Extracted from the Michigan primary election exit poll of January 15, 2008: This discussion includes only the two top finishing Republican candidates. (This question was not included in the exit poll of Democratic voters, not sure why they would have been different in the questions asked. But it is worth noting that the only Democratic candidates on the ballot were Clinton, Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich, and “Uncommitted”. Neither Obama or Edwards was on the ballot because of some Democratic party issue with the date change. Clinton won most issues but Uncommitted did have its share of wins and finished a close second overall. The details are here.)
62% of the Republican voters polled declared abortion should be illegal and 35% stated it should be legal. Of the voters who declared “abortion should be legal”, the majority had voted for John McCain. Those declaring “abortion should be illegal” mostly voted for Mitt Romney. That prompted me to take a closer look into the record of both of these candidates where it concerned abortion.
McCain garnered the largest percent of votes from proponents of legalized abortion even though his record shows him on the other side. Here are some of his statements:
“I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary.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.” - Source: Ron Fournier, Associated Press Aug 24, 1999
“I am proud of my pro-life record in public life, and I will continue to maintain it. … As a leader of a pro-life party with a pro-life position, I will persuade young Americans [to] understand the importance of the preservation of the rights of the unborn. - Source: GOP Debate in Manchester NH Jan 26, 2000
McCain in 1999 expressing support for the overturn of Roe v. Wade.
2005: 0 percent
2004: 0 percent
2003: 0 percent
2002: 0 percent
2001: Because only one choice-related vote was taken in 2001 – to confirm John Ashcroft as United States Attorney General – no numerical score was given for the year. Sen. McCain voted anti-choice.
2000: 0 percent
1999: 0 percent
1998: 10 percent
1997: 5 percent
1996: 0 percent
1995: 0 percent
1994: No numerical scores were given this year; of the three choice-related votes taken in 1994, Sen. McCain voted anti-choice on all three.
1993: 5 percent
1992: 10 percent
1991: 0 percent
1990: 0 percent
Source: ProChoiceAmerica.org
Romney got the most votes from those of the opinion abortions should be illegal. This ignores his past support of pro-choice and vote for legalizing RU-486 and accepts that he has changed his mind.
“On a personal basis, I don’t favor abortion,” he said. “However, as governor of the commonwealth, I will protect a woman’s right to choose under the laws of the country and the commonwealth. That’s the same position I’ve had for many years.” - Source: Erik Arvidson, Lowell Sun Mar 20, 2002
While running for governor in 2002, Romney stated on a NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts survey: “I respect and will protect a women’s right to choose. This
choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the governments.” - Source: Scott Helman, Romney’s Journey to the Right, BOSTON GLOBE, Dec. 17, 2006.
“In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead–to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or a commodity to be exploited,” Romney wrote in an opinion piece in Tuesday’s Boston Globe. He also said he believes each state should decide whether to allow abortion, rather than having the “one size fits all” precedent of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion. - Source: Associated Press on NewsMax.com Jul 27, 2005
Q: “You were effectively pro-choice as governor?”
A: “About two years ago, when we were studying cloning in our state, I said, look, we have gone too far. It’s a “brave new world” mentality that Roe v. Wade has given us, and I changed my mind. I took the same course that Ronald Reagan took, and I said I was wrong and changed my mind and said I’m pro-life. And I’m proud of that, and I won’t apologize to anybody for becoming pro-life.”
Q: “Some people are going to see those changes of mind as awfully politically convenient.”
A: “When I ran for the first time, I said I was personally pro-life but that I would protect a woman’s right to choose as the law existed. Two years ago, as a result of the debate we had, the conclusion I reached was that cloning and creating new embryos was wrong, and that we should, therefore, allow our state to become a pro-life state. I believe states should have the right to make this decision, and that’s a position I indicated in an op-ed in the Boston Globe 2 years ago.” - Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007
Q: “In recent months, you’ve said you were “always for life,” but we’ve also heard you say you were once “effectively pro-choice.” Which is it?”
A: “I’ve always been personally pro-life, but for me, it was a great question about whether or not government should intrude in that decision. And when I ran for office, I said I’d protect the law as it was, which is effectively a pro-choice position.” - Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007
“Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. I changed my position. And I get tired of people that are holier-than-thou because they’ve been pro-life longer than I have. But I’m proud of the fact.” - Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007
Here is what he said in 2002:
Here is what he said in 2005:
Despite his denial of being pro-life just a short time ago, and pro-choice, Romney makes no apologies about being pro-life now. Draw your own conclusions about that.
I am not expressing a personal opinion about abortion either way here in presenting this evidence. I do feel the evidence and words of the candidates should be evaluated carefully before you decide they represent your views on any subject.
