Politics | 10/16/2008 10:50 am

Obama, McCain Spar on Roe v. Wade, Abortion (Video)

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

If you watched or listened to the entire presidential debate last night between Barack Obama and John McCain, you would have heard a very interesting joust between the two men over abortion and Roe v. Wade.

Both White House contenders have differing opinions on the 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion. Obama is pro-choice, while McCain is pro-life. Debate moderator Bob Shieffer of CBS asked the two men if they could nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with them on abortion. It’s expected that whoever is the next president, at least one of the justices will retire.

Both candidates said they wouldn’t apply a litmus test – a question asked of a potential candidate, the answer to which might determine whether the person nominating that candidate would proceed with the appointment or nomination.

“I have never … imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the court, that’s not appropriate,” McCain, R-AZ, said.

Although he said Roe v. Wade was a “bad decision,” McCain said he favors leaving states to decide whether or not they will allow the procedure, when and under what conditions. He said Supreme Court nominees should be first and foremost considered because of their qualifications, not their abortion view.

But, when pressed whether he would nominate someone who has supported abortion, McCain, calling himself “proudly pro-life,” gets a little hypocritical: “I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test."

Obama also said no “strict litmus” test would be imposed, and said he believes the Constitution does in fact include a woman’s right to privacy. Roe v. Wade also shouldn’t be subject to state referendum for states to alter at their whim, he added.

“It is true, this is going to be one of the most consequential decisions of the next president,” the Illinois senator said. “I would not apply a litmus test but I am somebody who believes Roe v. Wade was rightly decided.”

33 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Obama argued that “women, in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make this decision.” His words.

By OMGIAMGOING NUTS on 10/16/2008 11:06 am

e-mail alert

Marc Rubin… McCain was clear that he feels Roe was wrongly decided. But so did Bush. And so did Reagan. And Roe is still standing. So having a President who feels Roe was wrongly decided means absolutely nothing…. Obama’s fear mongering about Roe and his intellectually dishonest statement that in this election “Roe hangs in the balance” is Obama saying whatever nonsense he feels he has to say to get elected. This is Obama not caring about women’s health but his own political health. McCain/Palin 2008

By Marjorie C. on 10/17/2008 6:18 am

e-mail alert

Marjorie, And you know that and so do many others…however there’s some that just DO NOT want to see or hear it.

By OMGIAMGOING NUTS on 10/17/2008 10:56 am

e-mail alert

OMG: …there’s some that just DO NOT want to see or hear it. It is amazing how half the country sees it one way and the other half cannot see it. What is it about socialism that is so appealing? What is it about this inexperienced and unqualified young man that is so appealing? I hope I never get to know, but I’m afraid I might.

By Marjorie C. on 10/18/2008 6:27 am

e-mail alert

Marjorie, While you are correct that Bush and Reagan were against Roe and didn’t overturn it - you are incorrect about Obama’s ‘fear mongering’ and ‘intellectual dishonesty’ about overturning Roe v Wade. I would suggest seeking more information before making assertions like that about a candidate for the presidency as it is detrimental to all discussion to have such a gaping lack of facts. Here are the facts. The reasons presidents in the past have not been able to overturn Roe is that even with court appointments - they have not been able to shift the court from leaning left to leaning right but instead mostly keep it in balance (though it favors the right but not on certain key issues). In the next four years there are 3 potential justices who will step down, one for certain (he is 88) and ALL of them are left leaning judges. Therefore, if Obama were to become president, he would most likely replace the justices who step down with justices who felt the same way about the Roe decision as the ones who vacated the court. If instead however, McCain were to become president, he has promised to appoint judges that feel Roe is a bad decision just as he does. This would in effect give the court the power to overturn Roe which it has never had. That is a very real threat. Vote for whomever you see fit. But please, do it with the benefit of real study and knowledge of the issues. Labeling Obama as a fear mongerer and dishonest is simply wrong. Especially when it comes from a supporter of McCain considering the low campaign he is running.

By Luckyann Melnick on 10/18/2008 6:42 am

e-mail alert

Luckyann: If instead however, McCain were to become president, he has promised to appoint judges that feel Roe is a bad decision just as he does. This is not what I heard at the debate. This is what McCain said: “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.” However, when pressed, McCain also said, about Roe v Wade, “I thought it was a bad decision. I think there were a lot of decisions that were bad. I think that decisions should rest in the hands of the states.” About wrongly decided… Marc Rubin: And what exactly does “wrongly decided” mean anyway? It means to those who argue the Constitutional validity of the decision, that the underpinning of the decision, the legal reasoning and Constitutional interpretation behind the opinion was wrong. But that doesn’t mean the outcome was wrong ( legally or Constitutionally). And it doesn’t mean that it would be overturned even on that basis. Your accusation about McCain is simply wrong. About the appointment of Justices to the Supreme Court… Because the Constitution does not set forth any qualifications for service as a Justice, the President may nominate anyone to serve. However, that person must receive the confirmation of the Senate, meaning that a majority of that body must find that person to be a suitable candidate for a lifetime appointment on the nation’s highest court. The President alone does not decide who will be appointed. The whole argument is much ado about nothing. Roe vs Wade is going nowhere, and I’m fine with that. It certainly is not hanging in the balance in this election. Remember, McCain as President would be facing a Democratic majority in the Senate. That alone tells you that he would not be allowed to appoint some radical ultra-conservative judge.

