20 February 2007

McCain and Roe v. Wade

I thoroughly enjoy blogging--it has allowed me to rediscover the joys of writing. Buddy's Books and Bait has forced me to meticulously frame my political ideas in a thoughtful and coherent fashion—and that has been extremely satisfying for me intellectually. That’s why I plan to keep blogging even if I have few readers.

But the frustrating part of researching and writing about politics is that one has to actually read all the half-baked ideas that are floating around. I know that many of my political rants are not original—and the topics are often warmed-over debates that should have been put to rest years ago. But if politicians want to raise these tired subjects, I suppose I will respond.

Which brings me to John McCain. Yesterday, McCain made his strongest statement to date on his opposition to Roe v. Wade. In order to ingratiate himself even further with conservative voters, the Arizona senator said Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

Now this is not big news, right? We know McCain is positioning himself for the 2008 Republican primaries. And while I strongly disagree with him regarding Roe, I’m not voting for him anyway.

But here is what I find maddening about McCain and the anti-abortion nuts. During the 2000 campaign, McCain was much more measured on the abortion issue. Remember, he was the self-appointed moderate back then. He declared at that time that if his daughter wanted an abortion, he would leave that decision up to her. Clearly there was some political posturing in that statement—but there is also something very slimy. So John McCain will not have the state force his daughter to carry her pregnancy to full term—but he has no trouble forcing millions of other women to do so.

This is where I return to my earlier statement—we shouldn't have to still point out these glaring inconsistencies. Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, upper class white women will still be able to afford abortions; will still be able to travel to out-of-state clinics, will still continue to procure birth control and understand how to use it—it’s all the others, the millions of poor women, teens, and others in situations very different from John McCain’s daughter……these are the people that WILL be adversely affected if McCain and his ilk are allowed to keep appointing Fascists to the courts.

Isn’t this obvious? Does McCain see the inconsistency—or not? Isn’t it so damned clear that abortion laws are written to keep poor and minority women from having sex and producing babies that, according to conservatives at least, the taxpayers will then have to support? These restrictive laws were never intended for nice, white Republican girls—we trust them of course. If they get pregnant, it was probably due to special circumstance. McCain’s daughter will never have to deal with these life-changing reproductive issues—the rules will never apply to her.

Do you think McCain knows this? Should I/we email his office and point it out? I really don’t get it. Maybe this is just an example of white privilege. A case where a white politician doesn't even fathom how different people are affected by his decisions. Am I missing something?

1 comment:

Mike M said...

I think its really strange how he can so obviously support pro-life folks and then "waffle" over to the pro-choice side and not see that he is hurting his base with moderates.