Mike McGavick on Abortion & Gay Rights
April 27, 2006
A couple of months ago, I sent an e-mail to Mike McGavick’s campaign asking for more information about candidate McGavick’s stance on abortion and gay rights - two issues dear to my heart. When I didn’t hear back, I e-mailed again. This time, Mr. McGavick responded personally, cordially, and with very thoughtful answers.
I placed a call to the McGavick campaign and they said they had no problem with me quoting his response here, so here goes:
On Gay Marriage: “I do not believe it would be right to change the definition of marriage. However, I am open to a thoughtful discussion of civil unions. I also believe that particular attention should be paid to the laws affecting nontraditional couples who have children. Changes must be made in the benefits laws of our state and nation to make sure that these laws recognize these families. I instituted such benefit policies at Safeco insurance while I was serving as CEO.”
On Abortion Rights: “I believe that the choice should exist and therefore do not support a constitutional ban on the practice. However, my strong Catholic faith drives my belief that it is important to work to change the hearts and minds of those who would seek an abortion – to show them that there are other options available. I support parental notifications, a ban on partial birth abortion, and a restriction on federal spending for abortion related services. The fact remains that this deeply personal issue needs to remain personal and the choice should exist.”
On both issues, he’s a little bit to the right of me, but when I take his other positions into account, I have to say that he makes a pretty compelling case for replacing Maria Lieberman Cantwell as the junior Senator from Washington. In these times of scary right-wing neocons, it’s important that we work to support sensible moderates like McGavick.
I’m still not sure whether I’ll vote for him, but I’ve got a few months to decide yet.
Hmmm… a wolf in sheep’s clothes is Mr. McGavick, and when it comes to flipping the balance of power in D.C. McGavick will be far too close to Big Oil, Ted Stevens and Dick Cheney to be a “moderate” that one might rely on to support progressive interests.
Like I said, Daniel, I’m still investigating. McGavick is absolutely pro-business, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I guess I’d need to get to know him a little better.
I hope to have the opportunity to talk more with him and other people in his campaign about what his vision is for America. Then and only then can I really make a decent decision about who to vote for.
I definately like his views on immigration and abortion. I think that our nation should be secure, yet allow a healthy number of workers in. About abortion, I think he is acting shrewdly in the matter. He does not openly bash abortion or those who support it, but softly states his opinion and how he will work against it, not against the people.