Fact or Fiction: The Debate and Reproductive Health


After two debates in which reproductive and sexual health issues
barely merited a mention, those of us waiting to hear the
presidential candidates clarify their stances on abortion, women’s
health, medical decision-making, equal pay and Supreme Court nominees
had a lot to pay attention to tonight. But the conversation wasn’t spin-free. Below,
we take the reproductive health and women’s rights portion of the
debate line by line, debunk the distortion and applaud the straight
talk.

On Judicial Nominees

Bob Schieffer began:

SCHIEFFER: Senator
McCain, you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Senator Obama,
you believe it shouldn’t.
Could either of you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on this issue? Senator McCain?

 

McCain responded first.

MCCAIN: I would never and
have never in all the years I’ve been there imposed a litmus test on
any nominee to the court. That’s not appropriate to do.

In fact, at a major speech on his judicial philosophy, McCain
promised to nominate strict constructionists "in the mold of Roberts
and Alito" to the Supreme Court. Strict constructionists are known to
reject the right to privacy, the foundation for Roe, on the grounds
that it is not enumerated in the Constitution.  Requiring this kind of
ideological purity is not a litmus test?

Obama’s response was slightly evasive — saying that Roe hangs in the balance, that he thinks Roe was "rightly decided," but claiming he would not support a "litmus test."

On Infant Protections

MCCAIN: Senator Obama,
as a member of the Illinois State Senate, voted in the Judiciary
Committee against a law that would provide immediate medical attention
to a child born of a failed abortion. He voted against that. And then,
on the floor of the State Senate, as he did 130 times as a state
senator, he voted present. 

 

We’ve debunked this accusation so many times it’s not funny.
The Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act was aimed at Roe, would
have interfered with state abortion law, and was bundled with other law
that would have increased physician liability — but, most importantly,
the infant protections that McCain claims Obama opposed were already
provided for in state law. In response, Obama hit many of the same
notes:

"There was a bill that was put forward
before the Illinois Senate that said you have to provide lifesaving
treatment and that would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade. The fact
is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required
providing lifesaving treatment, which is why not only myself but
pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it. And
the Illinois Medical Society, the organization of doctors in Illinois,
voted against it."

On Abortion Bans Without Health Exceptions

But McCain wasn’t finished:

Then
there was another bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the
state of Illinois not that long ago, where he voted against a ban on
partial-birth abortion, one of the late-term abortion, a really — one
of the bad procedures, a terrible. And then, on the floor of the
Illinois State Senate, he voted present.


I don’t know
how you vote “present” on some of that. I don’t know how you align
yourself with the extreme aspect of the pro- abortion movement in
America. And that’s his record, and that’s a matter of his record.

And
he’ll say it has something to do with Roe v. Wade, about the Illinois
State Senate. It was clear-cut votes that Senator Obama voted, I think,
in direct contradiction to the feelings and views of mainstream
America.

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban outlawed a form of safe abortion
without providing a health exception for instances in which that
procedure would in fact be safest for women seeking abortion care.  It
upset Roe’s careful balancing of a woman’s right to life and health
with the state’s interest in protecting fetal life. In his response,
Obama said he was "completely supportive" of a ban on partial birth
abortion, as long as the health of the woman was protected: "With
respect to
partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on
late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there’s an
exception for the mother’s health and life, and this did not contain
that exception."

And what about McCain’s allegation that in opposing a federal
abortion ban without a health exception, Obama is aligning himself with
the "extreme aspect of the pro-abortion movement in America?" While
Congress was considering a federal version of the ban, ABC News polling found that 60% of Americans supported a health exception to the partial-birth abortion ban.

On Protecting the Health of Pregnant Women

MCCAIN: Just again, the
example of the eloquence of Senator Obama. He’s health for the mother.
You know, that’s been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America
to mean almost anything.

