John McCain on Abortion
Republican nominee for President; Senior Senator (AZ)
I’ve never imposed a litmus test on Supreme Court nominees
Q: Could you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on Roe v. Wade?
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.
But you don’t want Roe v. Wade to be overturned?
McCAIN: I thought it was a bad decision. I think that decision should rest in the hands of the states. I’m a federalist. And I believe strongly that we should have nominees to the Supreme Court based on
their qualifications rather than any litmus test. They should be judged on their qualifications. I will find the best people in America who have a history of strict adherence to the Constitution. And not legislating from the bench.
Q: Even if it was
someone who had a history of being for abortion rights?
McCAIN: I would consider anyone on their qualifications. Someone who has supported Roe v. Wade, that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.
Source: 2008 third presidential debate against Barack Obama
Oct 15, 2008
Obama voted no on partial-birth ban & born-alive treatment
McCAIN: Sen. Obama, as a member of the Illinois State Senate, voted against a law that would provide immediate medical attention to a child born of a failed abortion. He voted against that. 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. That’s a matter of his record.
OBAMA: If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that’s
because it’s not true. There was a bill that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment. 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. With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, as long as there’s an exception for the mother’s health and life, and this bill did not contain that exception
Source: 2008 third presidential debate against Barack Obama
Oct 15, 2008
2000: Pro-lifers attack McCain since CFR limits their power
For a variety of reasons, in the 2000 primaries many conservatives had decided that George W. Bush was their man and John McCain couldn't be trusted. The National Right to Life Committee, for instance, opposed the McCain-Feingold legislation, fearing it
could curtail their political activities (the organization argued in 1998 that McCain-Feingold "could cripple the pro-life movement in the United States"). They not only endorsed Bush, they ran ads attacking McCain--despite the fact that the two
candidates' positions on abortion were essentially identical. That kind of treatment at the hands of the right only endeared him more to the mainstream media by helping to convince them that he was indeed an independent maverick,
which in turn intensified the skepticism of McCain among some on the right. It was a feedback loop that enhanced his reputation as a moderate and an independent, unbeholden to any partisan line or ideological dogma.
Source: Free Ride, by David Brock and Paul Waldman, p. 74
Mar 25, 2008
Intentionally fuzzy on abortion; wants no litmus test
In 2006, McCain wrote a letter to the National Right to Life Committee stating, "I share our common goal of reducing the staggering number of abortions currently performed in this country and overturning the Roe v. Wade decision." Then, at a small rally,
he told the crowd, "I believe life begins at conception." But then he went on: "We cannot impose a litmus test on the issue." This prompted one pro-life woman to say, "This wasn't straight talk. He was evasive." McCain was accused of being on "both sides
of the issue."
As 2008 approached, McCain's position on Roe remained fuzzy. When the Republicans in South Dakota passed a draconian abortion ban, making all abortions illegal except those that would save the life of the mother, McCain said he "would
take appropriate steps under state law to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest of life of the mother were included." But of course, the absence of the first two exceptions was exactly what made the South Dakota law so controversial.
Source: Free Ride, by David Brock and Paul Waldman, p.165
Mar 25, 2008
Pro-life and an advocate for the Rights of Man everywhere
I am pro-life and an advocate for the Rights of Man everywhere in the world, because to be denied liberty is an offense to nature and nature’s Creator. I will never waver in that conviction. Our liberty will not be seized in a political revolution
or by a totalitarian government. But, rather, as Burke warned, it can be “nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts.” I am alert to that risk and will defend against it, and I will be encouraged in that defense by my fellow conservatives.
Source: Speeches to 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference
Feb 7, 2008
GovWatch: 1999: Don’t force women to have illegal operations
Top McCain Flip Flops: #4. Roe vs Wade:
In August 1999, McCain told the San Francisco Chronicle that he would “not support repeal of Roe vs Wade” because it would force women to undergo illegal operations.
He has subsequently said that he was speaking about the need to change the “culture of America”, and supports the repeal of Roe vs Wade.
Source: GovWatch on 2008 campaign: “Top Ten Flip-Flops”
Feb 5, 2008
1999: Repealing Roe forces dangerous illegal abortions
McCain staffers say their candidate has made only one verbal gaffe in an otherwise unblemished quarter-century record opposing abortion--a comment to the San Francisco Chronicle in 1999 that "I'd love to see a point where [Roe v. Wade] is irrelevant, &
could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."
