Is John McCain a Pro-Choice Republican? Is He a Threat to the Pro-Life Movement?
by Catherine Morgan

Is John McCain a Pro-Choice Republican? Would you vote for him if he was?

There seems to be a lot of confusion over whether or not John McCain is pro-choice or pro-life. Why is that?

Up until a few hours ago, I would have said I thought he was pro-choice. Maybe it has something to do with Republicans For Choice supporting John McCain?

Our first choice, Rudy Giuliani, did not win. He ran a campaign with a risky strategy and it didn't work. But our number two choice did win...John McCain. McCain came in second in a survey of our membership.

While he is personally "pro life" he has time and again reached out and worked with people across the spectrum. We know we can work with him to create common ground that will allow moderates and conservatives to come together to rebuild the GOP.

But apparently, there is quite a bit of evidence that he is pro-life. What do you think? Is John McCain a pro-choice Republican? Do Republicans just want Democrats to think McCain is pro-choice? Or, is he attempting to play both sides of the issue? Nooooo, politicians never do that. So then, why does there seem to be a perception that John McCain is pro-choice?

Let's take a look at some of the evidence that supports the fact that John McCain is Pro-life, and why he would be bad for the pro-choice movement.

The REAL John McCain is not the "moderate maverick" the pundits like to swoon over. The REAL McCain has spent the last 25 years amassing one of the worst anti-choice voting records in Congress.

If elected president, he has pledged to be the anti-choice movement's most faithful ally, carrying their water and enacting their dangerous agenda: "If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement." [Statement by Sen. McCain read by Sen. Sam Brownback at the March for Life in Washington, DC, January 22, 2008.]

On March 27, Elizabeth Shipp, Political Director of NARAL Pro-Choice America, answered member questions about John McCain.

See transcript from NARAL Pro Choice America Choice Chat

This is from a post by Emily Douglas at RealTime - Pro-Choice Group Endorses McCain...

Despite being a vocal opponent of legal abortion, McCain has never cosponsored or supported legislation that would lessen the need for abortion, like a bill expanding access to contraception. As NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan wrote on Bush v. Choice this morning, John McCain is not the "moderate maverick" the media makes him out to be. All the way back to 1987, McCain has never received higher than a 10 percent approval rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America.

"Most Americans don’t know that John McCain is extremely anti-choice," Keenan wrote in a letter to supporters this morning. Indeed, McCain has bucked the party line on touchy issues like immigration and campaign finance reform. But on choice, he has been consistent -- consistently opposed. A spokesperson for NARAL Pro-Choice America added, "We clearly categorize John McCain as anti-choice based on his 25 years of voting against women's health and privacy. McCain has gone even further than Bush in calling for the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Describing McCain as anything but anti-choice is quite a stretch."

So, what do you think? Is John McCain a pro-choice Republican? Or, is he a card-carrying pro-life conservative? If elected, would he be a threat to the pro-life movement? Or, would he be a threat to the pro-choice movement? Does his position on women's reproductive rights affect whether or not you would vote for him?

Also See:

Why I'm Pro-Life by Shannon at BlogHer

and

Why I'm Pro-Choice by Marie Niles at BlogHer

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

Comments

 

McCain is a threat to our reproductive
rights!

John McCain is anti-choice, period. There isn't even a question. He's not only said many times that he'd love to see Roe overturned, but he's also awful on birth control, sex ed, and family planning.

I don't think the question is whether or not he's anti-choice, but whether or not voters are going to 1) wake up and realize this, and 2) vote against him because of this.

I'm hearing a LOT of people say that if Obama/Clinton (it goes both ways) gets the nomination, that they'll vote for McCain - even though they're pro-choice! It baffles me. How are people willing to vote for the candidate that is basically the opposite of the democratic candidate they support? What would this accomplish?

And if reproductive rights is an "issue" that's important to people (how wouldn't it be?), then how can anyone, especially a woman, even dream of voting for such an extreme anti-choice candidate? I'm stumped on this one.

 

Thank you...exactly my point.

Thanks for your comment. You hit the nail right on the head! And that is why I wanted to do this post. I have heard so many people say that if Dems don't get their candidate elected they will vote for McCain. WHAT???? ARE THEY KIDDING????

I wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances, and I am baffled by any Democrat who would even consider voting for him. His position on the war, the economy, healthcare (just to mention a few), are horrible...and in addition to all of that, he is totally anti-choice and anti-women's reproductive rights. I would almost rather see an actual third term of George Bush than risk McCain being elected...Although, electing a Democrat seems like the smarter thing to do.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

 

I think that He would be a good president...

Considering the 2 Dem. Candidates I think that He is the one who has the most sense. Either way we are in a bit of a pickle, we have so many crying about the war (although we have succeeded in keeping the terrorist at bay) (if you haven't been to Iraq please don't comment about the war) regardless of the time wars have never been real popular even during the revolution we still had people against independence and hoping to "talk" their way out of it. But why cry and complain about someone who actually cares about the unborn baby and their right to live. Why is the pro-life movement called "pro-life" b/c that's exactly what it is, why is the pro-choice movement called pro-choice b/c it's a cover up; God forbid them actually come out and tell the truth and call themselves the pro-death movement. Maybe they can use the picture of the babies' mutilated body parts as their new logo. Maybe the pro-choice (pro-death) movement can make money off of the dead baby body parts by canning it and making dog food out of it or women's cosmetics! You talk about being helpful to women but a lot of women who I know that have had an abortion truly do regret it, they have to have professional counseling, some of them have had health problems, and are really depressed and unfulfilled as a result of having her fetus ripped out of her and having them cut to little bits and thrown in a garbage can as if it were some sort of deseased parasite that has been removed. A lot of women that are pro-abortion claim that if we overturn Roe v. Wade then, a lot of women will die... I would think that (and I say this w/a heavy heart) if you are not willing to die for your child you are not willing to stand for anything that has true meaning in life. Abortion is wrong and if you don't think so, just go see the pictures and videos of these babies being brutally desemembered and their fragile bodies destroyed it is a horrible site. The war in Iraq is more humane and less grusome than what takes place anyday at these abortion clinics. We let convicted killers live and sometimes even walk the streets but these defenseless innocent babies are being killed everyday and for what, b/c mom is not responsible enough for her own actions. As far as birth control is concerned pills, condoms, diaphrams, and etc. are great ways to prevent pregnancy. How bout instead of going out and irresponsibly getting pregnant, how bout you use these methods so that you don't have to commit murder... I mean it's just a thought:)

Hopefully, not only is Roe v. Wade is overturned but most importantly your heart is changed and you come to realize the truth, abortion is killing...

 

A third term for G.W. Bush?!?!?

No way, Catherine!

I actually, kindasorta liked McCain 8 years ago (when he actually WAS claiming to be sort of "pro-choice," as well), although that's not the ONE ISSUE I vote on.

However, I'd rather have just about ANYBODY (other than Cheney, Rumsfeld, or their close associates) be president in the next term rather than G.W. Bush (who's really just been a Cheney puppet, anyway).

Since John Edwards lost his bid, I've swung Obama's way, and lately, everything Hillary's done and said has reinforced my decision (I think both SHE and McCain would keep the "Status Quo" in place in Washington, and sadly, I don't think there's as much difference between her husband and Bush as we'd like to believe -- although there's still a HUGE difference).

That said, I'm NOWHERE NEAR supporting the statement some people do that "if Obama loses, I'll vote for McCain before I vote for Hillary." And the Hillary supporters who are saying the same thing about Obama are AS CRAZY AS HELL!

The Republican Party has, if only by allowing Bush to run roughshod over the Constitution and if not supporting him, at least not STANDING UP TO HIM during the past 7 years, shown itself UNWORTHY to have another term in the White House, and as much as I've found Ms. Clinton to become distasteful in recent weeks as months, I'll GLADLY vote for her before I'll vote for John McCain!

Anyone who doesn't want to see both our economy, our social programs and our military continue to fall into a deep, dark hole need to vote for WHOEVER the Democrat nominee is this year, and this is coming from someone who has NEVER been a Democrat (I've always been an independent). but who G.W. Bush has come VERY CLOSE to turning INTO a certified Democrat in the past 5 years!

Jeff Hayes

Spartanburg, SC

 

Rethink your reproductive rights

You are stumped because your looking at it all wrong. Try looking at it from another perspective.

