Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login
 
Clinton Bush Haiti Fund: Donate Now
Custom Search

The opening of the article shows a glimpse of the real McCain.

John McCain was mad. Fuming mad. It was then the early days of his political career, and he had paid an unscheduled visit to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Mesa, which was within his Arizona congressional district. That's when Gloria Feldt, then the CEO of the group's local chapter, got a phone call. "Congressman McCain is here," a staffer told her, "and he is screaming and it is upsetting the patients."

Feldt says McCain had always refused her offers to visit a clinic, but had apparently decided to make a spot visit of his own. What had raised his ire was a shelf containing information about Title X federal funding, which some clinics receive to support non-abortion-related reproductive health care for low-income women. McCain was upset that the clinic provided paper for people to write their representatives in support of the legislation, which requires constant advocacy because Congress must reauthorize it every year. "His immediate and incorrect assumption," says Feldt, "was that we were using federal funds to pay for lobbying." Feldt got on the phone. "He was screaming, 'I am going to defund her, I am going to get the federal government to defund you.'... [H]e rants and he raves and finally he hangs up on me."


McCain has played an image of someone who never really thought about contraception and abortion for the media. As the article points out he's done his share of "You've stumped me" and "I never really thought about it" to give voters the idea that he is not as anti-choice as his voting record shows. But he has thought about it, often. The only thing he is stumped on is how to phrase his anti-choice views in a way not to turn off the key moderate votes he is counting on.
80
Vote
Add To: del.icio.us Digg Furl Spurl.net StumbleUpon Yahoo


   
Subscribe to this blog 


Just this blog This blog and DailyOrble (recommended)

   
Email this post to a friend 

   
Go to the Orble Politics Channel 

   
Start your own blog 


Recent Posts:
      Brief Political Tidbits of the Day.... 
      KP Week-End (2/6/2010): California's Wake Up Call (An Update) 
      Obama On the Campaign Trail: First in a Series.... 
Comments
7 Comments. [ Add A Comment ]

Comment by MomsInTheRight

August 13th 2008 15:48
Just to be fair, if you're going to call McCain Anti-Choice does that mean I can call Obama Anti-Life? If you look at his voting record both in IL and in the Senate, you'll see he has always voted against protecting life. He even voted against the protection of babies who survived abortion stating that allowing the baby to live would impact the mother's mental state. Just to be clear these are babies who were aborted late in the third term and could have lived much as premature babies live with the proper medical treatment, but they were killed by the Doctors performing the abortion after being removed from the mother. It is all very well to say it is a matter of reproductive choice, but I think that takes away what actually happens in the act of aborting a fetus.

Comment by Summer Minor

August 13th 2008 19:13
No, because Obama is not anti-life. Protecting the mother is far more pro-life than the anti-choice people could ever pretend to be. To be honest, I've never actually seen a "pro-life" politician actually support anything that helps life.

He even voted against the protection of babies who survived abortion stating that allowing the baby to live would impact the mother's mental state.

Oh, I see. When you call yourself MomsInTheRight what you really mean is mom unable to actually look at facts or make a rational decision. What actually happened is he vetoed the Born Alive act. Why? Well number one is outlined several cases of a premature baby surviving, not just abortion, and each of the cases outline is already covered by previous law. Secondly because the wording could easily be used to prevent abortions after 22 days, when the heart starts beating.

What the bill actually did, and Obama's vetoing it is far more pro-life than those who wanted it because he actually cared about the people alive (Gasp, hard concept I know) was to raise the idea that abortion result in live births thereby promoting the idea that the women and doctors who do this are actually baby killing monsters.

Did you know that in the 1950s there was a study done on women in San Fransisco Bay in which women were considered mentally ill if they did not want to get pregnant and received shock treatment? The people who worded the bill were most likely drooling over the idea of bringing that back. Because, after all, women are really live you know. Just the 22 day old fetuses. How "pro-life"

Now, do you really think any candidate would be able to run with infanticide hanging over them? Especially when if Obama even burps the talking heads have to discuss whether or not that means's he's really a Muslim terrorist born in another country.

Pro-life apparently means save the fetuses, then ignore them til they're old enough to enlist. Pro-choice means hey, you know the women are actually lives too.

