John McCain WILL overturn Roe vs. Wade

Update: Please recommend.  This is not a pro-choice or pro-life issue.  It's a common sense issue.

With the Democratic nomination so close I've begun to notice a lot of "I'll vote for McCain if [my candidate] doesn't win the nomination" talk.  You think this talk would come from independents and moderate Republicans, but recently I've even heard it coming from the mouths of Democrats. Any pro-choice, or responsible pro-life, American needs face reality and realize that:

JOHN MCCAIN WILL OVERTURN ROE VS. WADE

The media likes to portray John McSame as a maverick who will "do the right thing!"  But on this issue, and many others, he's exactly the same as Bush and the rest of the Religious Right who think that rich, white men in their 70s know what's best for women.  For anyone who thinks McCain won't take us back to the days of back alleys and coat hangers needs to take a look at his record.  From the non-partisan website On the Issues:

Prosecute abortion doctors(Jan 2000)
Restrict abortions; no partial-birth; no public funding. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Nominate justices based on experience, and values. (Jun 1999)

The media tells us McCain is a moderate, but this record shows us he's no different than Bush, Cheney, or the rest of them.  Not only is McCain pro-life, but he's against common-sense solutions to reduce teen pregnancy, like ending ineffective, Bush-backed, abstinence-only education.  McCain even supported parental notification laws despite the fact that nearly all health and safety groups pointed to increased risks of abuse, unsafe abortions, and higher teen suicide rates when those laws are in place

But hey, if you don't still don't believe me, look at McCain's own website

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.

But oh, our maverick isn't stopping there.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion

It's clear, President John McCain will not rest until every American woman who is placed in that difficult situation will be forced to have back-ally abortion or travel to Mexico or Canada.  Roe vs. Wade is supported by just five of the nine justices.  Of those five, NONE of them is younger than 70 (the oldest being John Paul Stevens, who is already 87).  The next president WILL be filling one of their seats on the bench.  

Even those of us who don't personally believe in abortion (me included) must realize that if Roe is overturned, America is going take an enormous leap backwards.  Millions of women will resort to back-allies or even self-performed abortions, risking their own health and the health of their babies.  THIS CAN NOT HAPPEN IN AMERICA.  Both Obama and Clinton are strongly pro-choice and will never take America down this road.  So for any Obama or Clinton supporter thinking of switching sides, going Green, or staying home in November, remember what is at stake.

•  Tips?

  All are welcome.

  by jkfp2004 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:10:54 PM PDT

  •  Thank you!!!!

    "Roe" is the only word that should need to be said to any Hillary or Obama supporter that is considering staying home, or voting for McCain in November,

    by smash artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:17:18 PM PDT

    •  John McCain will not overturn Roe v. Wade

      and he will NOT appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn it.  Why?  Because republicans like the issue where it currently stands as one rallying point for the party.  The leaders of the christian right love the issue for all the motivation it provides their followers and all the fundraising it assures.  As soon as Roe is overturned, the energy shifts to the other side.  Ain't gonna happen.

      by pikkel on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:38:13 PM PDT

      •  And republicans lose a wedge issue as well.

        I have been looking for the article online reporting that prior to Justice Roberts confirmation hearing that it was either Rove or Cheney who assured James Dobson that Roe would not be overturned.  Recall anyone>

        by pikkel on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:00:31 PM PDT

        •  Bullshit. n/t

          by inclusiveheart on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:10:19 PM PDT

      •  He'll appoint another Scalito,

        and the decision will be out of the hands of the political GOP.  Now, the federal congress might not ban abortion when/if the GOP retakes a majority, but sure as shit several states will.

        by burrow owl on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:09:30 PM PDT

      •  and besides that, they aren't gonna win

        the presidency.  Obama is going to be the next POTUS.  Really.  

        by fayea on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:49:26 PM PDT

    •  Sorry, Roe v. Wade is dead

      As the court is currently constituted, it's a sure thing to be overturned 5 to 4.  Read Justice Kennedy's 5 man majority decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, decided last term by Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts:

      While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained.

