John McCain's Domestic Terrorism Problem

[tekisui]

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/john-mccains-do.html

As John McCain continues using guilt-by-association tactics to falsely portray his political opponent as a radical terrorist sympathizer, it's worth remembering that McCain himself has a little terrorism problem of his own.

McCain's terrorism problem dates back to the early 1990s, when he sided with right-wing domestic terrorists and voted against tough new legislation cracking down on a wave of anti-choice domestic terrorism targeting women who visited abortion clinics, their doctors, and clinic staff.

In both 1993 and 1994, McCain voted against the anti-terrorism measure. On each occasion, McCain was one of thirty radical anti-choice Senators to oppose the bill Fortunately, despite McCain's opposition, it passed the Senate by a 69-30 margin.

At the time, right-wing anti-choice extremists were terrorizing women, doctors, and clinic staff across the United States with thousands of acts of physical violence and threats of violence each year. The new legislation was necessary because in early 1993, the Supreme Court had ruled that even though the terrorism crossed state lines, the federal government could not protect clinics without a specific grant of statutory authority.

After Dr. David Gunn was murdered by an anti-choice terrorist outside the Pensacola Women's Medical Services clinic, Congress finally passed the much-needed legislation giving authorities the tool they needed to protect women, doctors, and clinic staff from the ongoing threat of terrorism.

Most Americans welcomed the new law -- even including far-right conservatives such as Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell. Nonetheless, John McCain stood by his extremist views and opposed the anti-terror bill.

McCain's radical position against the anti-terrorism legislation is clearly relevant in light of his recent attacks on his Democratic opponent. Although there is no indication that McCain himself supported any of the specific acts of domestic terrorism against women, their doctors, or clinic staff, radical anti-choice activists strongly supported his vote against the legislation, hoping to deprive the Federal government of an important legal tool for combating domestic terrorism.

Fortunately, moderate voices prevailed, and John McCain's dangerously tolerant attitude towards domestic terrorism against women, their doctors, and clinic staff was defeated.

more at link....

[ck4829]

1. K&R

[BumRushDaShow]

2. If McLame gave a speech during the debate in the Senate

that was against the anti-domestic terrorist legislation, then a YouTube of that and/or the transcript of such, would be perfect.

[tekisui]

3. I am sure some digging is be done now.

If it is out there, it will be found.

[karynnj]

4. Given the description, here are the 1993 and the 1994 bills

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 103rd Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (s.636final passage )
Vote Number: 373 Vote Date: November 16, 1993, 06:18 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: S. 636
Measure Title: A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to permit individuals to have freedom of access to certain medical clinics and facilities, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 69
NAYs 30
Not Voting 1
Here's the link to the roll call - and it is true that McCain voted against it.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00373

It is amazing that 30 Senators would vote against this - even if they were firmly anti-abortion.
Here is the link to information on that bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:SN636:

The roll call vote on the conference report in 1994 has the same 69-30 result. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=2&vote=00112

I can't find a McCain Senate speech on this - but that might be because my query failed to hit the words he used - I used the name of the act. Here is a segment of Sen Coats speech to give an idea of the reasons put forth by the opposition:
"On initial glance, S. 636 leaves the impression that violence that occurs in terms of access to health facilities or abortion-related facilities is all one-sided; that the only force or threat of force or intimidation or coercion that exists exists on the side of those who are preventing access .

And while that has happened, and while we lament that that has happened and regret that that has happened, and while we are taking appropriate steps to try to prevent that from happening, it is important to understand that there is violence that occurs on the other side of the equation, on the other side of the protest line.

Let me quote from one of the witnesses who appeared before our committee in discussing this issue. Donald McKinney, an attorney from Wichita, testified to us about the numerous acts of violence he has seen perpetrated by the so-called clinic support individuals. I quote from him:

I witnessed a woman assaulted by a male clinic supporter who blindsided her with a body block. That same abortion supporter lit a cigarette and held it near the hair of women pro-lifers as they sang worship songs. They blew smoke in their faces and berated them with obscene language. One prolife sidewalk counselor was shot in the back with a pellet gun. A window on my vehicle was shot out. Many pro-lifers have been physically assaulted or have had property damaged.

This individual, Donald McKinney, continued:

There is a need for Federal legislation to protect constitutional rights at abortion clinics, but the need is for legislation to protect first amendment freedom of speech and religious expression. This need exists also. "

This might not be as much a smoking gun as the author things because it is directly related to abortion. (even though I personally am shocked people would vote against this.)

[Cass]

5. This is outrageous! People need to know about this.

The new legislation was necessary because in early 1993, the Supreme Court had ruled that even though the terrorism crossed state lines, the federal government could not protect clinics without a specific grant of statutory authority.

McCain's vote on this is an outrage. Those anti-choice zealots were waging a domestic terror campaign against Americans and McCain deliberately voted against clinic protection twice.

[Vinca]

6. So, using Republican logic, John McCain supports the murdering

of doctors who perform abortions. Makes sense to me.