Comment by MomsInTheRight

August 13th 2008 19:41
Moms In The Right is the name of my blog. The fine ladies over at Momocrats had already registered Republimoms to prevent anyone with conservative political leanings from creating a voice on the net for conservative moms. So I chose another name.

I am completely able to look at facts and make a rational decision. Just because my decision doesn't match yours does not mean it isn't rational. The right to life is a foundational right. Without it you do not have the right to liberty or anything else. Just because a life will be lived in poverty does that make it a life less valuable?

Why should I have the "right" to decide whether or not someone else should live?

FYI..."in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an IL state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion - even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama's legislative actions in 2003 - denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions - were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose.

In 2000, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was first introduced in Congress. This was a two-paragraph bill intended to clarify that any baby who is entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who shows any signs of life, is to be regarded as a legal "person" for all federal law purposes, whether or not the baby was born during an attempted abortion.

n 2002, the bill was enacted, after a "neutrality clause" was added to explicitly state that the bill expressed no judgment, in either direction, about the legal status of a human prior to live birth.

(The "neutrality" clause read, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section.")

The bill passed without a dissenting vote in either house of Congress.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama, as a member of the IL State Senate, actively opposed a state version of the BAIPA during three successive regular legislative sessions. His opposition to the state legislation continued into 2003 - even after NARAL had withdrawn its initial opposition to the federal bill, and after the final federal bill had been enacted in August 2002."

You can read the rest here: Really Long Link

No one should have the "right" to decide whether another person lives or dies.

Comment by Summer Minor

August 14th 2008 00:54
No one should have the "right" to decide whether another person lives or dies.

Really, then why are "pro-life" so gung-ho on going to other countries and blowing up anyone with skin slightly darker than them?

Pro-life? Ha! Pro-forced abortion. If they were really against abortions they would be for providing birth control and comprehensive sex ed to prevent the pregnancies to begin with. They're not, abortion is just the topic they toss out to get people who don't pay attention to vote for them. What they want to to force women back into submission. And they'll say anything and accuse anyone of anything to get there.

Comment by RubySoho

August 14th 2008 01:09
Can someone please explain to me this bandwagon that pro lifers are jumping on regarding Obama wanting to kill live babies al partial birth abortions?

Please.

Comment by Summer Minor

August 15th 2008 02:34
Ruby, because he's a black Muslim terrorist baby eater. Didn't you know?

Comment by denimpetal

August 18th 2008 18:57
I am not ashamed to say I had an abortion. I was 16 and have suffered from schizophrenia since 14. I was not in any position to raise a child and at the same time I know that giving my baby away for adoption would of killed me.
Luckily I live in the U.K and I was treated well. Councellor (sp) sessions first provided by the family planning clinic. The whole experiance was set so that I was 100% comfortable to talk about my dillema with trained people who made sure I wasnt't just going into that as an easy way out.
Because it never is. People who've never had an abortion don't realise that is so hard, something heartbreaking but sometimes neccesary. I can't stand "pro-life" people acting as though this is just an easy "sin" that we are cold blooded. It is NEVER the easy way out

Add A Comment

To create a fully formatted comment please click here.


CLICK HERE TO LOGIN | CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Name or Orble Tag
Home Page (optional)
Comments
Bold Italic Underline Strikethrough Separator Left Center Right Separator Quote Insert Link Insert Email
Notify me of replies
Notify extra people about this comment
Is this a private comment?
List the Email Addresses or Orble Tags of the people you would like to be notified about this comment


One per line max of 30

List the Email Addresses or Orble Tags of the people you would like to be notified about this private comment thread. Only the people in this list will be able to see or reply to your comment.


One per line max of 30

Your Name
(for the email going out to the above list, it can be different to your Orble Tag)
Your Email Address
(optional)
(required for reply notification)
Submit
More Posts
6 Posts
16 Posts
14 Posts
382 Posts dating from June 2008
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:
0
View Blog Summary ] [ Create A New Post ] [ Add A Comment ]

Mike Pouraryan's Blogs

59930 Vote(s)
566 Comment(s)
1437 Post(s)
10003 Vote(s)
122 Comment(s)
217 Post(s)
Moderated by Mike Pouraryan
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]