Did Obama Really Back More Abortion Limits?

Chicago Tribune:

Does Sen. Barack Obama really mean to say he supports new restrictions on late-term abortions that would effectively weaken Roe v Wade?

That's the huge question that remains following the Democratic presidential candidate's statement yesterday that he doesn't believe a pregnant woman's "mental distress" should be considered a sufficient exception to bans against late-term abortions.

As Jan Crawford Greenberg, ABC News legal correspondent so ably points out in her Legalities blog, Obama's response yesterday to a reporter's question in which the senator sought to clarify his earlier remarks on the issue, left open the possibility that he actually supports a significant narrowing of abortion rights.

Read the whole story: Chicago Tribune

Comments

[kjdwyer]

The following excerpt from this article concerns me:

What [Obama] did not support was the idea of exceptions that would allow late-term abortions based on "mental distress." "It is not just a matter of feeling blue," Obama said.

This is just off the top of my head, but let's say a rape victim, in the violence of her rape, is sent into a coma. She regains consciousness late in her eighth month of pregnancy to discover that the "child" is that of her rapist. What if she can't prove she was raped and thereby is excluded from arguing the rape exception. Does that qualify as "feeling blue?"

That was just off the top of my head. Imagine the other examples, from actual life experience, for which it might be just a little simplistic to reduce "mental distress" to "feeling blue."

I'm waiting for the day when a male candidate will have the courage to say:

"You know what? I'm a man, and as a man, I have no business telling a woman when, how and under what circumstances she can determine the course of her own biology. I can encourage, provide information, offer an alternate point of view, but, in the final analysis, IT IS HER DECISION AND HER DECISION ALONE TO MAKE, AND NEITHER I NOR THE GOVERNMENT HAS ANY BUSINESS EXERTING OUR POWER OVER HER INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO CONTROL THE DESTINY OF HER OWN BODY."

And just for the record, I'm a man.

[zizyphus]

A good man.

[zizyphus]

Have you ever had a friend who was beaten senseless by a rapist, only to wake up months later, pregnant? Have you ever known of a retarded girl who was raped, and did not know she was pregnant? Lucky you, if you don't.

You all sound like forced birth advocates who see women as baby machines and nothing else. You sound like someone whose idea of reality comes from biblical indoctrination.

Did it ever occur to you that anything growing in a woman's body belongs to her, and is only her business, not yours?

All these people crying about the few late term abortions that occur, which are none of their damn business, can't wait for the fetuses to grow up so they can them a gun and send them off to war to be killed.

[Sundialsvc4]

I frankly suggest to all of you that you are much-too-easily "set off," as in what a fuse does to a firecracker.

Remember that all of these so-called candidates are sitting United States Senators ... and the Librarians of Congress are doing their appointed jobs. Surf to their official government web-site, http://thomas.loc.gov, and start reading. The full text of every single bill, every committee action, and of course, every vote taken.

These so-called candidates are playing you all like an accordion ... tossing matches amongst you and watching you go-off. And in so doing, seeking to polarize you -- to divide you -- against yourselves and in favor of one-or-the-other of these hand-picked "candidates." All on the basis of sound bites.

There are circumstances facing this country now that are far graver than what happens to unborn babies. Surf to this site and read for yourselves what is actually going on in the halls of power in this country ... both in regard to this firecracker-issue and every other thing.

Don't let a spin-meister put a ring in your nose.

[mamacat]

I am in principle opposed to last trimester abortions. I think there can be reasons for performing them, but that they should be the exception and definitely not the rule. I think that abortions in the first trimester should be available on demand.

I think that most people probably feel the same way. I do not like the idea of interfering with a woman's right to choose, but at some point the fetus becomes an unborn child, and I think that happens in the last trimester. Does an unborn child have any rights?

[JadedAggie]

I'm not quite where he is, but this is completely ridiculous. It's understandable why people would be against a mental distress exemption since it is so easy to get a false diagnoses for depression. The problem is further magnified by the fact that if you support like restrictions like I do it's incredibly hard to figure out where to draw the line. A woman with a level of mental distress that is truly threatening enough to give an exemption is likely to be putting her near incompetence taking the decision away from her. So you end up with the paradox of a woman who is now mentally ill enough for the exemption, but too mentally ill to make the decision.

[HumeSkeptic]

This should be medical decision, not a political decision.

That said, I don't see any contradiction in what 0bama has said before and what he is saying now.

He is solidly pro-choice and Mc Cain is solidly ant-choice. To me that's what s really important here.

.

[steamboat]

LATE-TERM abortions are what he's against. Just them. So am I. Hey, the lady has had about 6 months to get one. If she hasn't gotten one by then, the hell with it. Have the kid.

[tbone99]

The problem is many fetal abnormalities are not caught until later.

[steamboat]

Oh, I get it......What happens if a child might become disabled. Inotherwords, lets only have perfection....You folks sound like Hitler.

