MyDD :: Obama hedging on abortion rights?

Obama hedging on abortion rights?

by ajain, Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:42:27 PM EST

This is Obama reaching out to evangelicals:

In an interview this week with "Relevant," a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother."

Obama then added: "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term."

Last year, after the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on late-term abortions, Obama said he "strongly disagreed" with the ruling because it "dramatically departs form previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women."

Now this is not a direct contradiction to what he said per se, but seriously, since when is 'mental distress' not a serious affliction. He is talking about taking away rights of women under serious psychological and emotional distress. What is up with him?

I hope this is some pandering to evangelicals that he doesn't actually believe, but even then minimizing the seriousness of mental afflictions of pregnant women is simply a way of saying that women should not have control over their bodies even if are in deep emotional and psychological distress. The extension of that argument is that women get cranky and emotional and dont know what is 'the right thing to do' in their emotional fits. It is highly patronizing and pathetic.

How do you think NARAL is feeling right about now?

[editor's note, by ajain]: As has been noted in the comments, mental health has to be included in conversations about health. So this interview also gives us a hint that Obama may not consider mental health as part of "health", which is, by itself, a pretty big revelation from my perspective.

Tags: Barack Obama, Roe vs. Wade, NARAL (all tags)

Permalink :: 148 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 5)

hmmm, Obama is pandering wayyyyy too much right now.

I am wondering if he really wants to lose the democratic base. seriously.

by colebiancardi on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:46:30 PM EST

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (none / 0)

You consider mental distress a good reason to terminate a pregnancy? I'm not being nasty or snarky here, either. I mean, do you think that fits within the "health of the mother" concept? I'm not saying I'm sure that it doesn't, but language like that allows extraordinarily broad interpretation.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:59:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 5)

Yes, for both women's rights activists and mental health activists mental health is health.

by souvarine on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:01:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (1.50 / 2)

Your turning shades of gray into black and white. That is a naive simplistic view of things.

Third term babies for the most part can live outside of the womb. The argument is a HECK of a lot different than a little bundle of cells in the first trimester. ALL MENTAL HEALTH would be a ridiculous exception. At that point, someone can claim a tiny bit of depression is enough for a third trimester abortion. Yes, the mother should be monitored if she starts to feel depressed. But unless she tries to hurt herself, there is no argument that care and treatment for a mother with a mental health issues shouldn't be done and forced upon the mother for the 3 months remaining, rather than abort the child. Its a different scenario ENTIRELY when the mothers IMMEDIATE physical health is threatened and aborting the child needs to be done to make sure the mother lives vs a mental health issue which YES is detrimental to her health, but only in RARE instances... IMMEDIATELY HARMFUL. There are WAY to many ways to help the mother deal with all but the mot extreme mental health issues that do not require the death of the child. I'm pro-choice, but it is NOT this black and white issue that the GOP has made it and other people have stupidly bought into. There is LOGIC involved in this. Its not just right or wrong, especially when it involves a child who can live outside the womb.

And don't give me the "OH IF YOU HAD BEEN THROUGH THIS..." BS. I have been diagnosed with depression in my lifetime, and treated. It sucks and is important to any healthcare. But once the third trimester is around, we are talking about TWO lives, not one.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:42:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

OY GOD (none / 0)

you all have no clue what you are talking about.
Women do NOT terminate babies who can live outside of the womb. They terminate dead babies and those who will die at birth. They terminate babies with no brains and those which have water on the brain to the extent that delivering them will kill the mother and which will die anyway or live as vegetables and for that reason a woman should not have to have a ceserean.
LTAs are about .03 percent of abortions. There is a reason for that. BECAUSE WOMEN WHO SIMPLY DON'T WITH TO GIVE BIRTH HAD AN ABORTION IN THE FIRST 16 WEEKS.
Women who have late term abortions WANTED THEIR BABIES.
Obama needs to mind his own business and so does everyone else when it come to abortion. None of you, including him know what the hell the real story is and yet here you are mouthing off about women's moral choices as if they were any of your God damned business.

by Teacher1956 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 03:55:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 6)

Of course mental health fits within the "health of the mother" concept.

I'm sorry, but excluding mental health from the broader discussion of health is something I thought we agreed not to do anymore.

