John McCain decides to pick up some extremist street cred, vowing to overturn Roe vs. Wade and apparently overturn a Supreme Court decision with his two bare hands.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain, looking to improve his standing with the party’s conservative voters, said Sunday the court decision that legalized abortion should be overturned.
“I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned,” the Arizona senator told about 800 people in South Carolina, one of the early voting states.
Please somebody tell me you got that on tape. It’ll come in handy if McCain gets the nomination.
Keep lurching to the right Johnny boy (you too Rudy). It’ll help you so much in 2008.
Did they not hear about the mid-term results? Could it not be clearer that the country is sick of these social-agenda demagogues and is craving for leaders who will get things done ABOUT THINGS THAT ACTUALLY MATTER (the economy, health care, Iraq, Iraq and Iraq)?
Keep it up guys. We’ll have a filibuster proof majority in congress and the White House for the next 20 years if you continue.
If true as reported, I think McCain messed here.
He is now nearly complete in turning himself from a free-thinking, maverick (and he really was some years ago) into a right-wing zombie.
Ah, the wisdom of old fools.
It didn’t help in 2000, nor did it help in 2004.
Opinions on abortion have changed Oliver and you need to realize that. You keep spouting, “The majority of Americans are pro-choice” but fail to realize that most Americans do not support abortion rights in the way organizations like NARAL do which is abortion on demand at any time for any reason and at any age.
Overwhelming majorities support putting an end to partial birth abortions. A majority supports parental notification and a majority support restrictions. It’s not so cut and dried and anymore, so stop thinking the Democratic candidate will get a lot of traction out of it because they won’t.
Neither is it as cut and dried the way you want it Jay. People don’t want abortion banned – not even in freaking South Dakota. I don’t like abortion, I think partial birth should be banned – with exceptions for the health of a woman, I think we ought to have parental notification. That puts me pretty much in the mainstream, pro-choice position of the vast majority of Americans, and it’s the position of the Democratic party. The likely Republican nominee, on the other hand, just said he’d like to ban the whole thing.
Also, it didn’t help in ‘00 and ‘04 because the Republican candidate (Bush) pretended as if he weren’t anti-choice.
organizations like NARAL do which is abortion on demand at any time for any reason and at any age
What are you talking about? Like a kiosk at the mall or something?
Settle down, Beavis.
Nobody likes abortion. Nobody. That is not the issue. Legal and safe. That is and should be the only issue.
Jay, how right you are. Opinions about abortion are changing. We saw this South Dakota where the voters repealed the Women’s Health and Human Life Protection Act by referendum. Of course, that won’t stop the Supremes if McCain is allowed to further stuff the bench with radicals.
The likely Republican nominee, on the other hand, just said he’d like to ban the whole thing.
Well, that’s not what would happen if Roe V Wade were overturned. It’s another dishonest tactic used by people on the pro-choice side who attempt to scare people into thinking that if Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion suddenly becomes illegal.
All it would do is turn the decision back to the states (where it belongs anyway). Undoubtedly in most states, women would still be able to get abortions so I don’t know what the fear-mongering is all about.
And Duros, you know exactly what I am talking about. There is a good segment of support for the Democratic party (and people within the Democratic party itself) that supports abortion with no restrictions at all. It has nothing to do with “liking” abortion.
Yeah, good call Jay. Let’s have the people running Mississippi decide that abortion is illegal, or at least place such strong roadblocks to it such that it effectively becomes unattainable. Great idea.
Not every decision should be left to the states. For example, an individual state does not have the right to ignore the first amendment if they want to (do you think they should?). Can you possibly argue that the ability to obtain an abortion is a matter that should be dependent on where you live?
Wasn’t McCain for abortion before he was against it?
Yeah, good call Jay. Let’s have the people running Mississippi decide that abortion is illegal, or at least place such strong roadblocks to it such that it effectively becomes unattainable. Great idea.
I didn’t say whether it was a good idea or not. I merely corrected the record.
Not every decision should be left to the states. For example, an individual state does not have the right to ignore the first amendment if they want to (do you think they should?).
Apples and oranges. Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court decisions based upon an interpretation of an amendment. It is not an amendment itself. Therefore, no state could choose to ignore the first amendment as the the first amendment supersedes any state statute.
Can you possibly argue that the ability to obtain an abortion is a matter that should be dependent on where you live?
Why not? There’s things that people can do in one state they cannot do in another. Autonomy is not bad thing. Apparently, you think it is. If so, why bother having state governments?
When president McCain will have Roe overturned and immediately by Executive Order only allow himself to perform abortions – with his teeth. The stem cells may help his brain grow back since he seems to have now forgot everything he stood for in the recent past.
I brought the first amendment into the discussion as merely a demonstration that not every decision should be left to the individual states. I was not trying to draw a direct parallel between the right to free speech and the right to an abortion.
That being said, Jay, why do you think that states should be able to practice their autonomy on the matter of abortion rights, and not on matters that are covered in the Constitution (e.g., free speech, freedom of religion, etc.) What’s fundamentally different about abortion where it should be a state decision, while Arkansas cannot declare Christianity as it’s state religion?
I know there are things that you can do in some states but not in others (e.g., Nevada vs. Utah gambling laws). I feel that allowing for the possibility of some states to criminalize abortion will have disastrous effects on women’s health, ESPECIALLY the poor who might have a hard time getting to a clinic outside their state. Illegal abortions would likely become commonplace… certainly dangerous and potentially life-threatening situations would arise.
But more fundamentally, I think that a woman’s right to a basic medical procedure is her own business, and not the state’s.
So if, say, Iowa decides it wants to make slavery legal, they should be able to do that, yes?
Slavery is clearly outlawed by the 13th amendment. Abortion is not specifically protected by the constitution.