Where Is Obama's Truth on Late Term Abortion?

Barack Obama waxed not-so-poetic about late term abortion, the federal abortion ban and the validity of mental health exceptions in said ban to the Christian magazine Relevant last week, telling the interviewer that states should have the right to restrict or ban late term abortions. And Obama made no bones about the fact that, as he sees it, "mental distress" should not qualify as a threat to "the health of the mother". He was referring to the health exceptions the Supreme Court has deemed unnecessary in order to ensure the constitutionality of the (medically-ambiguous-at-best term) "partial birth abortion" ban ignoring the health exceptions explicitly required in Roe v. Wade and its "companion" ruling, Doe v. Bolton.

Last year, in a questionnaire on reproductive health issues sent out to all of the presidential candidates at that time, Barack Obama's campaign had this to say to RH Reality Check:

RH Reality Check: Does Sen. Obama support any restrictions on abortion, or does he believe it should be entirely up to women?

Obama supports those restrictions that are consistent with the legal framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade allows the law to consider a woman's mental health as well as her physical health when making decisions about late term abortion. Presumably, therefore, Obama should support the mental health exception as presented in Roe v. Wade. But that's not what his recent comments suggested to many reporters, journalists and media outlets.

The mainstream, progressive and conservative news media all went ballistic. The Baltimore Sun asked if Obama was for "weakening Roe v. Wade?" The Bay Area Indymedia shouted, "Anti-Abortion Obama -- He Gets Worse by the Minute" while over at The National Review online, Ramesh Ponnuru's sarcastically titled post, "Obama on Abortion (For Now)" takes the Senator to task for still not being anti-choice enough (what? Obama thinks there should be any exceptions for the woman's health when it comes to late term abortion?!).

Offering pro-choice legislators some credit, campaign spokeswoman Shannon Gilson clarified yesterday,

"Senator Obama [...] recognizes that some people view these health exceptions not as exceptions, but as a way around these restrictions. Senator Obama believes that while 'mental distress' should not be covered by a health exception, there will be cases where carrying to term a pregnancy may seriously damage a woman's mental health and those cases should be covered. He believes that we can craft well-defined health exceptions -- as pro-choice legislators have tried in Congress and in state legislatures -- that address those concerns and fully protect women's health."

Story continues below

advertisement

What is the truth about Obama's position on this issue?

Did Obama's statements reveal his real stance on abortion access and rights for women? Or was it a political misstep, kow-towing to the religious media and telling the young, twenty-something readers of the Christian magazine what they wanted to hear? Maybe Barack Obama just hasn't thought this through to the degree that he needs to.

Remember McCain's embarrassing spate of ignorance last year when grilled by a reporter about contraception/condoms and HIV transmission? He was, in his own words, "stumped" and told the reporter he didn't know his position because he wasn't "informed enough about it."

But what should we make of Obama's statements last year in response to the Supreme Court decision allowing the federal abortion ban to remain?

"I strongly disagree with today's Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman's medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."

Less than one year ago, Obama was standing firmly against any state restrictions on late term abortion. Less than one year ago, Obama did not differentiate between respecting a woman's physical medical concerns and her mental and emotional concerns. There was no mention then that the very personal decisions between a doctor and a patient should stand only if politicians deem them correct decisions.

Where is the truth now?

The "truth" that I'm looking for from Barack Obama, from John McCain, from all of our politicians -- is not the one truth about these issues but their own truths.

Does Barack Obama now honestly believe that a small percentage of the already tiny percentage of women who undergo late term abortions, those who, under the advice of a skilled physician, decide that a D&X is the safest procedure, if a heart-wrenching one, for them, are somehow not broken enough to receive one?

More to the point: does Barack Obama's truth point him towards erring on the side of giving women less control over their own health and bodies, while giving government more?

Does Barack Obama's truth allow him to accept the politically-created, medically meaningless term "partial birth abortion" as he speaks to the upholding or creation of laws based on the term?

I hope not.

I want Obama to understand what an utterly pointless distraction this entire issue is. I want him to realize how sweetly and utterly he has played into the hands of those who want only to entrap him in political sport where the only winners are the leaders of the anti-choice organizations who originally created the term "partial birth abortion;" the leaders who insist on pushing presidential candidates into a mindless corner in which they must endlessly discuss medical procedures that should be the domain of physicians and their patients.