The stigma of mental health should be removed and we cannot exclude that in any discussion about the well-being of any human.

by ajain on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:05:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (1.00 / 3)

STOP ASSUMING THAT HE MEANS REMOVING MENTAL HEALTH FROM THE GREATER HEALTHCARE DISCUSSION. YOU ARE MAKING AN STUPID, VERY IGNORANT ASSUMPTION THAT HAS NO BASIS OF FACT.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:44:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 4)

yes. it is. mental distress could cause the mother to off herself.

Ask any doctor if mental distress doesn't fit within the "health" of ANYONE.

by colebiancardi on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:20:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 2)

Particularly in cases where the woman has been withdrawn from medication in order not to affect the development of the fetus. For some people, psychotropic drugs are life sustaining and life saving. Mental illness can also develop in the middle of a pregnancy that requires serious treatment. Just being pregnant does not keep anyone from developing new or latent mental health conditions. It might even trigger their appearance.

by Scotch on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:33:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (1.00 / 2)

And there are ways to do treatment without medication. So by your rational it is OK to kill off a child who can LIVE OUTSIDE THE WOMB because of depression, or even suicidal thoughts... especially when said actions are treatable and are not an immediate DEATH SENTENCE to the mother. Watching the mother to make sure she doesn't hurt herself makes much more sense.

THIRD TERM ABORTION SHOULD ONLY BE USED IF IT MEANS WITHOUT IT THE MOTHER WILL DIE IMMEDIATELY AND THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO INSURE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER! THERE IS NO MENTAL HEALTH CONDITION (CONDITIONS THAT ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO TREAT) THAT FULFILLS THIS AS EVEN A WOMAN WITH SUICIDAL TENDENCIES CAN BE WATCHED AND TREATED.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:48:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 1)

and then what happens after the birth?

gee, Andrea Yates, anyone?

by colebiancardi on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:13:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I troll rated you (none / 0)

for not knowing what the hell you are talking about and STILL talking about women as if they were immoral and should just STFU and incubate.

please be quiet and go read my other comments and learn something and do not bother to argue with me about the facts until you have done some research. You simply have no clue.

by Teacher1956 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:07:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (1.60 / 5)

He didn't say mental health, he said mental distress. I believe he's referring to someone simply saying, "It's distressing to have a baby right now!"

While I don't appreciate Obama making any kinds of conciliatory gestures to wingnuts at this particular time, let's also at least be a little pragmatic here. Frankly, it's ridiculous to suggest that Obama doesn't understand what mental illness is or would refuse to allow abortions necessitated by it.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:38:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 1)

that is a reach!! lol

by colebiancardi on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:45:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It isn't a reach at all (1.00 / 1)

I personally know of a person who had lost her job, her boyfriend left her and she was having issues with her parents.

She wanted to get an abortion on those grounds way into her pregnancy. She was claiming she was too distressed to have the baby. She ended up having the baby and her parents are now raising the child while she gets her act together.

I'm sorry that is completely unacceptable when there is adoption and your ass should know what you are getting into. If the mother's physical health and she has a legitimate mental illness then yes I think late term abortions are okay.

"mental distress" is very broad and although I support a woman's right to choose the idea of people just aborting babies for the hell of it bothers me.

by sweet potato pie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:37:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

what an insulting and outrageous (none / 0)

thing to say, that women who have late term abortions because "it's distressing to have a baby right now."

by Teacher1956 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:09:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 1)

Fisa, public funds to religious organizations, Iraq and now this! Choice is a bedrock Democratic Party position. At least it was until the party was disassembled and moved to Chi-town.

What will tomorrow bring? His position on health care (which was never universal) is subject to refinement after he visits with the CEOs of major insurance companies?

