Now, will you please stop telling me that Sen. Obama's election is critical to women's reproductive rights?

To my mind, relatively little of interest occurred during yesterday's third and final debate. It was the most interesting of the three, thanks to being the best moderated, by Bob Schieffer of CBS News.

But one exchange proved to me once and for all that protecting women's autonomy when it comes to their reproductive rights is not a critical issue with regard to whether we elect Barack Obama or John Mcain (emphases added) (source):

SCHIEFFER: All right. Let's stop there and go to another question. And this one goes to Senator McCain. Senator McCain, you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Senator Obama, you believe it shouldn't.

Could either of you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on this issue? Senator McCain?

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.

SCHIEFFER: But you don't want Roe v. Wade to be overturned?

MCCAIN: 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. I'm a federalist. And I believe strongly that we should have nominees to the United States Supreme Court based on their qualifications rather than any litmus test. ...

...

I voted for Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg. Not because I agreed with their ideology, but because I thought they were qualified and that elections have consequences when presidents are nominated. This is a very important issue we're talking about.

Senator Obama voted against Justice Breyer and Justice Roberts on the grounds that they didn't meet his ideological standards. That's not the way we should judge these nominees. Elections have consequences. They should be judged on their qualifications. And so that's what I will do.

I will find the best people in the world -- in the United States of America who have a history of strict adherence to the Constitution. And not legislating from the bench.

SCHIEFFER: But even if it was someone -- even someone who had a history of being for abortion rights, you would consider them?

MCCAIN: 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.

SCHIEFFER: All right.

OBAMA: Well, I think it's true that we shouldn't apply a strict litmus test and the most important thing in any judge is their capacity to provide fairness and justice to the American people.

And it is true that this is going to be, I think, one of the most consequential decisions of the next president. It is very likely that one of us will be making at least one and probably more than one appointments and Roe versus Wade probably hangs in the balance.

Now I would not provide a litmus test. But I am somebody who believes that Roe versus Wade was rightly decided. I think that abortion is a very difficult issue and it is a moral issue and one that I think good people on both sides can disagree on.

But what ultimately I believe is that women in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make this decision. And I think that the Constitution has a right to privacy in it that shouldn't be subject to state referendum, any more than our First Amendment rights are subject to state referendum, any more than many of the other rights that we have should be subject to popular vote.

OBAMA: So this is going to be an important issue. I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through.

What's wrong with this picture? If it is so essential to elect Senator Obama for the sake of Roe v. Wade, then Senator Obama should have a litmus test on this issue. Senator McCain makes a good point when he says he voted for Ruth Bader Ginsberg as proof that he does not have a litmus test on the Roe question. But as a Republican whose party is not committed to the upholding of Roe v. Wade, whether or not Senator McCain would make upholding Roe a litmus test does not particularly matter. What does matter is that Senator Obama, whose party is committed to upholding Roe, refused to commit to treating that as a make or break issue when it would come to his judicial appointments.

And another thing: why does Senator Obama think that women need to consult with doctors, families, and religious advisers when deciding what to do with their own bodies? I have no objection to anybody consulting with anybody about any decision, but Senator Obama's committee of consultants approach suggests that once again he misses the point when it comes to women's empowerment. Would Senator Obama imply that men who decide to have vasectomies should make that decision in consultation with their families, their doctors and their religious advisers? I doubt it. I am sure that many men who debate having a vasectomy do in fact consult various people. But the double standard that is in play here is one that says when women decide what to do with their bodies it is of course a community decision, with a particular role for religious advisers but when men decide what to do with their bodies and their reproductive choices there is no presumption of community involvement. Similarly, would Senator Obama suggest that before consenting adults choose to use birth control (the subject of an important Supreme Court precedent leading up to Roe v. Wade) they ought to be consulting their families, doctors, and religious advisers?

Senator Obama may claim to believe in a right of privacy, but his understanding of privacy, at least when it comes to a woman's approach to deciding how to allow her body to be used and treated is stunted. A full-blown right to privacy is rooted in autonomy, agency over one's choices. The right to decide how to use your body or to permit others to use it could not be more essential to individual autonomy.

Meanwhile, Senator Obama who thinks Roe v. Wade - which at this point is something of a red herring when it comes to the de facto ability of women to obtain safe and legal abortions in the U.S. - "hangs in the balance" has now publicly announced that he would not insist that his appointees commit to upholding Roe v. Wade.

So now, can we at least agree that whatever the de facto impact of Roe is at this point, Senator Obama and his surrogates simply cannot claim with a straight face that an Obama presidency is essential to the future of Roe?