[akryan]

Even if he said he personally totally opposed late term abortions (which he hasn't said he does) they're only a small fraction of all abortions performed. It also wouldn't mean that he would push for laws restricting abortion. He is pro-choice and is going to appoint pro-choice supreme court justices. This fiction that he's the most liberal senator in the country (repeated ad nauseum) just isn't true. He is a true centrist. Everyone will find something they can agree with him on and everyone can find something they oppose him on.

[emcd]

If the hypocrites of the (religious) right would "allow" birth control to be MORE readily available, then perhaps abortions of all types would become LESS often performed. The fact that they want to curtail or eliminate both are pretty convincing arguments to me that what they are really after is controlling women's reproductive rights.

So I am all for restricting and reducing abortions if only in conjunction with increased birth control availability and education. And I would applaud the right's desire to protect the unborn if they would only show that same desire to protect and nuture the already born who need society's help.

Take a look at Obama's position on these issues together and then decide if it is a sensible and reasonable approach.

[PATina]

I don't see the whole debate in legislating abortion. Every woman is different, every pregnancy is different. There is no way to foresee what may come up and how it may affect a person. While I understand the horror of late term abortions... most (if not all) states have already deemed them illegal save for the health of the mother or fetus. Why can't we just leave it at that.

[texanna]

So many heads spinning in the spin Sen. O is in. A woman's health should be a matter between her and her doctor - period. Anyone that thinks abortion is a desirable option is probably a male. No woman wants to be in that position, but if that is where she finds herself, it is her body and her decision. That NARAL reiterated their support after these remarks is amazing to me. I think this is the quickest any candidate has ever thrown off the cloak of Progressivism after the primary campaign. I am sad to say that my skepticism regarding Sen. Obama during the primary has been proven true.

[pupbayer]

NARAL is a group of left field nut cases now. The new leadership has taken them way off their original course.

[lily]

That kind of "reasoning" doesn't make any sense - unless you're a judgmental as a pro-lifer which is sounds like you are. It's simply none of your business how many abortions a woman has, or why she has them.

And you have no way of knowing if this woman was healthy or not, but I don't believe you give a damn whether she is or not. You just think she should be controlled.

[CDMelty]

Isn't it the prevailing opinion that "Gee I'm really bummed" shouldn't be reason for late-term abortion? I mean, there's a difference between health, even mental health, and just the disappointment of being told no. I personally wouldn't want a president who sees any trivial level of distress as a medical emergency. What's he going to do, take a sick day every time he gets bad news? He'd rack up more vacation time than GW's taken!

[zizyphus]

Women, by virtue of our anatomy, lead our lives trying to avoid being raped. I, for one, would not give birth to the offspring of a man who raped me. Even if the abortion had to occur after the 27th week, which is one of the parameters for "late-term" abortion. No. I would not risk my life to give birth to a rapist's offspring. Uh-huh. No.

According to the "Christians", women should be forced to give birth to whatever monster manages to get it's sperm attached to one of her eggs.

It is time to call them what they are–forced birth advocates, not "pro-lifers".

[rzan1]

If rapied, why would you wait until the third trimester to have an abortion, at a time when the baby is viable?

[ann1]

Exactly...and besides who'd want to carry around the child of a "monster" for 27 weeks.

[supersenior]

I can not think of any reason other than physicl health of the mother to allow a late term abortion. I strongly support free choice but not stupidity. My God, if you don't want to carry on a pregnancy then do something about it early on. It's safe, it available. What possible reason whould a woman have for carrying a pregnancy to the third term and then aborting it? To abort a viable life is just hard to accept. I agree with Obama. This should never be allowed just because you change your mind at a late date. By being so militant the pro-choice movement risks the support of the majority of people. I don't want to go back to the way it was in the 60's, I remember, I was in college then and there were few options. You all begin to sound like those idiot NRA types who don't want to give up their AK-47's for fear of losing all gun rights. The right to choose - YES, the right to take a viable life because you just "feel" like it - NO

[ebethgay]

Or the unfortunate rape victim who is in the 27th week of pregnancy could make the selfless decision to tough it out 13 more weeks and turn that "monster offspring" into the pride and joy of a childless couple. If your life was at risk, then you should have the opportunity to make a very difficult choice with your doctor. But under the scenario you've presented, being a rape victiim, then you would have gotten the morning after pill at the hospital after you reported the rape. And if you didn't report the rape, then you probably would have looked for signs of preganacy months earlier - you know they sell pregnancy tests at every grocery store and drug store. Then you could decide to end your pregnancy, before the fetus is viable.

I feel sad for you that you lead your life in rape-avoidance. What a tortured existance that must be.

[nomobull]

only for those looking for something to try to spin.

[GeorgeKaplan]

This is an issue between a women and her doctor. Not the governments role to decide. Not a minor issue. If I had wanted restrictions on abortion I would have voted for McCain.