And next week? Maybe a hint his SCOTUS nominees will all come from the pinnicle of conservatism, The University of Chicago.

by Tolstoy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:46:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (1.00 / 2)

THIS WAS BILL CLINTON'S POSITION ON THIRD TERM ABORTIONS! HE VETOED THE BILL ONLY BECAUSE IT LACKED THE EXCEPTION FOR A WOMANS HEALTH. THIS WAS HILLARY'S POSITION AS WELL. KNOW WTF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:50:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (none / 0)

I know exactly what I'm talking about. You obviously don't. Look it up. Obama, pandering to evangelicals, stated he would support an exception only for "physical" health.

by Tolstoy on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:45:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Doe v. Bolton (2.00 / 1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bolt on#Broad_definition_of_health

Broad definition of health

The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her "health." The Court defined "health" broadly:
" Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. "

This determination that abortion will be available all the way up until birth, for a wide variety of reasons, has proven to be controversial -- "at least as controversial as its holding respecting the period prior to viability."[2]

by Dumbo on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:05:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You might find this informative (2.00 / 3)

It was written by a woman who underwent the procedure:

Uncommon Misconception

I think that pretty much says it all - but I would like to add one more thing. I have a friend whose fetus died early in the pregnancy. Because 'late term abortion' was banned in her state (no exceptions) she was forced to carry the remains of that dead fetus until her body naturally expelled it - or nine months expired (which ever came first). She went the nine months, at which point they induced labor and she gave birth to a corpse.

It shattered her. Absolutely shattered her. Her 'mental distress' before, during and after was overwhelming. That's what's wrong with Obama's stance. There are always exceptions. It should be the doctor who helps decide - not some politician who hasn't a clue.

By the way - Obama's views on abortion haven't changed from before he was running. I heard him state this very same opinion back in December of 2006. I have to say - it bothered me then.

by The Fat Lady Sings on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:31:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is exactly the point (2.00 / 2)

Women don't have abortions for ill-considered, selfish reasons. Decisions of this sort are generally carefully considered. Only the people immediately impacted by the abortion decision have the information, perspective and interest to evaluate each individual case. This belief underpins the Democratic position on abortion rights. Obama does not seem to understand that fact.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:41:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You might find this informative (1.00 / 1)

If there was a Health Exception as proposed by Obama and supported by Bill Clinton when he was President.... The above scenario would never have happened... WHICH IS VERY CLEAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS TAKEN MORE THAN A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO STUDY THIS ISSUE AND ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND IT.

Either you have no actual understanding of what he said and the issue involved OR you purposely are trying to spin this for your own agenda. EITHER WAY, KNOCK IT OFF.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:54:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think you're the one with the agenda here (2.00 / 1)

My comment was meant to be illustrative. Your blind put down speaks to your own fears. Criticism = traitorous thinking in your book (same book the Bush White House reads, by the way). Try getting past linear think-lines. There's more than one way to look at anything, you know (or perhaps you don't).

by The Fat Lady Sings on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:16:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (none / 0)

I consider it none of your goddamn business...

by jrsygrl on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:55:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (1.00 / 2)

Your "concern" cole is duly noted.

"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Bill Clinton

by venician on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:46:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 2)

STFU. You have been making stupid remarks. If you read my history here and my diaries, you would be a much better informed person.

I am holding my nose & voting for Obama in the GE. BUT THAT doesn't mean I will shut up or point out the pandering that he is doing that is destroying his support with the democrats.

Remember, Hillary got the majority of registered democratic voters in the primary. Obama didn't. He should be trying to get his fucking base in line with him, not this stupid pandering to the f'ing right.

this is more than moving to the center. This is going over the line and into republican territory.

by colebiancardi on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:11:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 2)

Mental stress only leads to silly things such as:

1. Post partum depression ( mother does not want to have anything w/ the child)
2. Munchausen by proxy syndrome ( kill the child)

Hardly a reason to be worried about those 2.

He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."

by roxfoxy on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:56:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (1.00 / 1)

Both of which are issues DEVELOPED POST PARTUM AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH A THIRD TERM ABORTION.

Seriously, you just made one of the most ignorant statements I have ever seen. THat argument has no bearing on the issue at hand and to even make it shows you have NO UNDERSTANDING of the issue and are not willing to take the time to educate yourself.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:58:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Anyone without a uterus should (2.00 / 1)

STFU about abortion. IMHO.
And a male politician who said that would be applauded by women.

John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!

by kosnomore on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:15:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anyone without a uterus should (1.00 / 1)

Your right, because women reproduce Asexually... OH WAIT THEY DON'T.

Please take your own advice

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:59:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And do you squeeze the kid out yer junk? (none / 0)

Carry them for 9 months? Nurse them?
I didn't think so.