The health exception allows women who are physically or mentally compromised by pregnancy to protect themselves by terminating. This means "almost anything?" This is "extreme?" Since when does ensuring protection of the health of women –  many of them mothers – when discussing abortion access become something to challenge or argue against? It’s a testament to the anti-choice movement that their positions are so extreme and punitive that they need to resort to attacking women.  

On the Role of Adoption in Reducing the Abortion Rate

MCCAIN: But, look, Cindy and I are adoptive
parents. We know what a treasure and joy it is to have an adopted child
in our lives. We’ll do everything we can to improve adoption in this
country.

But that does not mean that we will cease to
protect the rights of the unborn. Of course, we have to come together.
Of course, we have to work together, and, of course, it’s vital that we
do so and help these young women who are facing such a difficult
decision, with a compassion, that we’ll help them with the adoptive
services, with the courage to bring that child into this world and
we’ll help take care of it.

 

McCain repeatedly implied that supporting adoption services would lower the abortion rate. Tempting rhetoric, but not true, Guttmacher studies have shown. Increases in the relinquishment rate of newborns cannot be correlated with decreases in abortion rates. More than that, it is clear that when women have options during pregnancy – a full range of options – they are able to make the best decisions for their lives and the lives of their families. It is unclear whether McCain thinks that increasing access to adoption services for pregnant women will reduce the abortion rate. What is clear is that there are currently 150 million orphans in the United States alone – if McCain wants to institute policies to increase access to adoption services, it would be most beneficial to start with the 150 million orphans currently in need of loving families. 

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • invalid-0

    McCain can go somewhere if you ask me to so callously put women’s health in air quotes but on another note don’t we now have all the proof we need to show he doesn’t give a flying frick about our health? That made me so mad cause as I have stated on this site before I was a woman with a health exception. I was going to die. I guess my life means squat to McCain. Not just women who have had abortions due to health situations should be mad we all should be mad. That was ridiculous and I am still seeing red! I guess I shouldn’t be shocked but to put it in air quotes horrible. And for McCain and any other haters out there we prochoicers don’t do what he says just another stupid antichoice myth. This is why I am voting for Obama well one of the many reasons. Peace, Liz.

  • http://amyadoptee.blogspot.com invalid-0

    Lets really look at his adoption stance. His wife, Cindy, brought home a girl without getting a homestudy and without using proper channels. In fact his wife at the time was addicted to prescription medications.

    You are right. Adoption does not reduce abortions. Resources for women do reduce abortions. There was a Catholic study on this just recently. They found that if women were given proper support to raise their own child, they would rather raise their child than abort their child.

    Lets also talk about how the adoption industry treats adoptees and their families as some adoptees are women too. They treat women who place as common whores. They treat adoptees as product. They scam off the adoptive parents each and every time. Its time change things. I don’t want another four years with someone like McCain nor Palin.

  • invalid-0

    With absolutely no malice to people who have adopted children in general, as once a child is born the most important thing is to ensure they are well-raised, I personally tie the pro-adoption push as tied in with the GOP/ conservative values on who is important in our culture.

    Not only is a fetus more important than the woman who carries it, but who does the “adoption industry” benefit? In general, lawyers making a profit off of what often is a literal trafficking of infants and rich white people who can afford to “buy in” to an adoption. The encouragement is offered to young white women who can give them perfect newborns. These are the people “worthy” to raise children in the eyes of smug, wealthy hypocrites.

    There is now also the popularity of foreign adoption while thousands upon thousands of kids languish in the foster care system in the US. Some of these adoptions truly are born of a desire to help children in horrendous circumstances, stuck in orphanages with little or no hope for a normal life. Many, though, come as an attempt to get a newborn out of what we in the US see as a “lesser” country- these poor people don’t know any better, we need to rescue their children! Which is the same attitude that is being given to women in our own country, need to rescue them because they don’t know what’s best.

  • invalid-0

    150 million orphans would be a little less than half of the US population. You might want to check your numbers. Misleading folks with bad statistics is hardly a way to win people over.