McCain does want to overturn Roe V Wade

I have heard John McCain say many times before that he believed that Abortion is wrong and that the we should let the states decide it. He said it again tonight.

If the moderator raised the question, why didn’t he follow up with… “Senator McCain, if you believe that Roe V Wade is wrong and flawed, and that the states should decide it, then obviously you want the SCOTUS to overturn it and then turn it back to the states, right sir?

A huge flip flop…

First, McCain said he thought Roe v. Wade should be overturned and said he would support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in danger.

Then, McCain said, “I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary.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 women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” A spokesman said that McCain “has a 17-year voting record of supporting efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade. He does that currently, and will continue to do that as president.”

Er…hm? What are you asking here?

ETA: Did you accidently post this in GQ when you meant Great Debates?

Was there a question in there somewhere?

Sorry, yes I meant to ask it here. My question is; to turn the abortion question back to the states, does roe v wade not have to be first overturned.

No. It could also be rendered irrelevant by a Constitutional Amendment.

McCain does have a relatively abortion-friendly voting record, for a Republican. On the other hand, Planned Parenthood gives him a 0 rating.

Now that is something I don’t understand. If he has as you say an “abortion-friendly voting record” does that then not go against what he said in the debate tonite? It appears that he is bestriding a colossus.


Moving to Great Debates



I’d like to know more about this.


Never mind. It isn’t true. He’s voted for embronic stem-cell research (ability and funding) fairly consistently, and I conflated the two.

I was confused because he tends to pick up the majority of pro-choice votes in Republican primaries (43% in this last go-round, for example) without actually being pro-choice.

Did I hear correctly that McCain put “health of the mother” in airquotes when describing what was wrong with Obama’s stance on abortion?

Yes you did. And those of us in the “pro abortion” crowd have stretched that to mean almost anything. That should shore up the last of those Hillary voters for Obama. :slight_smile:

That motherfucker’s toast. :mad:

It has been noted here and elsewhere that the last thing Republicans want is for Roe to be overturned. Of course they say they do but privately, as politicians, they do not. Roe is a wedge issue for them and they get faaar more mileage out of it as it stands now than they would if it was overturned. Not to mention if it was overturned that would energize the Left.

In short I wouldn’t worry too much about what politicians say on this. The Mexican Standoff they have going suits both sides just fine.

I don’t want to hijack too much, but I’ve always wondered about this: what do the pro-lifers want to do about all the babies that would result if people stopped getting abortions? The most recent data I can find indicated that in 2004, 839,226 legal abortions were performed in the US. (CDC link) The Republicans haven’t traditionally been the party that supports welfare for these kids, the mothers don’t want them, and the first adoption stats I could find (from the US dept of Health and Human Services) seem to indicate that a little more than 51,000 adoptions were recorded in the US in 2007 (and previous years were similar).

Not to be cold or pragmatic, but what the hell are we going to do with 788,000 unwanted children every year?

Ever wondered why most hardline Conservative Republicans support the death penalty? Unwanted children for the most part end up in a bad way - a bad idea(unborn >>> fetus), to born unwanted.

I have a modest proposal.

That’s a totally separate thread, but to answer your question as briefly as possible, the plans for what to do “afterward” are many and varied.

Lots of people want more funding for foster care, although there may not be more foster parents available.

Others want more funding for adoption services; there are definitely more families who want to adopt, but many of them are disqualified for financial or social reasons.

In general, I think it’s fair to say that most people who are pro-life simply haven’t thought about this aspect.

Note that overturning Roe wouldn’t mean a total ban on abortion, simply that the states would have the right to restrict it. I imagine there would be a dozen or more bills introduced in Congress calling for a federal ban on abortion, but that’s not a foregone conclusion.

Don’t take this as a hijack, but McCain cannot and will not do anything with abortion, any more than Barack Obama with his 0 rating from the NRA is going to be able to do anything with regard to gun control. Roe is settled law. Roberts said it at his confirmation hearing, the Rehnquist Court didn’t overturn it, and legislation in Congress rarely makes it out of committee, let alone to a vote where it loses anyway.

Why do we keep harping on this over and over again? It’s a done deal. Abortion is a fact. So what if there’s a vocal minority opposing it? There is not an issue on the planet that you can’t get 20% opposition to. McCain has an obligation to at least touch on the topic, and he said nothing earth-shattering, he said what the Republicans always say. Why is it that this time it’s something to be afraid of?

You know, There is likely not a single issue that Obama and I agree on, yet I intend to vote for him. Am I running around in a panic about how Obama is going to screw over everything that I hold dear? No. Mostly because he can’t, but also because he only has so much time and so many things more important to address. Abortion is such a low-priority item that even if McCain wins he’s not going to have the capital to do even so much as get a bill to his desk.

Some of you need to get a grip on whatever it is you’re afraid of. It won’t happen. We could elect the Pope and it wouldn’t happen.

In 2002, Bowers v. Hardwick was settled law.

In 2003, it got unsettled.

Just to make assurance double-sure, I wanna send John McCain back to Arizona permanently to live out the rest of his years in the lap of luxury sipping Kool-Aid from Cindy’s bellybutton or what is left of it.