John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!

by kosnomore on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:28:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He better give the base (2.00 / 3)

a wink wink. He must really feel that these wingnuts will fall for anything. The problem with Obama's strategy is that they'll hit him for even supporting late-term abortion to begin with, so he'll gain no points that way.

What the hell is up with this guy; he was already leading McCain without having to shift rightward and yet even with that shift, people may call bullshit on him (e.g. they want discrimination in the faith-based program). So he loses his base without gaining anything among the wingnuts.

by Blazers Edge on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:48:53 PM EST

Re: He better give the base (2.00 / 5)

The problem is that at this point I am not sure he is even pandering. Maybe this is who he really is.

Makes me wonder: Is nothing sacred?

by ajain on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:50:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He better give the base (2.00 / 3)

He has been all along. He's no progressive. The difference is that now a lot of folks can't occupy their time with hating on Hillary, so they're actually starting to notice.

by daria g on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:56:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He better give the base (2.00 / 1)

This last 24 hours has been a lot of fun.

If you want Unity, nominate a Democrat

by rankles on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:47:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You know (none / 0)

If you said this during the primaries, fine, but if you're a Democrat at this juncture and are gleeful about the candidate having a rough time...your priorities are seriously skewed. Enjoy your schadenfraude. If Obama loses and McCain appoints a pro-life, anti-privacy judge to replace Stevens or Ginsburg on the SC, will you enjoy that.

I enjoyed the poll that had Obama up by 5 in Montana. I'd like a Democrat to be in the White House.

No, I'm not happy with some of the actions Obama has taken, particularly his weakness on FISA, but this issue seems a tempest in a teapot and not anything like what the poster (or more so, many commenters) are saying...

by thurst on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:57:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He better give the base (2.00 / 0)

He's not losing his base. Certainly not over this "issue"... He is pro-choice.

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:50:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He better give the base (1.00 / 8)

Obama is NOT pro-choice. From Illinois NOW:

As a State Senator, Barack Obama voted `present' on seven abortion bills, including a ban on 'partial birth abortion,' two parental notification laws and three 'born alive' bills. He chose political cover over standing and fighting for his convictions

by Xov Wonk on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:54:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He better give the base (none / 0)

Obama is pro-choice ( btw, surprised you actually made a comment instead of the usual troll-rates without cause).

He has a 100% rating from NARAL for three consecutive years.

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:53:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is NOT pro-choice (none / 0)

Again from Illinois NOW:

In each case, the right vote was clear, but Senator Obama chose political cover over standing and fighting for his convictions.

"When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass. He wasn't there for us then and we don't expect him to be now."

by Xov Wonk on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:30:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is NOT pro-choice (none / 0)

To say that Obama is not pro-choice is an idiotic statement.

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:07:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He better give the base (1.00 / 1)

My GOD, The trolls or the stupid are out in force. Go away troll. Or if stupid, educate yourself. This argument has been debunked numerous times.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:00:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He better give the base (none / 0)

Indeed, the myth that Obama is "pro-choice" has been debunked many times by the National Organization for Women in Illinois -- his HOME state, who REFUSED to endorse him for President.

by Xov Wonk on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:34:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He better give the base (1.00 / 1)

Provide a link there little troll.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:01:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He better give the base (none / 0)

Even though those votes were taken at the REQUEST of Planned Parenthood, against Obama's own objections, as part of a legislative strategy "developed by Planned Parenthood to stop Republican attacks on pro-choice candidates."

In Illinois, 'present' is equivalent to 'no'. You're parroting incorrect talking points from the primary which doesn't contribute to an open and honest dialogue.

Links:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/ 01/obama_campaign_defends_present.html

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/200 8/01/08/fact_check_obamas_strong_proch.p hp

[ Donate to Barack Obama ]

by semiquaver on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:21:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your info from BO doesn't cut it (none / 0)

From Illinois NOW:

To be clear, voting "present" on those bills was a strategy that IL NOW did not support. At that time, we made it clear to the legislators that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the harmful anti-choice bills being brought to the floor of the Illinois State Senate.

Voting "present" does not demonstrate leadership and does not send the clarion signal that one is unwavering in their support of a woman's right to choose.

