Since the end of February, I have heard from many female Clinton supporters that if Barack Obama became the party's nominee, they would either sit out the general election, or vote for John McCain. 

Many of their reasons centered on sincere feelings of dismissal and misogyny by the media, and the Obama campaign.  While I tend to agree with these women on the media's role, yet never have gotten a concrete example from them of Obama's role in this misogyny, I always come back with this: why, if you are such a loyal Hillary supporter, would you consider voting for someone whose policy positions are totally antithetical to hers?  More to the point, why, as a self-described feminist, would you vote for someone so anti-woman?

Sen. John McCain, in his long and well-boasted of "experience" in government, has amassed the following record on women's issues: 

—A Zero percent rating from Planned Parenthood.

—Voted against funding to prevent unintended teenage pregnancies.

—Voted against Title X, the family planning program which provides low-income and uninsured women and families with health care services ranging from breast and cervical cancer screening to birth control.

—Voted against requiring insurance coverage of prescription birth control.

—Opposed the legislating of equal pay for women.

—Opposed permitting women to fly combat missions in the military.

—Says he would have voted for the failed South Dakota ban on abortion, which would have outlawed the procedure even in the case of rape or incest.

—Supports the overturning of Roe vs. Wade ("I have been pro-life my entire public career.  I believe I am the only major candidate in either party who can make that claim.")


Yesterday, Froma Harrop, a prominent Hillary Clinton advocate, lifelong liberal Democrat, and the 14th most-circulated columnist in America, provided a rather strange and disingenuous defense of McCain on the choice issue.

Would McCain stock the Supreme Court with foes of Roe v. Wade?  The 1973 decision guarantees a right to abortion.

The question of course, isn't "would" he, but rather, hasn't he already?  John McCain, in his illustrious Senate career, has voted for the following doctrinaire "foes of Roe v. Wade": Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.  All but Bork made it to the High Court.  History notwithstanding, Harrop isn't too worried.

The answer is unclear but probably "no."  While McCain has positioned himself as "pro-life" during this campaign, his statements over the years show considerable latitude on the issue. 

In a 1999 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board, McCain said, "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."

Harrop has written many articles over the years which I have enjoyed and found insightful, even when she was boosting full-time for Hillary Clinton.  I have never seen her elevate a career politician's "statements" over their actions and actual votes.  That is, until that last couple of paragraphs you just read.

George W. Bush turned that statement against him in the 2000 race for the GOP nomination.  The National Right to Life Committee ran ads denouncing McCain — one reason he lost the important South Carolina primary to Bush.

Right, and McCain was then locked in a bitter primary battle with Bush where the Texan had the entire right-flank of the party covered.  The only way for McCain to have a shot was to move left and pick off as many moderate, pro-choice Republicans as he could.  That was back when politicians believed there were still a lot of moderate, pro-choice Republicans to be found.  Bush's thumping of McCain in 2000 put an end to that assumption.

Addressing conservative South Carolinians last year, McCain said that Roe should be overturned.  Primary politics or a change of mind?  The former is my guess — and also that in his current pursuit of Hillary Democrats we may see a softening of that position.

Once again, this staunch liberal Democrat sees McCain tell his party's voters that he's pro-life—as is reflected in the entirety of his Senate career—and chooses not to believe him.

McCain played a central role in the Gang of 14 — the seven Democratic and seven Republican senators who joined hands to find common ground on court appointments.  For his efforts at compromise, McCain took a pummeling from the right wing.  Note that Obama, the self-styled foe of division, declined to join the bipartisan group.

This one really takes the cake.  The "Gang of 14" is directly responsible for the judicial "compromise" that eventually enabled the confirmation of John Roberts and Samuel Alito—two of the most reactionary, anti-woman justices in our country's history—to the Supreme Court.  Harrop has a lot of nerve, and a cluelessness of recent political history, to actually praise McCain for this "compromise", while trashing Obama for standing his progressive ground and voting against both men.  Sad and strange to say, I've heard a lot of this talk from other self-styled feminists who backed Hillary.

And if a President McCain did put forth a controversial candidate, the Democratic majority in the Senate — sure to grow after the upcoming election — would put a quick end to the idea.