Many have already argued and will argue brilliantly, from places both personal and professional, the importance of mental health exceptions in any abortion ban, patiently describing to Senator Obama why his declaration is wrong, that only "serious mental health complications" (and not, as he puts it "just feeling blue") should be legally accepted as the golden key to the medical exception passageway on the way to a late term abortion.

I choose only to ask Barack Obama to resist the urge to play the game that will get him nowhere. Last year Barack Obama told an interviewer that he supported the choice position because he "trusts women to make a prayerful decision."

I'm going to ask Barack Obama to do the same.

Originally published on RH Reality Check

Comments

[LeeScho]

Hey! Where is everybody on this!? Six responses!

Oooohh, Amie! This is not good.

I know: pare it down some. Less dense. Only the essential issues. Your need to write, "More to the point . . . ." might say it all. It says you had strayed from the essential, the clear.

Come on, Amie. Get back in there. Convince us that you have a viable point here. And don't just get more to it, hit it dead on.

[PuppaX]

Mental distress is a medical term that is distinct from mental illness.

Mental distress basically means the same thing as "upset," typically caused by things like grief, stress, fatigue, drug or alcohol use, or accidents, and are typified by being temporary. Someone in mental distress for an extended period of time may be diagnosed with mental illness.

Obama basically said that someone temporarily upset at the thought of giving birth is not the same thing as someone suffering from a mental illness.

[LeeScho]

Both NARAL and the NRA believe that any restrictions on their core issues is an erosive element that will lead to abolishment. Some call that belief fanatical; I call it wise, given the history of governments to oppress. And even though NARAL did cut Obama some slack on his "mental distress" comment, it took (and takes still) some serious heat from its supporters over it.

As an outsider to both groups, I wholeheartedly support Roe.v Wade and the 2nd Amendment.

But we outsiders have some serious moral an social responsibilities when it comes to both unrestricted abortions and unrestricted distribution of handguns and assault rifles. More lives are at stake than just that of the pregnant woman and the gun-owner.

I do not want my government taking innocent lives unnecessarily in my name. I do not want my neighbor to do that either.

[LABC]

Maybe if you would stop using the tired "right screeches...left reacts" scenario to everything brought up by people with agendas (good afternoon, PUMA), you would stop putting words in Senator Obama's mouth or wringing your hands and offering unsolicited advice. His position is consistent within the framework of Roe v. Wade. I would suggest you reread that decision and you would have a better understanding as to the balance of interests that come into play in the latter stage of pregnancy. It is not as simple as anti-choices make it out to be, but it is not a woman's absolute a right to terminate a pregnancy at that stage for something like mental distress.

[texanna]

Well, he keeps saying these days that what he's saying now is what he is, and that he was saying these things all along. Of course, the public record doesn't back him up, as you've been able to demonstrate in your article. That begs the question - was the Obama of a year ago that was doing and saying anything to win the nomination the REAL Obama? Or, is this Obama that apparently will do and say anything to win the WH the REAL Obama? Or, is there another REAL Obama that we haven't seen yet that will emerge after he gets into the WH? And, if that's the case -- which of the other REAL Obamas will it most resemble? I've been asked to trust that the one in the WH will be progressive and that the one we're seeing now is just to get the votes. How disingenuous is that? What really got me about this obvious pandering to a small group of religious zealots was that he actually used the language of the anti-choice people. "Late term abortion" -- pleeeez, that's right out of the negative, emotionally charged play book of the anti-choice crowd. That and the fact that yet another male who will NEVER have to think at all about this with respect to his own body is so willing to pass judgment on those who will.

[Triciann]

Driving to work through busy traffic can cause "mental distress". Obama used his words wisely. Again he's not changing his position. People just need to listen more carefully.

[SouthpawSass]

Obama, lay person, not a medical professional. So:

Perhaps he should have been more political in how he responded, but when I heard the termonology of "mental distress" I didn't take it as being a mental illness like severe depression where the mother is either suicidal or homicidal.

Is the "distress" gestational in nature? Is it treatable? What's the severity when we can draw a line or can we ever draw a line? Is distress diagnosed the way pain is diagnosed, varying degrees depended upon one's tolerance level? Who diagnoses it, a psychiatrist or the patient?

If a woman has amnio and finds out her baby has downs syndrome, is that distressful enough for her to be able to choose to abort? Amnio doesn't predict severity, but presence. So, what's your take on that?

Finally, what defines late term? Anything after 3 months?