IL NOW knew that those bills were unacceptable to women....the strategy to vote "present" was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts. State Senator Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district and he could have voted "no" with little negative consequence in his district.

by Xov Wonk on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:43:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He better give the base (2.00 / 3)

Exactly. He cannot throw his base under the bus to please the wingnuts, because run over basers will not vote. He is already in trouble in possibly not getting a lot of Democratic votes in the GE, he is working to make that a certainty with things like this.

by Scotch on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:28:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He better give the base (none / 0)

Really, show us your proff.

"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Bill Clinton

by venician on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:48:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He better give the base (none / 0)

Obama isn't trying to appeal to either the right-wing or the left-wing absolutists on this issue, because he's not pursuing the Rovian 50/49 strategy of mobilizing the base to barely win. He's trying to appeal to the large majority of americans, whose position is somewhere between the two, because if he wins the middle-ground, he wins 60/40, triggering a fundamental realignment of politics in the US, and the Democratic party dominates the US for decades.

Smart.

by laird on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:42:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama =Bush Lite? (1.75 / 8)

Smart? In the primary, it was called "triangulation" and routinely criticized.

by Xov Wonk on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:09:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (none / 0)

No... to answer your question, he is not hedging on abortion rights.
That he disagrees with an idiotic decision by this latest SCOTUS is proof enough.

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:49:40 PM EST

NARAL (none / 0)

actually backed him up on this one; this one seems to be a blatant wink-wink but it may backfire on him if the base doesn't feel it's a wink-wink and the wingnuts don't buy the shit he's selling.

by Blazers Edge on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:50:38 PM EST

Re: NARAL (none / 0)

Looks like somebody needs a hug.

Obama/Clark (still dreaming)

by spacemanspiff on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:52:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NARAL (2.00 / 1)

I thought you were leaving?

GBCW?

Don't let the door hit you...

If you want Unity, nominate a Democrat

by rankles on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:48:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NARAL (none / 0)

NARAL was in the tank since the primaries. They are making a political calculation, which happens to be correct. Regardless of his position he will be better for NARAL than John McCain.

by souvarine on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:56:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 7)

He was a little more clear than just "mental distress", the problem must be physical: "I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy"

Two things here: once again this is not a departure for Obama, he was never particularly strong on women's issues, and he has always been soft on abortion rights. He voted present for a reason.

Secondly, this is the first general election issue where he unambiguously demonstrates a major difference from Hillary Clinton's positions.

by souvarine on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:52:04 PM EST

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (1.66 / 3)

Stop... just stop now.

Bringing up the "present" issue? Really...? NARAL IL and Planned Parenthood have both praised and endorsed him.

NARAL has given him 100% for three years.

Sheesh.

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:54:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 1)

All I am saying is that it is absurd at this point to pretend that this statement to Relevant is anything new for Obama. He does not take the strong pro-choice position on late term abortions, and he never has.

by souvarine on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:58:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 0)

He voted against the partial birth abortion ban. Not everybody else did, as I recall.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:00:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (none / 0)

Your comment currently is rated:

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 0)

How does this happen? Did someone who mojo'd you get banned?

[ Donate to Barack Obama ]

by semiquaver on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:24:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 0)

No, you said he was never really strong on women's issues... That, I, and many pro-choice organizations, take exception to. Then you pulled out the moldy-oldey "present" issue.

He is strong on women's rights.

That he wants a health exclusion on this issue is proof.

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:02:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 5)

That he does not consider mental health "health" is my proof.

by souvarine on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:04:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (1.00 / 3)

sou, you have no integrity when you bring up the bogus "present" shit. It shows how bitter you still are and how you have become no better then athe Mctrolls.

"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Bill Clinton

by venician on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:52:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 4)

You are welcome to pretend his present votes meant whatever you like, that was the point. To preserve ambiguity.

For me they demonstrated his opinion on issues like late term abortions. I find that his response in this interview confirms my theory of what those votes meant, so to me Barack Obama's behavior here is consistent with my interpretation of those present votes.

I would be curious to understand how your theory of Obama's present votes is consistent with his response to the question from Relevant.

by souvarine on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:11:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (1.33 / 3)

It's getting rather sad how stuck in the primaries you are. I have no interest in rehashing them, especially with someone who is blinded by her anger. But thanks for your "concern".