I'm sorry, what?  Another ridiculous notion I've heard bandied around: that while many Clinton loyalists won't support the Democratic nominee for president, it won't matter, because we'll have a strong Democratic Congress in 2008 who can block McCain's judicial program.  Never mind that it's hard to see how the Democratic Congress "grows" in step with a McCain victory in November.  How long can the holding action Harrop prescribes for the Democrats actually last? 

Justice Paul Stevens, the oldest member of the pro-choice majority bloc of the Supreme Court, is 88 years old.  When he departs the bench, that five-vote majority becomes a four-vote minority, and Roe gets overturned the minute the anti-choice forces send up one of their beloved "test cases".  How long is Stevens supposed to hang on?  Through the end of the first McCain term, and he's 92?  Through the end of the second, and he's 96?

And once Stevens departs (most likely during one of those terms), and President McCain starts sending right-wing neanderthals up for a confirmation vote, how long can the Democratic Senate block Supreme Court nominee after Supreme Court nominee?  It's not like after the first one gets shot down—no guarantee there, even in a majority Dem Senate—McCain's just going to throw up his hands and say, "OK, fine.  I'm throwing my reactionary judicial philosophy out the window.  Here's a candidate that will make all of the Democrats happy: Hillary Clinton!"

No, he's going to continue to send up deeply conservative judicial nominees, and work to shame the "do-nothing Senate" in the press, until all the pundits and media mavens start lecturing the public on constitutional principle, and advise and consent, and vacancies, and a president's prerogative, blah blah blah, and eventually McCain sends a nominee up with no record, no prior position on anything, nothing to attack, and the Democrats cave. 

That's how it works.  That's how it worked with Roberts.  That's how it will go down in a McCain administration.  Harrop knows this, I believe, but is willfully misleading her fellow Clinton supporters, for what reason I cannot tell.  She continues in this vein of thinly veiled deception:

Obama is no doubt pro-choice, but on the issue, he's hardly been a profile in courage.  As an Illinois state senator, he famously voted "present" on anti-choice legislation.  Voting "present" is a tactic used to express disapproval without actually taking a stand.

In February, Bonnie Grabenhofer, the president of the Illinois National Organization for Women (and a Clinton supporter) wrote: "We made it clear at the time that we disagreed with the strategy. ... Voting present doesn't provide a platform from which to show leadership and say with conviction that we support a woman's right to choose and these bills are unacceptable."

For someone representing Obama's very liberal Chicago district, there was zero danger in voting "no" on an anti-abortion bill.  He almost certainly voted "present" as political cover should he run for higher office and need to appeal to a wider base of voters.

He "almost certainly" did not.  Harrop is being viciously selective in who she's quoting from the Illinois pro-choice community, for good reason.  If she was willing to be honest with her readers, and had quoted Planned Parenthood Chicago President Steve Trombley or Planned Parenthood Illinois President Pam Sutherland, folks would hear the real reason for Obama's present votes on anti-choice legislation:

On Monday, Planned Parenthood Chicago President Steve Trombley defended Obama, saying the "present" votes were part of a strategy devised by his group to protect vulnerable Democrats, and that Obama was always prepared to vote against the anti-abortion rights bills.

"We feel an obligation to defend Barack's record related to abortion issues in Illinois," Trumbley said.  "Barack Obama has a 100 percent voting record from Planned Parenthood."

Pam Sutherland, the President of Illinois Planned Parenthood, explained that her organization had approached Obama to participate in the "present" votes strategy.

"Sen. Obama was key to that "present" vote strategy," Sutherland said.  "We specifically asked him to vote "present" because he was so respected among his fellow Democrats."

Sutherland said the goal was to get a few prominent members of the Democratic caucus to adopt their strategy so more cautious Democrats would follow suit.

"What's good about this strategy is it actually worked," Sutherland said.

So, to recap: Froma Harrop admits that McCain has a lifelong anti-choice record, in both his words, and votes, yet "guesses" it isn't a problem, because she thinks he doesn't really mean it.  Obama's record, in both words and votes, is 100% pro-choice, yet Harrop feels his position is nothing but political maneuvering for higher office, and discounts it. 

If this is how pro-woman Democrats are to be rewarded for their commitment to reproductive rights, perhaps Roe is in even greater danger than I thought.