McCain is not Pro-life

About a week ago (how time flies), I posted a link to an article by Notre Dame law professor Gerald Bradley attempting to make the pro-life case for a McCain presidency. In dealing with McCain’s past support for federally funded embryo-destroying research, Prof. Bradley said as follows:

In face-to-face conversation with McCain I said not only that such research was wrong, but that it would never be limited to “spares.” I said that big biotech needed a far larger supply of research subjects than “spares” could provide. McCain asked to continue that conversation, to hear more. Now he realizes that there is no need to exploit “spare” embryos, in light of recent successes with adult cells. And so he has been telling South Carolinians over the last few days.

This did sound encouraging. But I was unable to find any corroboration of Prof. Bradley’s claims that McCain had publicly switched his position. Now it seems that Prof. Bradley was wrong. Writing on The Corner, Rich Lowry reports on a recent McCain Q and A in Florida as follows:

A woman asked McCain at his West Palm Beach town hall if he will change his position to oppose federal funding for embryonic stem cells research in light of new developments. McCain said he’s very encouraged “by the information you just relayed and I agree it has tremendous potential to eliminate an issue which has divided our pro-life community and eliminate the need for embryonic stem cell research. We’re not there yet. According to a growing body of scientific opinion, we are approaching it. I look forward to that day. I’m not changing my position yet, but I am encouraged by the progress that has been made.”

Note that, not only does he reaffirm his support for embryo-destroying research, but he acts as if this is the first time he’s heard of the alternatives (which, even apart from Prof. Bradley’s comments, seems improbable).

It gets worse. One of the main arguments about the importance of electing a pro-life President is that the President appoints Supreme Court justices, and appointing good, conservative judges is the only practicable way of overturning Roe v. Wade. Yet according to an article out today in the Wall Street Journal, “Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because ‘he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.'”

The bad blood between McCain and many pro-life groups is well known, and there has been concern that McCain’s support for campaign finance reform would lead him to appoint judges unlikely to overturn Roe v. Wade, but I had hoped that some sort of rapprochement between McCain and pro-lifers might have been possible. But sadly this does not appear to be the case.

UPDATE: It appears that McCain vehemently denies saying that Alito was too conservative for his taste. From an interview with Byron York:

“Let me just look you in the eye,” McCain told me. “I’ve said a thousand times on this campaign trail, I’ve said as often as I can, that I want to find clones of Alito and Roberts. I worked as hard as anybody to get them confirmed. I look you in the eye and tell you I’ve said a thousand times that I wanted Alito and Roberts. I have told anybody who will listen. I flat-out tell you I will have people as close to Roberts and Alito [as possible], and I am proud of my record of working to get them confirmed, and people who worked to get them confirmed will tell you how hard I worked.”

“I don’t get it,” McCain continued. “I have a clear record of that. All I can tell you is my record is clear: I’ve supported these guys. I went to the floor of the Senate and spoke in favor of them. It’s in the record, saying, ‘You’ve got to confirm these people.'”

I asked whether McCain had ever drawn any distinction between Roberts and Alito. “No, no, of course not,” McCain said.

I asked about the “wore his conservatism on his sleeve” line. “I’m proud of people who wear their conservatism on their sleeves, because they have to have a clear record of strict adherence to the Constitution,” McCain told me. “Remember, in all my remarks, I’ve said, look, we’re not going to take somebody’s word for it. You have to have a clear record of adherence to the Constitution, a strict interpretation of the Constitution. I have said that time after time after time.”