"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Bill Clinton

by venician on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:57:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How does that square with the responses his (none / 0)

campaign officially gave to Reproductive Health Reality Check last December:
Q: "Does Sen. Obama support any restrictions on abortion, or does he believe it should be entirely up to women?"
A: "Obama supports those restrictions that are consistent with the legal framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade."

That's a loophole large enough to drive a truck through.

by suzieg on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:43:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (none / 0)

That was before his statement which came out yesterday.

by Tolstoy on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:07:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (1.00 / 2)

He voted present for a reason?

This bullshit deadender talking point again?

This is sooooooooo 2 months ago.

Your talking points are old and stale.

Not even worth the time to refute this point.

Obama/Clark (still dreaming)

by spacemanspiff on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:54:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 1)

Well, that would be news to the Republican Party that Obama is weak on abortion rights. Here are some titles written by fairly prominent Pubs: "Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate ever" and "Obama's abortion extremism."

by Blazers Edge on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:56:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 2)

Repubs dont need degrees to hot Obama on abortion. I can't see what great upside there is for him. It just makes me feel uncomfortable.

by ajain on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:58:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (none / 0)

*hit

(not hot)

by ajain on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:59:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do I think this guy is a strong supporter (2.00 / 0)

of abortion rights? Absolutely. That line he blurted out "I don't want my daughters punished by a baby" I think captures his true beliefs (though he claims it was a response to a question about birth control). I think he should embrace his past record on this issue rather than try to fool the wingnuts; they will never give him the time or day because they don't do nuance. It's either Roe v. Wade or not to them.

by Blazers Edge on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:03:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do I think this guy is a strong supporter (2.00 / 1)

That is hardly unusual. Many anti-choice people have had or paid for abortions. Few people will deny themselves or their children the choice.

by souvarine on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:06:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do I think this guy is a strong supporter (2.00 / 0)

I disagree; the wingnuts were all up-in-arms about that statement that he made. The video of him making that statement is going to be played in Colorado now until election night.

by Blazers Edge on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:09:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do I think this guy is a strong supporter (none / 0)

They have made the inverse calculation that NARAL made. McCain will be better for them than Barack Obama, no matter how much Obama softens the Democratic position on choice.

by souvarine on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:13:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do I think this guy is a strong supporter (2.00 / 2)

Here is the problem. When a candidate changes his views from those he has expressed and pushed in the past just to get votes, then he can't be trusted to change back to his old way of thinking. A person cannot put his finger to the wind, state two different views, and expect to be trusted. Noone knows what that person actually stands for and will not, rightfully so, take a chance on them.

by Scotch on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:23:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do I think this guy is a strong supporter (none / 0)

It seems to be confusing to people here, but Obama is a moderate, who takes moderate, nuanced positions on controversial issues. I think that during the primaries progressives interpreted this as being more progressive, and now that we're into the general election it's becoming clear that Obama was serious when he said that he wanted to have a political dialogue that crossed party lines to pragmatically get things done. This might frustrate some, but I think that it creates the opportunity for the Democratic party to dominate the mainstream, reducing the Republican party to the right-wing fringe, which is much better for the country.

by laird on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:31:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (none / 0)

His interview with Relevant is intended to counteract that false perception. Barack Obama is not doctrinaire on choice.

by souvarine on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:00:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why does he have to tepidly support (2.00 / 1)

reproductive rights for women - he's not sure when life begins, says that abortion should not be outlawed on religious grounds, but women should consult with their pastors before making a decision. Why do I feel that the democratic party under his tutelage has become the republican "lite" party?

by suzieg on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:59:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 0)

OMG YOU ARE SO RIGHT!!! We've all been suckered!!! Is it too late to nominate Hillary?!?!?!?!?!!??!!?

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:39:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (1.33 / 3)

He voted 'present' at the behest of Illinois' state-wide abortion rights coalition. It was part of their strategy to get cover for enough moderate Republicans to defeat an absolutely horrible anti-choice bill the conservatives were pushing. They sat him and several other Dems down, asked them to vote a certain way and they did exactly what that organization asked of them because they were all pro-choice Democrats. Don't sit here and try lying about who he is or what he believes on this issue. Obama is strong on this issue and always has been.

by Whash on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:51:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nobody twisted Obama's arm (1.80 / 5)

From Illinois NOW:

To be clear, voting "present" on those bills was a strategy that IL NOW did not support. At that time, we made it clear to the legislators that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the harmful anti-choice bills being brought to the floor of the Illinois State Senate.