Explained a McCain campaign staffer: "He was trying to explain that efforts to repeal Roe v. Wade would have to come in conjunction with efforts to reduce abortion through other means, including adoptions and counseling."
McCain added later that he would work for the long-term repeal of Roe v. Wade, that he rejected a "litmus" test for Supreme Court nominees." Several days later, when the Washington Post asked the campaign whether McCain had misspoken, they said no.
Source: The Myth of a Maverick, by Matt Welch, p.181-182
Oct 9, 2007
Abortion issue shows what kind of country we are
Q: Some people argue that, in the general election, the most important issue is going to be national security, and an issue like abortion should be de-emphasized. Do you agree with that?
A: I think the respect and commitment to the rights of the unborn
is something I’ve fought for, and it has a lot to do with national security. Because it says very much what kind of a country we are and our respect for human life, whether it be here in the US or anyplace else in the world. So I think it is connected.
Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate
Aug 5, 2007
Concerned if women undergo illegal dangerous operations
Q: In 1999, you said, “In the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in American to undergo illegal and dangerous operations.”
A: That was in the context of conversation
about having to change the culture of America as regards to this issue. I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that I support the rights of the unborn.
Q: If Roe v. Wade was overturned during a McCain presidency,
and individual states chose to ban abortion, would you be concerned that, as you said, X number of women in America would undergo illegal and dangerous operations?
A: No, I would hope that X women in America would bring those children into life in this
world, and that I could do whatever I could to assist them. Again, that conversation from 1999, so often quoted, was in the context of my concerns about changing the culture in America to understand the importance of the rights of the unborn.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series
May 13, 2007
Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research
Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?
A: I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community.
I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It’s a tough issue. I support federal funding.
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC
May 3, 2007
Prosecute abortion doctors, not women who get them
On “Meet the Press,” McCain said he had “come to the conclusion that the exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother are legitimate exceptions” to an outright ban on abortions. “I don’t claim to be a theologian, but I have
my moral beliefs.” If Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion outlawed, McCain said he believes doctors who performed abortions would be prosecuted. “But I would not prosecute a woman” who obtained an abortion.
Source: Boston Globe, p. A9
Jan 31, 2000
“Family Conference” if daughter wanted an abortion
KEYES [to McCain]: What you would say if your daughter was ever in a position where she might need an abortion? You answered [earlier today] that the choice would be up to her and then that you’d have a family conference. That displayed a profound lack
of understanding of the basic issue of principle involved in abortion. After all, if your daughter said she was contemplating killing her grandmother for the inheritance, you wouldn’t say, “Let’s have a family conference.” You’d look at her and say “Just
Say No,“ because that is morally wrong. It is God’s choice that that child is in the womb. And for us to usurp that choice in contradiction of our declaration of principles is just as wrong.
McCAIN: I am proud of my pro-life record in public life, and
I will continue to maintain it. I will not draw my children into this discussion. 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: (X-ref from Keyes) GOP Debate in Manchester NH
Jan 26, 2000
Abortion OK if raped; and no testing for rape
McCain was asked whether he would reinstate the Reagan era rule that prevents international family planning clinics that receive federal funds from discussing abortion. “I don’t believe they should advocate abortion with my tax dollars,” McCain said,
adding that he opposed abortion except in cases of rape and incest. He was then asked how he would determine whether someone had in fact been raped. McCain responded, “I think that I would give the benefit of the doubt to the person who alleges that.”
Source: New York Times, p. A17
Jan 25, 2000
Supports fetal tissue research; against over-intensity
McCain was asked how he could be anti-abortion and still vote to support fetal tissue research. He supports fetal-tissue research, McCain said, because it has helped make progress against Parkinson’s disease. McCain concluded that abortion rights and
anti-abortion activists should cooperate on issues of foster care and adoption. He had made his decision on abortion, he said, “after a lot of study, consultation, and a lot of prayer.” He added, “I’d like to have less intensity on this issue.”
Source: Boston Globe, p. A11
Jan 22, 2000
Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions
McCain said he thought Roe v. Wade should be overturned and said he would support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in danger.
Source: Boston Globe, p. A11
Jan 22, 2000
Support adoption & foster care; work together on abortion
Q: Should Republicans encourage pro-choice voters to support their candidates?
A: We must begin a dialogue and a discussion on the issue of abortion. Both pro-life & pro-choice people believe very strongly that we need to eliminate abortion.