      In other words, the 5 Atillas have already held that women are carrying and sustaining human life from conception, and that women who want an abortion are too stupid to know what's good for them, not to mention the human beings inside their wombs.  I suggest we plan the next step now, because Roe is a dead as a doornail.

      by Navy Vet Terp on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:50:20 PM PDT

      •  Kennedy is just particularly horrified by

        D&X.  I think he's been a mushy pro-Roe vote. (he joined the O'Connor opinion in Planned Parenthood)

        by burrow owl on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:11:15 PM PDT

        •  That was long long ago - he's changed

          by Navy Vet Terp on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:36:46 PM PDT

•  He probably will, but does that matter more than

  the fact that Obama is inexperienced?

  by kingfishstew on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:13:22 PM PDT

  •  What does this comment even mean?

    by MJJLWolf on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:33:47 PM PDT

  •  It matters more to me.

    It is a driving force in how I vote.

    Absolutely.

    And I don't think Obama is inexperienced.  Maybe more inexperienced at being a Washington Pig but he will do just fine as CIC.

    by aimeeinkc on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:33:47 PM PDT

  •  It definitely should.

    Much hay has been made over the idea that Obama is "inexperienced", though he has more foreign policy experience than former President Bill Clinton had going in, though he has been right on foreign policy where Senator McCain has been grievously wrong, and where he predicted the housing crisis a year ago, calling for measures to prevent it while McCain didn't know and calls for nothing that will solve it.

    You want to compare executive managerial skills?  Look at how the three main candidates have run their campaigns.  Senator McCain's campaign was broke last summer and is still running on a tight budget.  None of the remaining candidates has ever been elected to an executive position and McCain has spent his time in the legislature and has the habits of legislators, habits that will be harder for him to unlearn at 72 that they will be for Obama at 47.

    So, good God, yes, Roe vs. Wade is much more important that the "experience" media narrative.

    by Meng Bomin on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:35:18 PM PDT

  •  Obviously not to you .. but your note a woman

    But it is important to me that I don't leave my daughter and granddaughters this horrible legacy .. besides how many presidents can you name who were senators first .. by your measure even Bill Clinton was inexperienced when he took office.

    Glad your so willing to sell women's rights over her own body down the road.

    But you should be aware that the people who beleive in overturning Roev Wade arfe also interested in denying contraceptives across the board.

    by Clytemnestra on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:48:42 PM PDT

•  but it won't matter because

  he will have ended our civilization.

  by dotcommodity on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:14:11 PM PDT

•  I'd Run Through A Brick

  wall to stop any women I might get pregnant not to have an abortion. Personally I'd like to have a few more rights on this issue. But with that said a women's body is her body and she can do with it what she wants. Why our government doesn't grasp basic concept is beyond me.

  by webranding on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:15:34 PM PDT

  •  What Extra Rights Do You Wish Men Had

    on the issue of a woman's choice about what to do with her own body?  What would you propose?  

    by karateexplosions on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:38:05 PM PDT

    •  I Wish I Had A Few More Rights

      I takes two to tango! What I'd like to offer makes no sense. But I want ownership. Does that make sense?

      by webranding on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:46:07 PM PDT

      •  I Don't Think It Does

        You want ownership of... what, exactly?

        by karateexplosions on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:50:24 PM PDT

        •  Here Is How Things Break Down

          I father a child. I don't want any part of it and the women is remotely smart, I pay.

          I want to be a part and I have no rights.

          That doesn't work for me .....

          by webranding on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:53:23 PM PDT

          •  Wear a condom.

            by browneyes on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:56:48 PM PDT

            •  Yeah, That Is A Given

              but doesn't address the core issue I have asked about.

              by webranding on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:58:28 PM PDT

              •  You're gonna be beating your head against

                the wall on that one.  Wasn't trying to be nasty.  I completely understand where you're coming from.  It sucks to feel like you have no control.  And I'm a woman.  It's just that this particular core issue can't really be addressed, just taken off the table.

                by browneyes on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:43:48 PM PDT

              •  Get a vasectomy. n/t

                by i like bbq on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:33:57 PM PDT

          •  Carry the pregnancy in your

            abdomen (or any other body part you would like) and then talk to me about having any say over whether you have rights.  When it's in our bodies it's parasitical upon us.  When it's born it's a citizen.  Women actually risk their health and lives to bear young.  I feel that entitles them to executive rights.

            by fayea on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:53:51 PM PDT

      •  If you develop

        polyps in your colon, caused by overconsumption of ice cream, are the polyps to be considered part property of the ice cream company?

        When the little sailors leave your ship to sally forth, they are out of your control, and if luck should have it that they cause conception to occur, that is similarly not something over which you should consider yourself a "co-owner."