By Marjorie C. on 10/18/2008 7:18 am

e-mail alert

I findyour statement about Senator Obama disingenuous —-both the chicago Tribune and the L.A Times endorsed Obama today 10/19/08 and this is the first time either newspaper have endorsed a Democrat. Senator Obama’s mother died of cancer. To make the statement that he is not caring about women’s health is a specious and self serving statement. I suggest you take time and read the endorsement statements of these newspapers. It may prove an eye opener.., Here’s an excerpt from the L.A. Times. “John McCain distinguished himself through much of the Bush presidency by speaking out against reckless and self-defeating policies … But the man known for his sense of honor and consistency has since announced that he wouldn’t vote for his own immigration bill, and he redefined “torture” in such a disingenuous way as to nearly embrace what he once abhorred. Indeed, the presidential campaign has rendered McCain nearly unrecognizable. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate was, as a short-term political tactic, brilliant. It was also irresponsible, as Palin is the most unqualified vice presidential nominee of a major party in living memory. The decision calls into question just what kind of thinking — if that’s the appropriate word — would drive the White House in a McCain presidency. “

By Victoria J on 10/19/2008 2:03 am

e-mail alert

Victoria, Those endorsements and 10 cents might have bought you a cup of coffee in 1935, but today they don’t mean much.

By Marjorie C. on 10/19/2008 6:19 am

e-mail alert

Not a good ploy on McCain’s part here! One he tells uncompleted information about Obama’s voting record McCain should do his own homework!. Example, Partial Birth , he presented as if Obama was for it! Not the case, It had to do with the wording and lack of wording! Obama is a constitutional Lawyer in Law Practice! Proper and complete through Bills are what Obama is looking for. McCain keeps spouting Less Government, except for Any Personal Decisions, then they are What I deem Right. No personal choices, and you may work for the Top 2% of the people and be Grateful that I think for you, so you can work for me and my cronies and finance my Winning War! I need a Victory to Beat My Daddy! Just like Bush!!!

By Jennifer Dooley on 10/16/2008 11:07 am

e-mail alert

Jennifer- simple to put……… Sen N’Obama, has been a weisel in charcter. He back traks everything he does. & blames the the questionaire. this is a pattern he has been doing since the question of Iraq… which HE DID NOT vote in-but takes credict for. Can you assume he is justified that he cares for our needs then votes differently? That is no spine to me & a windfill man… Empty suit & not a man we need to lead our nation…

By Coco Bernal on 10/17/2008 3:49 pm

e-mail alert

Good Try…

By Jennifer Dooley on 10/17/2008 4:04 pm

e-mail alert

Coco: Empty suit & not a man we need to lead our nation… I tend to agree with you.

By Marjorie C. on 10/18/2008 6:29 am

e-mail alert

To be honest Coco — it is your comments that seem no spine and windfill to me. You just namecall. Accuse him of being a weasel and backtracking on everything. Essentially you are saying nothing of substance. In terms of backtracking - if you want to look at which candidate has shifted his positions the most, that is clearly mccain who was against the bush tax cuts before being for them, who said we don’t need more troops in Afghanistan before now saying we do, who abandoned his opposition to waterboarding, who announced he would vote against his own immigration policy, who on roe v wade said he would not support the repeal of it and now says he will, who supported campaign finance reform and put his own name to a bill and then abandoned it etc. etc. etc….I could go on but I’d bore you with actual facts. Obama rightly takes credit for opposing a war that was politically popular to support. He did not vote on it but he spoke out publically about it and was still running for office - something that could have been political suicide. It’s called having principles. I would gladly refute your character assassination but since you have nothing of substance to back it up there really is nothing to refute. I hope that some research will give you the tools to make a better assessment of the candidates.

By Luckyann Melnick on 10/18/2008 6:54 am

e-mail alert

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IS0PJdE0Cs&feature=email Show this to John Mc Cain his pet religious bigot.

By f p on 10/16/2008 12:02 pm

e-mail alert

From the Progress Report today: One of the most striking moments of the debate occurred during the discussion of abortion. McCain’s party adopted an extreme position on abortion in its platform this year, refusing to allow for exceptions to an abortion ban even in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. During the debate, McCain belittled procedure bans that grant exemptions for the “health of the mother,” mocking the phrase by framing it with air quotation marks. “‘Health of the mother.’ You know, that’s been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything,” McCain said. “Tonight, John McCain showed he doesn’t care about women’s health when he described protecting ‘the health of the woman’ as ‘extreme,’” said Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. “He blatantly showed that he doesn’t trust women to decide what is in the best interest of their own health.”

By f p on 10/16/2008 12:11 pm