 

Moreover... he is pedantic and chauvanistic.

John McCain is one of the two senators from my state so I've given up the possibility of my thoughts, phone calls, letters or email having any influence political matters.  (Kyl is the other.... talk about nightmares...) and I have to say that some of the letters I receive back from McCain in response to my letters have at times made my blood boil.  In particular I remember the letter I received back from his office berating me for encouraging him to vote against the criminalisation and ban on third trimester medically necessary procedure.   I refuse to use the term that the conservative fundamentalist right invented to propagandize what is a last choice medical procedure.   Horrific, sure.   I know a woman who had to have this procedure done when the fetus died inside her in the third trimester.   Induction of labor and surgical disection were necessary to get the decomposing fetus out of her.  Not for the faint of heart.  Fetuses without frontal lobes and other gross deformaties are at times aborted with this procedure when the mother is in danger of dying due to complications of the pregnancy.   

 

I was totally appalled by McCain's letter berating me for my belief which I shared with him as a constituent.   I didn't berate him.    I didn't tell him his views were wrong.   I asked him to keep politics out of women's medical care.   That I received back his pedantic, paternalistic letter reconfirmed my belief that he is a member of the misogynist fundamentalist right.   

He dumped his wife who waited for him while he was in a military prison camp for a trophy wife.    

Anyone remember the Keating 5?  McCain was embroiled in this first scandal involving "deregulation" (Remember Ronnie Rayguns boondogle that gave "industries" free reign to act as they damn well pleased?  Regulation was originally introduced to keep the necessary life & infrastructure utilities and key industries functioning for the good of the people after the Great Depression.)  With the collapse of our dollar and markets we are now seeing and will continue to feel the full impact of the disasterous policiies and perspectives Reagan ushered in and which were maintained and expanded by the likes of people like McCain.  

 

I really can no longer cast any vote for any member of the political machine (both Republican and Democratic machines) that serves the interests of corporations, select families and cartels. 

I would never vote for McCain.  But I also have grave concerns about Clinton's ties to the DLC and the corporate interests that govern that group.    The DLC sweeps into a state and backs "certain" low level candidates, grooms them, obtains their absolute devotion, and then brings in enough money to stomp all over actual local candidates in House raises.  This happened in AZ District 8 where a former Republican woman was endorsed by the DLC (not a part of the Democratic Party by the way) long before any primary was held in the raise and DLC money and tentacles squashed all truly local candidates.   

 

I'm sickened by the whole sordid business.   WE THE PEOPLE have to take back our democratic processes before it is too late.  

(Thanks for letting me vent!)   

 

Build Peace

My Life As An Avatar

 

Venting always welcome.

I totally know what you mean, and it is very frustrating. Our democracy really doesn't feel so democratic these days.

And as a nurse, I can assure you, that the whole late-term abortion "ban" is a bunch of malarkey - designed only to polarize the public. The word "abortion" implies that a woman is choosing to terminate her pregnancy, but no woman can go to an abortion clinic and request a late-term abortion, because there is no such thing. It's a non-existent controversy, that the far right would have you believe. They want you to be outraged that women are aborting babies in the third trimester by choice, and only because there is no law to prevent it. That is the biggest bunch of bull-cr#p, this is just a totally made-up political piece of propaganda, and an attempt to restrict a woman's reproductive rights. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME, on the low-life men who introduced these lies into the political arena.

Now look who's venting.

 

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

 

"Late term abortion" as bull

"Late term abortion" as bull crap? Thanks, I thought I'd heard that only in very serious medical cases would something like that be done. Do you have a cite handy?

But didn't Obama himself use that term, talking to a rightwing group this summer? Saying that under certain reasoning about the law, "We can prevent some late-term abortions."

 

Dislike the term "pro-life"

I wish someone would come up with an alternative term to "pro-life". Pro-life sounds noble and altruistic. In fact, it sounds better than "pro-choice" which may seem egocentric and self-centered. I know it's "just" semantics, but words have power.

Vered DeLeeuw
www.momgrind.com

 

I agree...