        If it takes two to tango, and your actions lead to an unwanted pregnancy, should your part of the tango have involved steps to have made that unwanted pregnancy less likely?

        You have rights in the area where you deserve to have rights, as the biological father should the pregnancy go to term. Does the topic of male reproductive rights work for you if you invert the concept? In other words, would you have the right to demand an abortion from a woman who decides to carry to term? Does your support for this issue extend to all directions, for the sake of logical consistency?

        by mrblifil on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:52:27 PM PDT

  •  No doubt...

    I'd Run Through A Brick
    wall to stop any women I might get pregnant not to have an abortion.

    No doubt. Now, if you had said you would run through a brick wall to share child-rearing responsiblities (not costs) 50/50 with any woman you might get pregnant, then maybe we could talk about you getting a few more rights. As it is....

    by Free Spirit on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:39:02 PM PDT

  •  "A few more rights"?

    You mean, the right to decide what she does or doesn't so with her body? Awww, poor diddums, it's so unfair that the final say goes to the person who'd have to carry the damn thing for nine months, then give birth to it.

    When science permits men to have a foreign body sitting on their bladders/sciatic nerves and playing havoc with their hormonal levels for nine months, until it's grown to about 8 lbs., then shove it out their urethras (a process taking anywhere from a couple of hours to two or three days), perhaps with some people giving you a guilt trip if you elect to have local anesthesia rather than birth it "naturally"...then you can start whinging about how men don't have "enough rights" when it comes to pregnancy.

    Until then, shut the fuck up.

    by i like bbq on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:33:21 PM PDT

•  What happens

  if Roe v Wade is overturned?  I think it was a folly and disaster.

  by bugscuffle on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:16:35 PM PDT

  •  What will happen?

    Back-ally abortions, black markets, close hangers, women going to Mexico or Canada for abortions, falling down stairs hoping to miscarry.  This was the reality before Roe and will be again if it is overturned.

    by jkfp2004 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:20:03 PM PDT

    •  That Was The Past

      but it won't be the future. Would you allow this to happen to your girlfriend, wife, sister, or mom? Just won't happen.

      by webranding on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:27:18 PM PDT

      •  no, it won't if

        Roe is not overturned

        by Wufacta on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:31:34 PM PDT

      •  The problem is

        McCain's not just for overturning Roe, he's against greater access to contraception, better education, better health care, and all the issues that both pro-life and pro-choice Americans know would reduce the need of abortions.  He's just like Bush...only older.

        by jkfp2004 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:33:56 PM PDT

        •  See, We Win Here

          I come from a family where my sex ed was taught in school (1982-85). If my parents taught me the birds and the bees I'd still be trying to place my penis in .... well that is another story.

          We can and should win this debate. My parents didn't get the "gay" angle until a close family member came out. Then it hit home.

          This is win, win, and another win. And we should use it as such.

          by webranding on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:39:17 PM PDT

      •  Some women who are impregnated

        are nobody's girlfriend, wife, sister, or mom. And if states are allowed to outlaw the practice of abortion, causing people to travel great distances, many women are going to seek home remedies out of pure economic necessity. Get your head out of your ass already.

        by mrblifil on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:54:12 PM PDT

      •  Oh sure it would happen.

        It's not like people have gotten nicer or more protective since the pre-Roe days.  Men didn't want their wives, daughters, etal, to get backalley abortions then, either.  But it still happens.

        by burrow owl on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:14:12 PM PDT

    •  America was rapidly

      liberalizing it's abortion laws in 1973.  A majority of women lived in states where it was legal.  But the Council Of Nine Layers decided that it was too polical so, applying there special expertise in biology, gynecolgy and ethics, said"  "Don't worry your pretty little heads about it."

      yea.  That worked.  They moved the whole damn things into the courts.  now the debate is monopolized extremists.

      The day Roe is overturned, abortuion law will settle where democracy will cause it to settle: basically pro-choice but with reastrictiona against late term abortions.

      by bugscuffle on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:28:44 PM PDT

      •  Council Of Nine Lawyers, I meant

        by bugscuffle on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:32:11 PM PDT

      •  Roe's a civil rights issue

        No matter which way you look at it. What have we learned about the wisdom of allowing civil rights issues to be decided by the states? In anything?