Voting "present" does not demonstrate leadership and does not send the clarion signal that one is unwavering in their support of a woman's right to choose.

by Xov Wonk on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:43:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nobody twisted Obama's arm (2.00 / 1)

Uprated for TR abuse by serial abuser Can I Haz Moar Snark.

Admins? Take some action, please?

ranks

If you want Unity, nominate a Democrat

by rankles on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:51:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree on this (1.75 / 4)

Third trimester abortions, even late second trimester, should be legal to spare the life and health of the mother only.

If you can't make this decision in 4.5 months, I don't know that you should continue to have free right to terminate the baby.

I bet that I can be convinced that this is extreme - someone will make a good example of a case where there should be an exception to this.

by activatedbybush on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:04:23 PM EST

Re: I agree on this (2.00 / 3)

The situation is that the pregnancy and its effects do not end at 4.5 months. A woman's body continues to change and a mental health situation that has not developed in 4.5 months could easily develop within the last trimester.

This isn't a discussion of whether a woman changes her mind and decides she doesn't want the baby, it is referring to actual mental health issues, many of which are physical, by the way, for instance a major disruption in the chemical balance of the body, which are health issues as much as physical illnesses in the body.

by Scotch on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:19:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mental health issues should be considered (none / 0)

They should be covered in a "life and health" exception to a late term abortion ban.

by activatedbybush on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:12:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree on this (2.00 / 1)

How on earth could this have been troll rated :(

by vinc on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:10:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Go join the republican party -you have no place in (1.66 / 3)

the democratic party if you make yourself judge and jury about women's reproductive rights!! No one but the woman and her doctor should make the decision about her reproductive choice! PERIOD!!!!

by suzieg on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 05:02:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

May I suggest that you go out (none / 0)

and buy and island, declare your own nation, and make yourself undisputed leader of that nation. Then you can make decisions about who is and is not in your party, and what believe and say.

I guess that by your logic, a woman with an 8 1/2 month old fetus should be free to drive a spear into her belly to end her pregnancy. It is her unconditioned choice on whether or not to reproduce - right up to the moment of birth - right?

I believe that your position is barbaric and inherehntly irrational. It ascribes no human rights to a viable fetus. Exactly where do you propose drawing the line here? Is it the fact that the fetus is completely dependent on its mother for survival? Not exactly, since your stance would actually enable the termination of a viable fetus (one that could survive on its own post induced delivery). So what is it exactly? There are many old and impaired people who are more dependent on others for their survival than an 8 1/2 month old fetus is. Grandma can't feed herself or go to the toilet - she is dependent on others to live - should the caregiver be allowed to terminate grandma?

You are being irrational and uncivilized.

by activatedbybush on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:09:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (1.00 / 3)

I hope this is some pandering to evangelicals that he doesn't actually believe, but even then minimizing the seriousness of mental afflictions of pregnant women is simply a way of saying that women should not have control over their bodies even if are in deep emotional and psychological distress. The extension of that argument is that women get cranky and emotional and dont know what is 'the right thing to do' in their emotional fits. It is highly patronizing and pathetic.

You obviously have no idea how the human body works during pregnancy do you? This is a very ignorant and dare I say pathetic comment. Cranky and emotional are not medical terms nor do they scratch the surface of all the changes experienced during pregnancy. It is important to look at things in a case by case basis and completely closing the door on one option can put the patient at a much bigger risk than before.

Do you also call Post Partum Depression the Baby Blues?

Like Tom Cruise do you believe these women are just "emotional" and "cranky" and therefore should not seek treatment?

Their is a reason why women become distraught and depressed during pregnancy and their mental health should be taken into consideration in the desicion making process.

I work in the medical field and approve of his stance on this. Women do have a choice to choose but late term abortions when the mother has no physical risk are dangerous to all involved and counterproductive.

I'd love to go on about this but I've got to run. Maybe I'll pop up in a better written diary on the subject and comment further.