Abortion is not an issue that is at the top of the list these days, but I find it interesting how it may tie to the other issues. For instance, most of those saying they were dissatisfied with the Bush administration voted for McCain while those expressing approval of the Bush administration voted for Romney. Those expressing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq voted for McCain while those approving voted for Romney. Voters saying that issues were more important leaned toward Romney while voters saying saying personal qualities made more difference voted for McCain. I don’t know if there is any interconnection of this data. It could also be that exit polls are worth exactly nothing.
January 25th, 2008 - 12:33
I realise a European libertarian would seem to conflict with your idea of what a libertarian is, as we come from two distinct cultural histories, ours, however, is much older. There have been libertarians in Europe since before we sent settlers to the colonies, but they didn’t go. Mostly those who went were religious fundamentalists, some of whom then thought they’d call themselves libertarians, because they believed in personal liberty.
The European tradition of libertarianism is anarchist. We also believe in personal liberty and are against the state, but, unlike the US version, we aren’t stuck in a rightwing mindset, where we despise the working class, despise the poor, despise anyone needing help. We don’t defend the rich and priviledged against the rest, and we don’t stop our espousal of personal liberty when it comes to women and their bodies. ONLY a woman can decide whether to continue with a pregnancy, YOU have no right whatsoever to even have an opinion on the matter. So much for personal liberty, when people like you go shooting doctors and causing women to fear for their lives with your doctrinaire fascistic attitude. It is a woman’s body and she can do what she damn well likes and that includes giving life to a fetus or aborting it.
European libertarians/anarchists don’t believe in the right of every loony tunes sociopath to own an assault rifle either, but then your history is covered in the blood you spilled when taking over th4e land of the native Americans, and your law enforcement is founded on everyone having a gun and shooting people in the back if they disagreed with you.
WE come from a socialist tradition of caring for the dispossessed, for the poor and homeless, for those not so able to make it rich. Where we differ from socialists [which isn’t a dirty word in the UK] is we are against the state growing ever more powerful and imposing on citizens. Anarchism is the true libertarian state, it includes personal responsibility, something you don’t hear a lot about with American ‘libertarians’ who are strong on me me me, what I want, but lack the compassion to care about others.
So don’t say I’m not a libertarian, try reading some history first, not just the same old right wing propaganda which tells you how to think.
I know you consider yourself libertarian, and I haven’t posted that you aren’t. OK?
January 25th, 2008 - 18:49
Are you speaking of Americans in general or me specifically that would deny the existence of a “European libertarian”? I believe there are libertarians all over the world. And I believe in individual rights as the first declaration of that. But I don’t believe the people any place in the world would survive long as an anarchy. The best government is that which governs least, but having no government at this time would be suicide, we are still, on average, too uncivilized.
The blood on our historical hands is undeniable except to say, I didn’t do it, and I wouldn’t support it now. That’s about all I can say about it. I wouldn’t support slavery today either, But I am not going to go around feeling guilty just because my ancestors made mistakes in their day. Do we condemn all Germans today because of previous violations of mankind? There is blood on the hands of everyone if you want to go back far enough. The test is, is it currently relevant?
Religion is something I try to keep out of politics and policy. I am not a religious person at all, and I wouldn’t even think about it except that it is my responsibility to defend the rights of me and mine. Those rights have to be defended from many groups and the religious fundamentalists are included in that list. But don’t make the mistake of calling them the most important ones on the list. Many are as dangerous.
I did not express my opinion on this issue (abortion) in the original post, I merely reported what I saw in the numbers. I can have an opinion without wanting it imposed as a rule of law.
But to address your comments regarding abortion: You say I have no right to have an opinion as I am not a woman. Are you saying it is proper for this issue to be judged only by women, or judged by only the one woman involved? Either way it doesn’t matter. I am a strong supporter of RU-486 and such early methods of termination. I am assuming though that we will agree that a “child” should not be aborted after 8 months of development. At that stage they are viable outside the womb and are people of their own right deserving of having their rights protected the same as anyone else. So the slope you start slipping down is how old is old enough? 7 months? 5 months? 3 months? I don’t believe that a fertilized egg is a person, but it is not clear what is.
Personally, I think people would be much less likely to abort if the fetus were to develop on the outside of the body where it could be observed. It would be much easier to abort — just clip it off and let it die. But it would be much more personable as well, and I think one would not be as quick to end that life as they are now when it is out of sight. They never even have to see the life they ended. Out of sight, out of mind.
.
And finally, “personal responsibility”: You are correct that is not considered nearly enough. I won’t pretend to speak of other nations where my experience is limited, but, I wouldn’t think it was just a problem here in America. There is an abundance of people that think it is government’s job to take care of them. And in this country the politicians pander to them in exchange for votes.
You are not enlightening me about “personal responsibility”, my motto here is,
“We Are The Gods — Take Responsibility”.