        If this happens something that's a wedge issue at the national level will also become a wedge issue for every legislator and governor... I think it'll be a nightmare and really explode the 'culture wars' that we're trying to get behind. And you know they'll never find a consensus. The problem as to why abortion is controversial in this country over others is cultural, not institutional. As for extremists, Roe can be modified without being overturned; there are mechanisms built into the original reasoning for that.

        by Wufacta on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:35:26 PM PDT

        •  Roe caused the damn

          culture war.  Look.  I'm pro-choice.  But Roe removed the issue from the people, and mafde it a matter of litigation as a result, the debate is dominated by the extremes.  Those extremes represent less than 10% of public opinion.

          As a result, Left politics run around saying that if we donb't elect them, aborion will be outlawed.  Right politicians run around saying if we elect them, they will pass a constitional amendment banning them.  It's great rabble rousing, there is virtually no constituancy for a) aboltion or b) any abortion at any time for any reason.  The people are in the middle somewhere.  And that's where the law will end up.  

          by bugscuffle on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:43:04 PM PDT

          •  I dont think so, the demand of women

            for reproductive rights including abortion happened and the backlash caused the culture war. As much as most people claim, they aren't interested in the fine details of constitutional theory (where the real significant milestone was Griswold, not Roe) what's driving this is the substantive issue. And you don't eliminate the substantive issue by eliminating Roe.

            If Roe is gone and it goes back to the states, the extremes will still be enacted. Only it'll be one extreme in Utah and Mississippi and the other extreme in Massachusetts. There will be no 'middle somewhere', except maybe a few states. Right now, state legislators, Congresspersons, Governors, etc. running for office don't really have to deal with abortion. They get more time on bread-and-butter local issues and economic issues. Only at the Presidential level, where it helps Democrats I'm sure, because most Americans are on record as against overturning it by big margins. But if it goes to the state level that'll all change.

            by Wufacta on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:48:11 PM PDT

            •  That's another thing

              I hate about ROE.  It let's politicians off the hook and allows them to take demagogic postions on abortion kniowing damn well they will never have to address the issue.

              by bugscuffle on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:50:23 PM PDT

              •  should they also address

                the right to vote for those under 21? Prohibition? Who cares if they don't address the issue? They have plenty of issues to address already.

                by Wufacta on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:51:51 PM PDT

                •  WTF are you talking about?

                  Those are constitional amendments.  It takes a shitload of politicians to pass one of those.

                  by bugscuffle on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:53:39 PM PDT

                  •  ok, how about

                    the right to contraceptive? That was Griswold. Or the right to a lawyer if you can't afford one? If politicians had to go around revisiting every constitutional case in policy they'd never get anything done.

                    by Wufacta on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:55:42 PM PDT

                    •  There is

                      no constintuancy to deny anybody contraceptives.  And the right to council is derived from the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

                      by bugscuffle on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:28:13 PM PDT

                      •  That's a load of BS....

                        "There is no constintuancy to deny anybody contraceptives."

                        That's a huge load of BS.  Most of the extreme right wing thinks that contraceptions are a form of abortion.  It doesn't matter that this is not factual.  You do realize that there are more than a few pharmacists that are refusing to dispense a legally prescribed prescription for both PlanB and 'regular' BC pills.  Many States are having to institute laws saying that a prescription must be filled and law suits are being filed to overturn them.

                        by nchristine on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:48:07 PM PDT

                      •  nchristine Speaks The Truth

                        Pharmacists' Rights at Front Of New Debate
                        Because of Beliefs, Some Refuse To Fill Birth Control Prescriptions

                        Some pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and morning-after pills, saying that dispensing the medications violates their personal moral or religious beliefs.

                        The trend has opened a new front in the nation's battle over reproductive rights, sparking an intense debate over the competing rights of pharmacists to refuse to participate in something they consider repugnant and a woman's right to get medications her doctor has prescribed. It has also triggered pitched political battles in statehouses across the nation as politicians seek to pass laws either to protect pharmacists from being penalized -- or force them to carry out their duties.

                        "There are pharmacists who will only give birth control pills to a woman if she's married. There are pharmacists who mistakenly believe contraception is a form of abortion and refuse to prescribe it to anyone," said Adam Sonfield of the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York, which tracks reproductive issues. "There are even cases of pharmacists holding prescriptions hostage, where they won't even transfer it to another pharmacy when time is of the essence."

                        by karateexplosions on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:18:18 PM PDT

                      •  Another man on dK who

                        talks out his ass about reproductive rights, as the previous two replies to you have shown. Kindly read up on these matters before you start spouting off about them.