I and my wife, Cindy, are proud adoptive parents. We need to encourage adoption in America. We need to improve foster care dramatically. We can work together. We can have respectful disagreements on specific issues, and we can work together on this one.
Source: Republican Debate at Dartmouth College
Oct 29, 1999
Wants Roe vs. Wade made irrelevant, but would not repeal it
McCain said, “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
Opposes partial-birth abortions & public financing
In a letter to the National Right to Life Committee, McCain detailed a long anti-abortion record, including his sponsorship of the effort to overturn President Clinton’s veto of a bill banning late-term procedures called “partial birth” abortions. He
also has opposed public financing of abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or a threat to the mother’s life.
Source: Ron Fournier, Associated Press
Aug 24, 1999
Nominate justices based on experience, and values
On the issue of nominating Supreme Court justices based on an abortion litmus-test, “McCain has said that he will nominate justices based on their experience, and those who share his values,” said a spokesman.
Source: Associated Press
Jun 14, 1999
Restrict abortions; no partial-birth; no public funding
McCain supports the following statements:
Source: Project Vote Smart, 1998, www.vote-smart.org
Jul 2, 1998
- Abortions should be legal only when the pregnancy resulted from incest, rape, or when the life of the woman is endangered.
- Prohibit the late-term abortion procedure known as “partial-birth” abortion.
- Prohibit public funding of abortions and public funding of organizations that advocate or perform abortions.
John McCain on Voting Record
Supports repealing Roe v. Wade
Q: Would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for America?
BROWNBACK: It would be a glorious day of human liberty and freedom.
GILMORE: Yes, it was wrongly decided.
HUCKABEE: Most certainly.
McCAIN: A repeal.
GIULIANI: It would be OK to repeal.
TANCREDO: After 40 million dead because we have aborted them in this country, that would be the greatest day in this country’s history when that, in fact, is overturned.
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC
May 3, 2007
Voted YES on restricting UN funding for population control policies.
Congressional Summary:To require that amounts appropriated for the United Nations Population Fund are not used by organizations which support coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. WICKER (R-MS): This amendment with one issue and one issue only--whether US taxpayer dollars will be provided to help fund coercive population control policies, such as China's one-child policy--a policy that relies on coerced abortion and forced sterilization. Specifically, this pro-child, pro-family, pro-woman amendment would restore the Kemp-Kasten antipopulation control provision, which has been a fundamental part of our foreign policy for almost a quarter century. As it has always done, Kemp-Kasten allows the President to certify that funds are not used for coercive family practices. My amendment is needed because the underlying bill reverses this longstanding provision.
Sen. COBURN (R-OK): I stand in the corner of pro-life. But I want to debate this issue as if I were pro-choice. If we believe that women have a right to choose, why in the world would we send money to UNFP that is going to take that right away from women in other countries? You can't be on both sides of this issue. Either you believe in a woman's right to choose or you do not. Or you only believe in a woman's right to choose in America, and because the Chinese have too many people, you don't think that same human right ought to be given to women in China. There is no question that UNFP will mix this money, and we will fund forced abortions in China. [Without this amendment] American taxpayer dollars are going to go to China to enforce coercive abortion against the will of women and force sterilization against the will of women in China.
Opponent's argument to vote No:None spoke against the amendment.
Reference: Wicker Amdt.;
Bill S.Amdt.607 to H.R.1105
; vote number 2009-S081
on Mar 5, 2009
Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP.
CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To require that legislation to reauthorize SCHIP include provisions codifying the unborn child regulation. Amends the definition of the term "targeted low-income child" to provide that such term includes the period from conception to birth, for eligibility for child health assistance.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ALLARD: This amendment will codify the current unborn child rule by amending the SCHIP reauthorization reserve fund. This amendment will clarify in statute that the term "child" includes the period from conception to birth. This is a pro-life vote.OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:
Sen. FEINSTEIN: We already clarified SCHIP law that a pregnant woman's coverage under SCHIP law is optional. We made it obligatory so every pregnant woman has the advantage of medical insurance. This amendment undoes that. It takes it away from the woman and gives it to the fetus. Now, if a pregnant woman is in an accident, loses the child, she does not get coverage, the child gets coverage. We already solved the problem. If you cover the pregnant woman, you cover her fetus. What Senator Allard does is remove the coverage from the pregnant woman and cover the fetus.LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 46-52
Bill S.Amdt.4233 to S.Con.Res.70
; vote number 08-S081
on Mar 14, 2008
Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions.