I agree. I hate the term "pro-life" - it implies that if you are not pro-life you must be pro-death. But you are exactly right, the words have power...and the far right has become experts in manipulating terminology to suite their own agendas.

 

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

 

instead of pro-life

Let's call it what it is: pro-birth. Too many right to lifers don't care what happens to that baby before it's born, or afterwards. Healthy? Not their problem. (Actually, it is, but they don't seem to realize it.)

 

how about

 

Pro-woman? 

 

Build Peace Virtuality
My Life As An Avatar

 

But then it would be "pro-baby" vs.
"pro-woman"

Which still makes it sounds, well, not too good.

I'm not sure there's a real answer. I usually try to say "pro-choice" and "anti-choice", but the term "pro life" has already been well established, and will continue to be used. Why wouldn't it? It's very smart PR to call it pro-life.

I just wish people who are pro-choice would try to avoid using it.

Vered DeLeeuw
www.momgrind.com

 

Very true...anti-choice our best bet.

The language we use around this issue is definitely VERY important, and both sides are careful about how they say things.

I guess the best thing we can do is make sure to use anti-choice instead of pro-life. I know that if me or my friends are asked about it, we'll say, well of course I'm pro-life, but I'm also pro-choice - to make the point that pro-choice is not anti-life.

And I think that recently the media and Americans on a larger scale have picked up using the anti-choice phrase, probably thanks to NARAL - which is great!

 

I like...I'm pro-life, but I'm also
pro-choice.

I like your phrasing, because it is exactly the way I feel. Of course I am pro-life, but that doesn't mean I can't be pro-choice.

*And for the record...I'm totally guilty of using the phrase "pro-life" in the title of this post because I thought it would be more searchable, and more attention getting. And I apologize if I've offended any of the pro-choice readers, I really am on your side on this one.

 

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

 

Not Offended, But Couldn't Ignore

Yes, you picked a catchy title. :)

I think everyone here knows you are on "our" side - personally I just needed to say it, because it is such a problematic term.

I think I will start using the "of course I am pro life, but I am also pro choice" response. I like it too.

Vered DeLeeuw
www.momgrind.com

 

Framing

 

Yes, framing an issue is everything.   If you haven't looked at the Rockridge site founded by one of the originators of the concept of framing, George Lakoff, I would recommend browsing it occasionally.   It tends to be intellectual but it helps when trying to frame an issue.  

 

Build Peace Virtuality
My Life As An Avatar

 

Conservative view Mccain

As stated about democrats crossing party lines- there is a conservative movement out there for a third party candiate, because many conservatives feel McCain is Pro-choice or "too pro-choice".  I think the sad thing all around is the fact that people are not informed or base their voting choices only on the pro choice-life issue.  Ask someone who Pro-Life what if their canidate proposed the use of nuclear arms- or to take trillions of dollars away from education.  I have witnessed this and they can't say much!        

 

Voting for a cadidate based on one issue is
crazy.

 

OK, maybe "crazy" is a little too strong of a word here. But I know many, many, many, people who are doing just that. And the issue is almost always..."I'll only vote for a pro-life candidate." These people do not even make an attempt to understand any of the other important issues facing the country. I feel like taking them by the arms and shaking them and saying...Doesn't the war have something to do with life? Doesn't women and children both hungry and homeless in our own country have something to do with life? Doesn't people of all ages dying because of lack of healthcare and affordable treatment have something to do with life? There are a lot of issues facing our country that directly affect life - that are all being virtually ignored by many who consider themselves "pro-life." I just do not understand it.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

 

me neither...

And we haven't even covered the abuse and neglect an unwated child is apt to experience over and over and over again until that child has no notion of self worth or self esteem and feeds the burgeoning numbers of suicides in the U.S.   We are far more likely to die at our own hands than those of someone else in a homicide.  How many people know this?  Almost no one I suspect.   Why?  Because there is a disconnect between what the U.S. public is fed as news and truth, and what is really going on.   If the U.S. were really pro-life and not pro-control we would have a well funded mental health system as part of a well funded health system.   

Grrrrr, grrrrr, and double grrrrr. 

 
Build Peace Virtuality
My Life As An Avatar

 

Who is fighting for the rights of the born?