                        As for "removing" the decision "from the people," the people have no goddamn say over what I do or don't do with my uterus. Fuck that shit.

                        by i like bbq on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:30:04 PM PDT

            •  What will be the criminal penalty for abortion?

              Two years, five years, ten years in prison?  Heck if abortion is murder, then lets have capital punishment, the radical right loves their executions.

              And we should fight any attempt to put doctors in prison but not the women getting the abortions.  Doctors cannot perform an abortion without their patients instructing them to do so.  What kind of crime exists where the key perpetrator is exempt from punishment.  It's like legalizing armed robbery and prosecuting only the drivers of the get away cars.

              And if the Supreme's Court's rules on capital punishment are any guide, where any opponent of capital punishment can get kicked off a jury in a first degree murder case where the prosecution is seeking the death penalty, anyone who supports abortion rights will get kicked off the jury, leaving us with right wing biased juries prone to convict, a grim thought.

              I think women who support abortion rights should stop harping about their bodies and focus on the brave new world we will have when this becomes a crime, and we start filling up prisons, and building new prisons, for this new class of criminals.

              by Navy Vet Terp on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:01:40 PM PDT

              •  I read a "murder mystery" written in 1960

                the murder mystery was that a girl died in central park -- what was a mystery in 1960 was obvious to me, given the details - she died of a back room abortion

                the characters in the story were horrified that she would break the law in such a way and talked about jail time OR relegating her death (a botched abortion) to the realms if non-personhood/no investigation that is often rfeserved for hookers.

                There are ways to punish beyond putting people in jail

                by Clytemnestra on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:15:51 PM PDT

                •  Virginia Rappe died of a botched abortion in 1921

                  She was a silent screen star, and Fatty Arbuckle, the top movie star of his day, was arrested and falsely accused of her murder.  Arbuckle was acquitted, but it was the end of his film career.

                  I fear we're going to see many women suffer her fate in coming years.

                  by Navy Vet Terp on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:42:48 PM PDT

          •  you really think

            that the law ends up where the people are?
            Really?

            by vivadissent on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:51:15 PM PDT

      •  A Woman's Right To Control Her Own Body

        Is not subject to the whims of majority rule.

        by karateexplosions on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:36:03 PM PDT

        •  Say That Again

          and again!

          by webranding on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:40:13 PM PDT

•  But he loves this country

  and he'll stop Iran from training Al Queda and sending them to Irag.  My friends -

  by Rican1 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:18:57 PM PDT

•  It's not just Roe v Wade

  With Stevens and Ginsberg likely to retire, he can tip the balance for decades by appointing young justices.  

  Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito are all relatively young, and with two no justices the bad guys will have an unassailable majority.

  All those Hillaries who think they can't vote for Obama had better figure this out.

  by Katman on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:27:11 PM PDT

•  nit-pick

  "and close hangers needs"

  Should be "and clothes or coat hangers needs"

  The accessiblity to 'safe' and legal abortions needs to remain at the Federal level.  A patchwork of laws regarding this across the country will cause those with less means to be in a more difficult position than one with money.  Until there is thorough education in human reproduction and ways of preventing unintended pregnancies and other STI's, access to abortions needs to remain.  And the ban on 'partial birth' abortion needs to be repealed.

  by nchristine on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:31:37 PM PDT

•  Let them overturn Roe v. Wade

   I think that would be the very best thing in a Democratic Congress - the privacy angle behind the decision means that if the nutters can figure a way to peak under the gynecologist's exam gown then their opinion matters. If this fundamental right to control one's own body were written as such it would take away their number one dog whistle issue.

  by Stranded Wind on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:36:51 PM PDT

  •  I understand your strategy

    but for the millions of women who face this difficult choice, we need to put their needs before politics.

    by jkfp2004 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:40:22 PM PDT

    •  it will be quick

       It will be quick if it comes to that - down one week, and replaced with something sensible the next. This is the only way to execute. The events behind it will come from the state level and it'll happen in the context of a national repudiation of the disloyal Christian Right.

       That's my story, an' I'm stickin' to it.

      by Stranded Wind on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:59:51 PM PDT

      •  How nice.

        You're willing to bet women's lives on this happening.

        by i like bbq on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:36:13 PM PDT

•  I've been trying to tell people this

  especially those who will not vote for Clinton if Obama wins the nob or who will not vote for Obama if Hillary wins the nod

  Or those who will not vote or who will vote for Nader.

