|
|
Mike McGavick on Abortion |
GUTHRIE: I believe you have the right to medical freedom. You get to choose the procedures that you undergo, not politicians. Your individual right translates into a woman's right for reproductive freedom. I'm pro-choice.
McGAVICK: I'm in the middle of the two extremes on this issue. I don't believe that partial birth abortion should be used as a loophole to allow abortion at any time. I do not believe that the taxpayers should be forced to pay for abortion. With underage pregnancies, parents have a right to be involved with that decision. Within these boundaries, I believe choice should exist. My opponent is of a more extreme view, that women and children and taxpayers should all be involved.
CANTWELL: I support Roe v. Wade. It has been the law of the land for 30 years. More importantly, it has been voted on, by initiative, ad adopted by the people of this state.
A: Mike would not support a constitutional amendment banning abortion as he doesn't see it doing anything productive in his mind. He does support parental notification and a ban on partial birth abortion.
Q: Your answer appears to be somewhat of a dodge.
A: I can understand how his response may seem like a dodge. I assure you though, it is not. Yes, it is an uncommon response because it does not place him directly on one side or the other of the issue. Hence, the reason he does not like to label himself with either side's title - pro-life or pro-choice. He honestly believes in the restrictions I mentioned. However, he does not honestly believe a constitutional amendment banning the practice is right. In holding these three opinions many people call him pro-choice because he doesn't support the ban. But, many people call him pro-life because he supports many restrictions. I wish I could give you a simplistic answer but the issue for us is complicated.