I would just like to see the "pro-life" movement, give the same amount of attention that they devote to the rights of the unborn, to the born. And then once all the "born" children are safe, and fed, and healthy...then they can get back to the needs of the unborn. Because, how do you explain to the hungry child, that their basic human rights are less important than that of an embryo?

 

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

 

John McCain is very Pro-Life.

McCain has always been Pro-Life.  There seems to be a lot of misinformation on this thread about what it means to be pro-life.  Implying that people who are pro-life don't give attention and care to children and mothers is just an ignorant statement.  I'm pro-life and we work within the pro-life movement for ALL life.  We believe that defending human life doesn't end after birth, it applies over the entire course of life, from conception to natural death. 

I'm Roman Catholic and I've been involved with our mission team for the last four years.  Every year we travel to Nicaragua to work with the poor.  Our work includes building houses, as well as, working with a local Church and 2 schools to help the children.  We work closely with the Nuns who have taken the orphaned children in off of the streets to take care of and educate. 

Instead of bashing pro-life people, how about sharing your stories about what kind of service work each of you are doing to better the life of a child. 

 

Correct me if I am wrong

I do believe that Roe v Wade jurisidiction falls in the hands of the Supreme Court.  A president cannot overturn it.  His Jurisidiction falls when picking a Court judge that is in favor of overturning Roe v Wade.  Roe v Wade is also more of a Medical privicy act then it is a Pro-choice act so overturning it would open up another can of worms so to speak.  Ahhh the political whitewash machine:)

 

As someone who remembers a

As someone who remembers a time before Roe vs. Wade, I have to say that the Roe versus Wade ruling was not about Medical Privacy. It was about States not having the right to impose restrictions on the constitutional rights of individuals. Before Roe versus Wade if you happened to live in a restriictive state, as I did, abortion occured but there was a vast gulf between those who could get a medical abortion and those who only had access to back alley butchery. The financial divide was great then, but has now grown to be enormous. Roe vs. wade was not about abortion as much as about equality of access to medical care. Rich girls who got "in trouble" were whisked away across state lines to receive safe costly abortions. Poor girls had other options -- back alley abortions, having children they didn't want, suicide, trying to poison the fetus....

It would be nice to think that this thorny issue can be dealt with in a clearly delineated yes/no, good/bad. black/white dichotomous way, but treating it so is a fools game. There is nothing simple about inequality of access to medical care be due to unreasonable distance one has to travel to get it or through social class and financial inequality that bars access to full medical care.

This is also about much more than the Supreme Court as States are the battleground for control over women's bodies. Appointments to Federal Courts are incredibly significant in maintaining or overthrowing precedent in landmark cases.

 

Build Peace Virtuality
My Life As An Avatar

 

Words are just messy.

Thanks for the link, Catherine.

If it makes any difference, I'm a pro-lifer (or anti-abortion, or whatever it is you want to call it!), and I'm equally frustrated by the term "pro-choice".  I don't consider myself "anti-choice" (which I've blogged about in the link you provided; no need to completely re-hash here).  

I imagine that both sides can agree that we need to be careful of our rhetoric.  Regardless of my thoughts on abortion, I would never bo presumptive to call someone who feels differently "pro-death".  That does NOTHING to advance respectful, intelligent dialogue.  

I wonder if neutral terms (on this hottest of hot-button issues) even exist? 

Shannon @ Rocks In My Dryer
BlogHer Contributing Editor, Mommy and Family rocksinmydryer.typepad.com

 

I simply say pro-abortion

I simply say pro-abortion and anti-abortion.

 (I'm pro-abortion.) 

 

Very Sad..

I do find it very odd that the only people posting are women. I do also find it sad that you are all so eager to protect your "rights" as far as your "reproductive" organs are concerned.

Have you all forgot that this is a life and deserves some rights???

Educate yourselves and realize nobody is going to make abortions illegal nationally, the only argument is whether states should be required to let you have an abortion and that should be left up to your individual states.

I am sure everyone here posting will be simultaneously posting their warped views on anti-death penatly blogs claiming that killing people is wrong, such hypocracy!!!

 

I'm not sure what is "odd" about women caring
about this issue?

I totally respect your right to comment on this issue. Although, I'm just not sure what is "odd" about women caring and posting on the reproductive rights of women? And I hardly would consider any of the opinions of these women as "warped" - regardless of whether I agree with them, or not.