  Some have told me that I am sounding too alarmist

  I'm not

  Thank you for the diary!

  by Clytemnestra on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:44:08 PM PDT

•  Of course it's a PC vs. PL issue...

  John McCain is staunchly "pro-life." That's not a mystery. This is the prevailing reason in my mind why it's so unlikely that HRC supporters would be drawn to him, since she gets a lot of support from the pro-choice community, and these people could never under any circumstances get behind a McCain candidacy.

  I'll say it again. John McCain is a conservative pro-lifer, and as such presents a clear and present danger to our way of life. I guess Obama is waiting for HIllary to clear the field before he goes on record about the right to choose, but personally I don't see what he's waiting for.

  by mrblifil on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:46:32 PM PDT

  •  He has not waited

    he has already been "vetted" about this subject and gets 100% rating as ProChoice.

    by fayea on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:59:32 PM PDT

    •  Beside the point

      Why is Obama avoiding the subject? He has yet to mention the word "choice" in any affirmative sense, only when parrying attacks on his record. I need Barack Obama to point out for the world what McCain's positions on abortion are. Is that wrong of me? His pro-choice rating based on his tenure in Illinois is comforting, but if he's so 100% pro-choice, why is he relatively silent on the issue?

      by mrblifil on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:52:19 PM PDT

•  Even some of the most liberal, pro-choice

  constitutional law experts, including Alan Dershowitz, believe Roe is bad constitutional law.

  Abortion will continue to be safe and legal as long as the majority of American people want it to be.  And I don't see that changing.

  by browneyes on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:48:31 PM PDT

  •  so how many abortuon clinics are in your area?

    because they are closing all the time

    by Clytemnestra on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:56:43 PM PDT

    •  I live in a relatively rural region.

      East Tennessee.  We don't have too many actual "abortion clinics."  Never have.  The one located in my city is located on "Slaughter Street."  That has been the subject of many crude jokes over the years.

      Just so there's no misunderstanding... I'm pro-choice.    I'm also a woman, and a single mom at that.  I would just like politicians to stop using Roe as a nuclear weapon.

      by browneyes on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:04:50 PM PDT

      •  but they always will - it's a civil rights issue

        do you think in Bible Belt states abortion has a chance if Roe v Wade is overturned?

        They will even make it a crime for a woman to go to another state to have an abortion - they've tried this before.

        by Clytemnestra on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:08:40 PM PDT

        •  I actually agree with you in principal.

          I live in a "bible belt" state.  Well, sort of.  My point, obviously not very well stated (sorry about that), is that because the Roe decision itself may not be constitutionally sound, there needs to be a backup!

          by browneyes on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:13:43 PM PDT

          •  true it may be a foot in the door

            but it's the only foot in the door we have

            by Clytemnestra on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:16:46 PM PDT

    •  Women don't need abortion clinics

      just a wire coathanger or a someone with a baseball bat.I would list all the ways abortion could be done but I would run out of space to write.

      by defluxion10 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:05:00 PM PDT

      •  IF you tell me this was snark I'll remove the HR

        by Clytemnestra on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:09:22 PM PDT

        •  No this is not snark

          this was the ways it was done before abortion was made safe an legal and this is the way things will be again if the Republican's overturn Roe Vs, Wade.Return to the bloodbath days of "back alley" and "do it yourself" abortions.If you don't like what I said,well I guess you can't stand hearing the brutal truth of what women were forced to do before legal abortions,so give me a HR.I'm old enough to have had a cousin who did it,she was lucky and got away with it and didn't hurt herself and all because she couldn't stand being kick out of her church and highschool.Go ahead HR me.

          by defluxion10 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:31:50 PM PDT

      •  Well, I'm uprating this for obvious reasons.

        And amen for saying it...just in case folks forget what is really at stake in this upcoming election.

        by Pager on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:39:19 PM PDT

        •  thank you

          by defluxion10 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:38:47 PM PDT

  •  Tell that to teens

    in the state of Missouri, where I believe there is one abortion clinic in the entire state.

    The majority of people once had no problems with slavery. You act as if it would be justified to outlaw abortion, provided a majority of Americans agreed with that notion.

    by mrblifil on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:58:50 PM PDT

    •  Right... Let the States Decide

      See, there will be some states where slavery is legal... and then other states where it's not legal.

      Then everybody will be happy.