Vote on an amendment, S.AMDT.3330, to H.R.3043 (HHS Appropriations Bill): To prohibit the provision of funds to grantees who perform abortions, with exceptions for maternal health.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. VITTER: Whatever side of the abortion debate you are on, we can all agree on one thing: Abortion is a very divisive topic. In that context, I think it is the right policy to say we are not going to send taxpayer dollars to support groups that perform abortions. Now, the other side will say: Well, we have current Federal law that says we are not going to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. But, quite frankly, that is not good enough. Because now, we send Federal dollars to abortion providers and money is fungible--it is a big shell game and it supports their organizations and, in many cases, that funding is a huge percentage of their overall revenue.
Letter of Support from Family Research Council:
Recent reports indicate that Planned
Parenthood generated over $900 million in income in 2006, of which over $300 million came from government. We should not be sending taxpayer money to an organization such as Planned Parenthood that performs abortions. Your support for the Vitter amendment will uphold the principle that the US taxpayer should not have to subsidize the abortion industry.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. BOXER: The Vitter amendment is "Big Brother" at its very worst. It tells non-governmental entities how they should spend their own private funds. This amendment punishes the very organizations that work hard every day using their own funds to provide family planning services and reproductive health care, including legal abortion services. If Sen. Vitter wants to deny these funds, he should work to outlaw all abortion. That is an honest way. But to punish a private organization that works to give women a full array of reproductive health care is really, I think, a very sorry idea.
Reference: Vitter Amendment to HHS/Education/Labor Appropriations;
Bill S.Amdt. 3330 to H.R. 3043
; vote number 2007-379
on Oct 18, 2007
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.
Allows federal funding for research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos:
- have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;
- were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;
- were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would otherwise be discarded; and
- were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use.
I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research.
Opponents support voting NO because:
A good deal has changed in the world of science. Amniotic fluid stem cells are now available to open a broad new area of research. I think the American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.
The recent findings of the pluripotent epithelial cells demonstrates how quickly the world has changed. Wouldn't it be nice to have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American people?
Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act;
Bill S.5 & H.R.3
; vote number 2007-127
on Apr 11, 2007
Status: Vetoed by Pres. Bush Bill passed, 63-34
Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
This bill prohibits taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Makes an exception for an abortion necessary to save the life of the minor. Authorizes any parent to sue unless such parent committed an act of incest with the minor. Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to one year on a physician who performs an abortion on an out-of-state minor in violation of parental notification requirements in their home state.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
This bill deals with how young girls are being secretly taken across State lines for the purpose of abortion, without the consent of their parents or even the knowledge of their parents, in violation of the laws of the State in which they live. 45 states have enacted some sort of parental consent laws or parental notification law. By simply secreting a child across State lines, one can frustrate the State legislature's rules.
It is subverting and defeating valid, constitutionally approved rights parents have.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Some States have parental consent laws, some don't. In my particular State, it has been voted down because my people feel that if you ask them, "Do they want their kids to come to their parents?", absolutely. But if you ask them, "Should you force them to do so, even in circumstances where there could be trouble that comes from that?", they say no.
This bill emanates from a desire that our children come to us when we have family matters, when our children are in trouble, that they not be fearful, that they not be afraid that they disappoint us, that they be open with us and loving toward us, and we toward them. This is what we want to have happen. The question is: Can Big Brother Federal Government force this on our families? That is where we will differ.
Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act;
; vote number 2006-216
on Jul 25, 2006
Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.
Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate's 2006 Fiscal Year Budget that allocates $100 million for the prevention of unintended pregnancies. A YES vote would expand access to preventive health care services that reduce unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women's health care. A YES vote would:
Reference: Appropriation to expand access to preventive health care services;
Bill S.Amdt. 244 to S Con Res 18
; vote number 2005-75
on Mar 17, 2005
- Increase funding and access to family planning services
- Funds legislation that requires equitable prescription coverage for contraceptives under health plans
- Funds legislation that would create and expand teen pregnancy prevention programs and education programs concerning emergency contraceptives
Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.
Bill would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. The measure would set criminal penalties, the same as those that would apply if harm or death happened to the pregnant woman, for those who harm a fetus. It is not required that the individual have prior knowledge of the pregnancy or intent to harm the fetus. This bill prohibits the death penalty from being imposed for such an offense. The bill states that its provisions should not be interpreted to apply a woman's actions with respect to her pregnancy.