Obama/Clark (still dreaming)

by spacemanspiff on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:08:00 PM EST

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 3)

Nice, Justice Anthony Kennedy weighs in.

"It seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained."

by souvarine on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:11:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Spoken like an ignorant man! (2.00 / 2)

by suzieg on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 05:03:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 3)

I think the diarist is not saying that she believes that crankyness and emotional fits are what women go through, but that the argument that mental health should not be taken into account is an extension of that argument. In other words, not recognizing the impact of mental health in a pregnancy is saying that women just are being emotional and cranky.

by Scotch on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:14:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 3)

well, thanks for the defense. I was going to say the exact same thing.

I'm not dumb enough to simplify mental illnesses to crankiness. I was just saying that the argument against including mental health of pregnant women in the category of "health of mothers" is a stupid and patronizing argument.

by ajain on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:22:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (none / 0)

Well said!

Spacemanspiff's not a doctor, but he plays one in real life.

Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.

by fogiv on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:00:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 6)

Apparently Obama doesn't have experience with mentally ill individuals. That is sad to see. This approach certainly doesn't bode well for his intent to push for mental health parity in health care, either.

Having worked with mentally ill individuals through a good part of my career, I have seen women with severe mental health problems go through hell during pregnancies. Very often medications are withdrawn during pregnancies so that there is no effect on the fetus. However, those medications are absolutely necessary for some to even function and to stay alive, to avoid suicide or dangerous behavior. That is only one way of thousands of ways that mental health is affected by pregnancies. There are as many more situations as there are women that can happen in the area of mental health during pregnancies. Obama should get some real time life experience before he tries to impose his beliefs and ignorance of health onto others. people.

by Scotch on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:08:27 PM EST

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (1.66 / 3)

That's right, you make sure that damn straw man doesn't get out of here alive.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:41:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (none / 0)

Holy fuck. The image that conjured was immensely funny. I had to call my girlfriend in to read it.

Well done!

Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.

by fogiv on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:03:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (1.00 / 2)

Oh, Xov Wank, will you ever stop being a douchebag?

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:29:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 1)

troll rated for personal attack

If you want Unity, nominate a Democrat

by rankles on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:53:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama hedging on abortion rights? (2.00 / 4)

I don't like this type of rhetoric at all. His recent shifts to the right have been getting more and more disturbing. He's better than McCain, but he's going so far over, it would be really hard for me to not focus on other races this fall and only give him my vote, and nothing else.

Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008

by zcflint05 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:19:13 PM EST

I suppose the strategy is to blur (none / 0)

the difference between him and McCain among the wingbats while playing up the differences between him and McCain among Democrats. I disdain this strategy even more than the 50-state strategy but who knows if it'll work.

The wingnuts want you go to the full 100 yards; if you go 20 yards, they'll call you on your bullshit. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one given his "accidential" punished with a baby comment and call this one a pure wink-wink.

by Blazers Edge on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:27:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I suppose the strategy is to blur (2.00 / 3)

I guess, but where do you draw the line with that strategy? What happens if he picks Hagel as Veep? I don't think it would happen, but I didn't think he'd drift this far right in the short period of time since the primary ended. If he's playing that game I think it's a dangerous one--and him picking Hagel or Nunn might be the last straw for any of us. The reason why I didn't back this guy in the primary is because I wasn't really down for all this "post-partisan" rhetoric he was throwing out; my issues are far too important to me to compromise to the level that it seems like he is able too.

Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008

by zcflint05 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:31:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

better than McCain? - see following story (2.00 / 1)

realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/p rochoice_democrats_and_john_m.html

June 10, 2008
Pro-Choice Democrats and John McCain
By Froma Harrop

excerpt:

A big sticking point for wavering Democrats will be McCain's position on reproductive rights. Clinton's backers are overwhelmingly pro-choice, and they'll want to know this: Would McCain stock the Supreme Court with foes of Roe v. Wade? The 1973 decision guarantees a right to abortion.

The answer is unclear but probably "no." While McCain has positioned himself as "pro-life" during this campaign, his statements over the years show considerable latitude on the issue.

In a 1999 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board, McCain said, "I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America" to undergo "illegal and dangerous operations."