignore him he'd go away.

*

Has MHR ever posted a comment that wasn't deleted by the moderator?

I predict with Obama that the more voters learn his and McCain's respective positions, the more Obama's numbers will go up. You heard it here first (unless you heard it somewhere else first).

America was never meant to be a NASCAR-style monarchy of bush-clinton-bush-clinton

Only morons believe the democratic party is best served by kkkarl rove and rush limbaugh, shillary's 2 biggest advocates.

If that crowd wants to vote for mccain, saying somehow it is sexist to support Obama, LET THEM!

I do not believe Democrats are avoiding attacking
McCain on his position on Roe vs Wade, or his anti-abortion stances. It is early in the campaign and both Democrats and Republicans are focusing in on those issues that are polling the highest among the electorate, and right now those issues are the economy and the Iraq War. The Obama campaign will certainly shift and bring other issues into the forefront as the campaign continues. The Democrats will hit McCain with this eventually.

Enough with this stuff about shillary dry humping ANWR, crapping on Iraq, and screaming out like a banshee about some N**$% she wants assassinated. Some of you folks need some meds and I'm sick of your spittle on my glasses.

Yes, Hillary-McCain crossover voters are idiots (or trolls). We've had plenty of that kind of voter over the last 8 years. I reckon there are plenty of low information idiots who want to vote for Obama too. Take them and count your blessings. Unfortunately most people don't vote the issues and most people don't know the positions of the candidates. It's the way the world works.

I wonder if someone has done a geography / policy / accomplishment quiz for candidate supporters. I think we'd all be depressed.

In the exchange quoted by mcworse at 6:03, McCain says both that he wants a constitutional amendment banning abortion and that it should be settled state by state. He calls himself a federalist, but I do not think that word means what he thinks it means.

anandine, what he thinks it means depends on who he is talking to and how it serves his master.

No wonder that wacko shillarybots say they will vote for him - in many ways, he is a psychopathic a liar as she is (dodgin' gunfire in Bosnia and practically a hero at WTC on 9/11, right clinton dear?)

Anandine, he's a federalist the same way Southerners were for "states' rights."

If he can get a nationwide constitutional ban on abortion, this is best!

But if he can't get that, he'll settle for getting rid of the nationwide constitutional finding that abortion is a choice for women, not government, to make.

And, to quell the outrage for doing something opposed by a majority of Americans (taking away the right to choose), he will say it's not about abortion, it's about federalism.

It's not that McCain doesn't know what federalism means, it's that pundits don't seem to understand that "federalism" doesn't mean: "I can't take away these rights nationally, maybe I can take them state-by-state!"

He thinks abortion should be illegal, and if he becomes president he'll do his best to appoint Supreme Court justices who think so too.

Oh, please. Rolling back Roe and Griswold combined won't make abortion or birth control illegal. It just sends it back to the states, and if South Dakota couldn't make an abortion ban stick, no one can.

Like you blogger frat boys give a shit about women's issues. Unless to beat women's heads with so we'll vote for your guy. KMA

Sometimes we get women pregnant, though. It becomes an issue then, too.

And frankly, I'm an empathetic kinda guy, and don't necessarily need to be a women to concede you should have some rights over your body.

st john's position on abortion is easy. access for his daughters; not for anyone else:

McCain struggles with sensitive abortion question
By Jonathan Karl/CNN

January 26, 2000
Web posted at: 1:19 p.m. EST (1819 GMT)

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) -- Republican presidential candidate John McCain, when asked Wednesday what he would do if his 15-year-old daughter Meghan became pregnant and wanted an abortion, said it would be a "family decision."

"The final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel," McCain said, speaking of himself and his wife Cindy.

"I would discuss this issue with Cindy and Meghan, and this would be a private decision that we would share within our family and not with anyone else," McCain told reporters in New Hampshire on board his campaign bus nicknamed "The Straight Talk Express. "Obviously I would encourage her to bring, to know that baby would be brought up in a warm and loving family, but the final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel."

Back in 1999, when his maverick moon was still waxing, McCain said Roe was law of the land and we should simply accept it. Of course, he's vacillated wildly on this issue, as with most others issues.

It really doesn't matter what McCain personally believes. He's a modern man with a modern marriage, and in his own life he's completely comfortable with situational ethics. What matters here is the people who would elect him, anti-choice anti-modernists. McCain will obey the primary law of politics which is to reward your supporters.

If people haven't figured out yet that the Republican Party is anti-choice, it's unlikely they're educable on this subject. Moreover, they're probably bored with it as well. For the maybe 1% of women voting for McCain out of vengeance, overturning Roe might make a difference. But if you're that stupid to begin with.....

Oh, please. Rolling back Roe and Griswold combined won't make abortion or birth control illegal. It just sends it back to the states, and if South Dakota couldn't make an abortion ban stick, no one can

If the South Dakota ballot organizers organizers had included some exceptions for rape, incest, or the life and health of the mother, as they're doing this year, then the ban might well have passed. And there is, in fact, good reasons to fear that overturning Roe will have a signfigant effect on access to abortion:

According to data compiled by the Center for Reproductive Rights, were Roe overturned, abortion would immediately become illegal in 13 states, and there would be significant risk of new abortion bans in 20 other states. Obviously, to go from abortion being legal in all 50 states to a situation where abortion is illegal in 15 to 30 states cannot be seen as anything but a significant blow for reproductive rights. The question is not whether overturning Roe would be bad for reproductive rights, but how bad it would be.

Neil B positively nails it. The Ninth Amendment

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

is indeed the smoking gun that renders the "strict constructionist" argument moot. There are many rights that are not specifically documented in the Constitution (as per the 9th Amendment), and a right to privacy is an easily inferrable one.