Reference: Unborn Victims of Violence Act;
; vote number 2004-63
on Mar 25, 2004
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.
S. 3 As Amended; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. Those who performed this procedure would then face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable. This bill would make the exception for cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger.
; vote number 2003-51
on Mar 12, 2003
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions.
Vote on a motion to table [kill] an amendment that would repeal the ban on privately funded abortions at overseas military facilities.
Bill S 2549
; vote number 2000-134
on Jun 20, 2000
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions.
This legislation, if enacted, would ban the abortion procedure in which the physician partially delivers the fetus before completing the abortion. [A NO vote supports abortion rights].
Status: Bill Passed Y)63; N)34; NV)3
Reference: Partial Birth Abortion Ban;
Bill S. 1692
; vote number 1999-340
on Oct 21, 1999
Voted YES on banning human cloning.
This cloture motion was in order to end debate and move to consideration of legislation banning human cloning. [A YES vote opposes human cloning].
Status: Cloture Motion Rejected Y)42; N)54; NV)4
Reference: Motion to invoke cloture on motion to proceed to S. 1601;
Bill S. 1601
; vote number 1998-10
on Feb 11, 1998
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.
McCain scores 0% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record
For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
Source: NARAL website 03n-NARAL on Dec 31, 2003
Expand embryonic stem cell research.
McCain signed a letter from 58 Senators to the President
Dear Mr. President:
We write to urge you to expand the current federal policy concerning embryonic stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cells have the potential to be used to treat and better understand deadly and disabling diseases and conditions that affect more than 100 million Americans, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and many others.
We appreciate your words of support for the enormous potential of this research, and we know that you intended your policy to help promote this research to its fullest. As you know, the Administration's policy limits federal funding only to embryonic stem cells that were derived by August 9, 2001.
However, scientists have told us that since the policy went into effect more than two years ago, we have learned that the embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federal funding will not be suitable to effectively promote this research. We therefore feel it is essential to
relax the restrictions in the current policy for this research to be fully explored.
Among the difficult challenges with the current policy are the following:
We would very much like to work with you to modify the current embryonic stem cell policy so that it provides this area of research the greatest opportunity to lead to the treatments and cures for which we are all hoping.
Source: Letter from 58 Senators to the President 04-SEN8 on Jun 4, 2004
- While it originally appeared that 78 embryonic stem cell lines would be available for research, only 19 are available to researchers.
- All available stem cell lines are contaminated with mouse feeder cells, making their therapeutic use for humans uncertain.
- It is increasingly difficult to attract new scientists to this area of research because of concerns that funding restrictions will keep this research from being successful.
- Despite the fact that U.S. scientists were the first to derive human embryonic stem cells, leadership in this area of research is shifting to other countries.
Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion.
McCain scores 75% by the NRLC on abortion issues
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:
About the NRLC (from their website, www.nrlc.org):
- 0% - 15%: pro-choice stance (approx. 174 members)
- 16%- 84%: mixed record on abortion (approx. 101 members)
- 85%-100%: pro-life stance (approx. 190 members)
The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense.
The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973 in response to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.
The NRLC has been instrumental in achieving a number of legislative reforms at the national level, including a ban on non-therapeutic experimentation of unborn and newborn babies, a federal conscience clause guaranteeing medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortion procedures, and various amendments to appropriations bills which prohibit (or limit) the use of federal funds to subsidize or promote abortions in the United States and overseas.
In addition to maintaining a lobbying presence at the federal level, NRLC serves as a clearinghouse of information for its state affiliates and local chapters, its individual members, the press, and the public.
Source: NRLC website 06n-NRLC on Dec 31, 2006
Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion.
McCain co-sponsored prohibiting taking minors across state lines for abortion
A bill to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.
Source: Child Custody Protection Act (S.2543&H.R.1063) 08-SR2543 on Jan 22, 2008
- Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit transporting a minor child across a state line to obtain an abortion (deems such transporting to be a de facto abridgment of the right of a parent under any law in the minor's state of residence that requires parental involvement in the minor's abortion decision).
- Makes an exception for an abortion necessary to safe the life of the minor.
- Makes it an affirmative defense to a prosecution or civil action under this Act that a defendant reasonably believed that required parental consent or judicial authorization took place.
- Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to one year on anyone who has committed an act of incest with a minor and knowingly transports such minor across a state line to obtain an abortion.