It would seem to me that the person who needs to be educated on this issue is yourself (no disrespect intended).

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

 

He is just a troll.

Typical agitator hiding behind anonymity / totally empty profile.   No reason to waste your time replying to a person hurling insults and foisting his religious opinions off as "truths."   The great thing about this country and its founding is that religious differences are to be respected but that no one belief set  is to be allowed to control the lives of others.   Like it or not this country was founded upon and our constitution outlines the freedom to think, speak and act in order to maintain control over private property.  We have changed the definition of private property to no longer include other humans such as slaves or women. People like the troll want to return to a day where subjugation and oppression was the law of the land.  

Freedom requires us to be responsible for our actions.   This includes women.   Choices sometimes have to be made that are horrendously difficult -- but they are made in a responsible fashion by a woman and her physician and if she so choses her clergy.  

What I find so morally reprehensible is the attempt by the Fundamentalist Right to impose their morality on all of us.  I have a deep and abiding faith that is orthogonal to many fundamentalist beliefs.   Why do they think they have to right to impose their truths and beliefs over my truths and beliefs.   We all have different truths.  There is no single right answer.  The moment when life begins varies dramatically -- there are many absolute and very different definitions for when this happens in  various cultures around the world.  

The erosion of our constitutional rights is occuring at breakneck speed.  We have to be firm in our stance against this  and if we have the intellect and means to do so, we have to actively work to regain and expand our rights.   This is our moral duty.... IMHO. 

Namaste. 

Build Peace Virtuality
My Life As An Avatar

 

To artpax

"What I find so morally reprehensible is the attempt by the Fundamentalist Right to impose their morality on all of us"

 First, why is the pro-life position necessarily religious?  My pro-life position is founded in the proposition that killing another human being cannot be sanctioned by law in a civilized society.  You take a relativist view about when human life begins but why shouldn't this be a topic of public debate? why is it unacceptable that my view on when life begins cannot be an appropriate topic of public debate while your view of when life begins (i.e. well after conception) must be enshrined in the law in the form of a regime of legalized abortion?

It seems to me that the question of when life begins is among the most fundamental public policy debates a society can have.  It is quite bizarre to argue that each individual is entitled to decide for him or herself when another person's life begins and thus is entitled to protection.   Your theory of human life is no more valid than mine; why must yours be encapsulated in law while mine can't even be debated?  

You speak of your fear of living in a country where the law reflects the belief of pro-lifers that life begins at conception but you fail to grasp that we conservatives must deal with the exact mirror-image problem in today's America:  the law now reflects the liberal code of morality that abortion is a morally acceptable option and thus must be permitted by the law.  Even worse, this liberal "secular morality" strips away from the people the right to decide these fundamental questions of life and death-- something truly anathema to our democratic sensibilities.  The end result is that we end up living under a legal regime that enshrines and protects notions and beliefs that we find abhorrent, including a law which protects the slaughter of innocent infants.

  Indeed, I would argue the pro-life position is stronger for this reason:  assuming we can't be 100% when life begins, doesn't it only make sense to err on the side of assuming that the fetus is in fact a human being?  In my view, the burden of proof should be on those who argue that the law must take the posititon that the fetus is not necessarily a person and thus may be killed at will.

 It seems to me that the Left imposed its moral view of abortion (i.e. that it's permissible) on the rest of the country in the form of Roe v. Wade, thus binding the hands of the American people to decide this crucial issue.  At least us pro-lifers seek to advance our position through the democratic process rather than to impose it by the fiat of 9 unelected lawyers.

You speak of abortion as a "constitutional right" immune from democratic influence but please justifiy this position.  Where exactly in the Constitution does this "right" appear?  It's worth noting that the doctrine of substantive due process (from which the court invented the right to an abortion) was also the exact same provision that was used by earlier courts to create a "right" to own slaves (Dredd Scott) and the "right" to work unlimited hours (a holding which had the effect of overturning states' worker safety and protection laws).  Unless you endorse these holdings, it seems to me that you only accept the Court's views on what constitutes a "constitutional" right when it conveniently happens to coincide with your personal beliefs.