AmericanPapist Comments
McCain is not pro-life. He is, at best, a nominal anti-abortion utilitarian.
- he supports use (killing) of "leftover" embryos for ESCR
- he says that there is a "need" for ESCR
- he previously supported fetal tissue research
- he supports rape/incest exceptions for abortion
- he says that he's not much interested in social issues
- he said in 1999-2000 that he opposed reversing Roe at that time
- he said in 1999-2000 that there was a "need" for legalized abortion or else women would die in back-alley abortions
- he said in 1999-2000 that, if his own daughter were to have an unplanned pregnancy, there would be a "decision" to be made, and that it would be a family decision
- he has never been involved in public pro-life advocacy, and has merely cast votes on life issues
- when the Senate considered a resolution in support of Roe, McCain did not vote
Thanks, Bender. This indeed presents a disappointing picture. My own very brief research suggests that there is little info since the 2000 campaign, so I suppose one can hope that McCain has since made additional moral progress, but the facts don't appear very comforting. I do think that Mac is far far more likely to appoint judges who are open to overturning Roe than either Dem. This is not unimportant.
Moral progress since 2000? Maybe personally, but one can comb through the Internet in vain looking for many public comments that McCain has made defending life, rather than defending his "pro-life" voting record. Indeed, one can search through the Congressional Record for the last 20 years and find very few occasions where McCain had anything to say at all regarding abortion. My own summary search showed that he did -- once -- speak out against partial birth abortion, but then in his remarks opposing a federal constitutional amendment protecting marriage, McCain said this --
Let me pose a hypothetical situation to illustrate why we should be reluctant to impose a constitutional remedy to a problem that will probably be resolved in an ordinary, State by State political process, consistent with the respect for federalism we Republicans have long claimed as one of our virtues. Those of us who consider ourselves pro-life would welcome the Supreme Court's reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision that found a constitutional right to an abortion. The result of that reversal would be to return the regulation of abortion to the States, where the values of local communities would be influential. Now, further suppose that abortion rights advocates held majorities in both houses of Congress, and rather than argue State by State for liberal abortion laws, they decided to usurp the States' authority by means of a constitutional amendment protecting abortion. Wouldn't we who consider ourselves federalists loudly protest such a move? Wouldn't we all line up on the floor to quote Mr. Madison from Federalist Paper 45, that:
"The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."
Yes, we would, Mr. President, yes, we would.
152 Cong Rec S 5450 (June 6, 2006)
If McCain opposes a constitutional amendment protecting abortion on federalism grounds he clearly would oppose (if not "loudly protest") an amendment protecting human life on federalism grounds. In other words, if a given state wants to legalize death-by-abortion, that, as someone who considers himself to be a federalist, would be fine by him.
CNA points out that Catholics supported Clinton and McCain on Super Tuesday, but if you look at the total votes, Obama received almost as many Catholic votes as McCain.
Quoting Bender:
If McCain opposes a constitutional amendment protecting marriage on federalism grounds he clearly would oppose (if not "loudly protest") an amendment protecting human life on federalism grounds. In other words, if a given state wants to legalize death-by-abortion, that, as someone who considers himself to be a federalist, would be fine by him."
Bender, in all fairness I don't think the second sentence necessarily follows from the first. Currently, under our federal system it is not the place of the federal government to outlaw murder; that is the province of the states. If for whatever reasons some states elected to permit murder, I'm honestly not sure that a remedial constitutional amendment would be a good idea. The Framers were, in my view, wise to reserve ordinary police powers to the states. I can appreciate why others would come out differently, but I don't think it follows that one's reluctance can be fairly translated into murder is "fine by me."
That said, I acknowledge that just because your conclusion doesn't follow from your reasoning, doesn't mean that your conclusion is wrong.
katherine,
Your observation is a sad one in my view, but I'm curious as to what its point is.
And for the record, I do think it is quite possible for a good Catholic to support either Obama or Clinton, though I think it requires quite a bit of mental gymnastics in order to overcome their support of abortion. But if one makes enough good faith assumptions that include enough assumed facts, it is possible.
In any case, if your point is that many Catholics are not especially good Catholics, well can't we just stipulate?
Commenting by HaloScan