      Well, almost everybody.

      by karateexplosions on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:21:52 PM PDT

  •  I agree with them and you

    Abortion should be decided by state medical boards just like any other medical procedure. The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the legality of blood transfusions just because certain religious groups object to them. I find it strange that women see the upholding of Roe v Wade to be a womens rights issue. It seems to me that the right to an abortion should be an inalienable right granted by the Constitution, not a special dispensation granted by the Supreme Court.

    by jhecht on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:06:47 PM PDT

    •  Have you paid attention to the war on science?

      so do you know how much it takes to get it written into the Contistution ... were you alive when ERA was tried and failed?

      by Clytemnestra on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:11:17 PM PDT

      •  You misunderstood what I wrote

        I am saying this is a right already granted by the Constitution. Jehovah's Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists believe blood transfusions are a sin. Does the Supreme Court have to pass a law so other people can have blood transfusions? No. Can you think of any other medical procedure that needs to be sanctioned by the Federal Government or Supreme Court? I am simply saying that women shouldn't need permission from the Supreme Court to exercise rights which are granted by the Constitution.

        by jhecht on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:21:23 PM PDT

        •  A correction.

          Jehovah's Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists believe blood transfusions are a sin.

          That's not true.  Seventh Day Adventists do not believe blood transfusion is a sin.

          by Amor Y Risa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:47:28 PM PDT

      •  I have degrees in science.

        Specifically biology and chemistry.  BS, MS, PhD (Jokingly, BullShit, MoreShit, PiledhigherandDeeper)

        I find it personally appalling that government officials and even schools are eroding sound science.

        by browneyes on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:22:51 PM PDT

    •  Would a ban on blood transfusions in a

      state dominated by Christian Scientists be constitutional?  Following Roe, I think such a ban would be found unconstitutional.  Further, I think that's the correct result.

      by burrow owl on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:17:13 PM PDT

      •  I agree that it is a correct result.

        I would just feel a little more comfortable if it was a little less challengeable.  Is that a word?  Science is my strong point...not English.

        by browneyes on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:28:43 PM PDT

      •  That's my point

        Why use a hypothetical? The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the legality of blood transfusions despite the objections to them by numerous religious groups. Every medical procedure with the exception of abortion is sanctioned by states. I don't see why abortion should be any different.

        by jhecht on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:28:46 PM PDT

        •  gotcha - nt.

          by burrow owl on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:38:07 PM PDT

  •  Just because

    the majority of the people want it to be safe doesn't mean that the court or various state governments (particularly red state ones) will follow the will of the people. Republicans in general and the republican conservative majority SCOTUS have shown themselves to be tonedeaf to the will of the people and civil liberty in their ideological rigidity.  

    Furthermore, we have a lot of low info intellectually lazy americans that continually vote against their interests time after time because they would rather be lead around like sheep by their conservative masters.

    We really have to get the democratic party to start making an issue out of choice for the GE, before the GE starts so we can deflate the moderate maverick mythology and raise some serious consciousness over the implications of another republican presidency.

    by Cynic in seattle on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:08:53 PM PDT

  •  It's a *terribly* written opinion.

    But it's interesting because one can reconstruct a fairly elegant liberal originalism out of its muck.

    IMHO, there's great originalist logic and scholarship enmired in some of the worst writing this side of TimeCube.

    by burrow owl on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:30:06 PM PDT

•  Of course he will

  any Republican President that doesn't try as hard as they can to overturn Roe vs.Wade would be "burned at the stake" by the party.

  by defluxion10 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:57:36 PM PDT

•  More babies, fewer resources.

  Yeah that sounds about right.

  by jvantin1 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:09:34 PM PDT

•  I wish I could rub his face in the

  experience of a young woman dying of a septic abortion (result of the back alley or worse).  The data is clear:  legalizing abortion does nothing to the number or rate of abortions, it just makes less women die a horrible death.  I've seen septic abortion victims.  I never want to see another one again.

  by fayea on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:48:04 PM PDT

  •  The wingnuts *like* the idea

    of women dying of septic abortions. Or being maimed by them, or otherwise abused by the person performing them. Gotta punish the uppity slut for having the temerity to believe she has the right to enjoy "sex without consequences."

    by i like bbq on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:39:22 PM PDT

•  Please everyone -- Recommend this diary!

  Let's remember every day one important thing that McCain will destroy.  

  by Valhalla on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:13:59 PM PDT