John McCain thinks legal abortion is "necessary." This statement has caused a strong reaction among pro-lifers who thought he was pro-life. They are shocked. But, when you look at his stated "Commitment to Life" on the John McCain for President website, his lack of interest in overturning Roe is perfectly understandable. He thinks abortion is necessary, because he thinks some babies do not deserve legal protection.

Despite the fact that Sen. McCain calls himself "pro-life," his website definition of that term clearly shows that he is not:
"John McCain is pro-life. He recognizes that ‘all human beings are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Life is one of these rights.' "

[So far, so good.]

"John McCain opposes abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and at any time when the life of the mother is endangered by the pregnancy."

[Wait a minute! What happened to the "Creator endowed" right to life? How is it that some babies, because of the circumstances surrounding their conception, are excluded from those who have "unalienable rights?" And, since when is it "pro-life" to support the deliberate killing of an unborn baby for any reason? If the mother's life is in jeopardy, why not remove the baby and try to save his life? Unless, of course, you believe that for some reason, our Creator failed to endow him with the right to life.]

Referring to his voting record, Sen. McCain's website statement says, "John McCain has always been a strong supporter of the Hyde Amendment."

[Many people think the Hyde Amendment protects us from complicity in abortions by preventing our tax dollars from paying for them. Not true. Prior to 1993, the Hyde Amendment did allow taxpayer funding for abortions in the case of a threat to the mother's life. In 1993, the language was weakened to include rape and incest, forcing us to pay for abortions through our tax dollars for those reasons as well. In 1995, RNC for Life did a Survey of Members of the House and Senate in which we asked them if they would vote to strengthen the Hyde Amendment by removing the rape and incest language. Senator John McCain's response was "NO."]

McCain's refusal to support the repeal of Roe vs. Wade appears to be based on two things. First, he has made the incorrect assumption that, absent Roe vs. Wade, abortions would no longer be legal. In fact, the repeal of Roe vs. Wade would simply remove the federal courts from the picture and allow the individual states to freely regulate, restrict or prohibit the practice of abortion according to the will of the people. And second, why would he want to do away with Roe, as long as he thinks abortions are "necessary?"