Comments

[Stray Yellar Dawg]

Another excellent essay, Heidi!

Keep up the good work! We are down to the wire now... and we have to keep fighting.

[ainnj]

"But what ultimately I believe is that women in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make this decision."

Oh really mr. obama?I am the one in the best position to make that decision, not my doctor, not my family, not my "religious adviser" (isn't that his label for wright by the way?) and most assuredly NOT YOU!!! WHAT IS IT ABOUT A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE THAT IS SO DIFFICULT FOR ANYONE TO UNDERSTAND???

[Marsha McLean]

Heidi, Absolutely. Using Roe v Wade to frighten women into voting for Obama is like the Republicans using 9/11 to frighten people into voting for them. Neither is a good reason to vote for either Party.

Here is a good reason to not vote for Obama. He talks eloquently about "new politics" yet at every turn and with every opportunity he practices new standards of the "old politics".

I cannot and will not vote for a man who has no integrity.

[Runa]

Heidi,
You are spot on!
That portion of an otherwise lackluster debate absolutely stood out - when Sen Obama described a "commitee" approach to abortion.

So this is what it is down to : a choice between a candidate who openly states that he is against the right to choose and a candidate who pays only lip service to a woman's right to choose.Neither of the two cares a jot about women's issues

[Dakinikat]

Heidi, I'm so glad you're in the position to train the folks who fight for rights in this country. Your arguments demonstrate clarity and reason that few minds possess. I'm proud to be on the same side and happy because I can always rely that you will provide the most cogent arguments possible when I have to stand up for those positions. I just pray daily you carry on with that inner strength and beauty and that you continue to share it with us.

kat

[RIChris]

Roe v. Wade is no longer definitive of women and their rights, reproductive or otherwise. If it should be overturned, the states WILL implement something else to take its place.
The Democratic Party uses this, against women, as a scare tactic in much the same way they have been lying to minorities about the evils of the Republicans. Unfortunately, these teachings of victimization have worked far too often in the past for both groups.

[A-Will]

". . . And I think that the Constitution has a right to privacy in it that shouldn't be subject to state referendum, any more than our First Amendment rights are subject to state referendum, any more than many of the other rights that we have should be subject to popular vote."

I have a limited knowledge of our constitution, but I am fairly certain it does NOT contain a "right to privacy" provision. The right to privacy is a judicial right, not a constitutional right. Didn't he teach constitutional law? Hmmmm. Scary.

[alice]

Hear hear!

It's a good time to revisit John Roberts:

http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2008/03/14/do-feminists-for-obama-understand-what-the-hell-this-guy-is-about/

Obama was all for nominating Roberts -- he respected Robert's intellect, you see -- but a staff member reminded him of his political ambitions for the presidency.

That's what stopped him. And he brags about this on his website.

In short: anyone who argues for BO as the pro-choice candidate is nothing more than a fool.

[gonzotx]

Obama is pro anything that will get him elected. If he thought it would help him to be against Roe vs Wade he would turn on a dime.

I remember when women DID have to go to a Psychiatrist and get an OK in WI before you could have an abortion, as if you must be crazy to be considering it. I am not for States having the right to regulate this, but I know in my heart Obama could care less about Women's rights. His treatment of Hillary is testament to that. I will never forget the 3am text...

[Miley]

This is really an amazing post. I saw a section of it online and clinked on the link afraid it might not be as powerful all the way through but it was really something. Thank you for writing this. It needed to be said and you said it beautifully. NoBama!

[SergeiRostov]

". . . And I think that the Constitution has a right to privacy in it that shouldn't be subject to state referendum, any more than our First Amendment rights are subject to state referendum, any more than many of the other rights that we have should be subject to popular vote."

I have a limited knowledge of our constitution, but I am fairly certain it does NOT contain a "right to privacy" provision. The right to privacy is a judicial right, not a constitutional right. Didn't he teach constitutional law? Hmmmm. Scary.

Posted by: A-Will | October 16, 2008 at 01:27 PM

Many Constitutional scholars do in fact believe that it contains a right to privacy based on two things:

First, the Fourth Amendment - "the right of the people to be secure in their persons houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...";
Second, the Constitution doesn't contain the word "privacy" because, at the time it was written, that word was used to mean "going to the bathroom"; the word used then which comes closest to what we now call "privacy" is "liberty", which does appear in the Preamble ("...secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...").

[kcowley]

Wow Heidi, you have outdone yourself! Noting the Obama's lack of a litmus test is so very perceptive. The "committee of consultants" immediately irritated me, thanks for putting it to words. Guess you got my email, thank you for resolving my question!!

[shutterbug_sf]

Great article~