I'll See Your GrassRoots FISA Problem and Raise You Some Pissed Off Women

I'm not going to lie.

My brain still fuzzy after the 4th's fireworks and libations, I had to rub my eyes and go get my glasses upon reading this morning's headlines.

"Obama: Mental distress can't justify late abortion"

My heart sank.

Then I had to clear the cobwebs from my brain and process what was being said before I cried into my Women for Obama t-shirt.

Here is the short version, and what went on in my head as I read:

Senator Obama did an interview with some Christian magazine and said

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."

In my head:

oh holy hell, is he pandering to the right with this crap? are you kidding me? why would he even talk about limits and and definitions when the women's vote is being so heavily courted by Senator McCain...is he talking about limits on just late term or could this carry over into 'mental distress' in any termination of pregnancy and what exactly qualifies as 'mental distress' and who gets to decide and why is the government even INVOLVED in this and why on earth wold he say some like that to a Christian magazine and would he have said the same to planned parenthood and what in the hell is going on with my candidate because I realize this whole 'move to the center' thing is really just people educating themselves on where he has ALWAYS stood but has he always stood against mental distress/late term abortion stuff....crap I need coffee.

I then hinted to fellow Huffington Post contributor Lee Stranahan that he was welcome to drive the extra 20 minutes to deliver me a latte, since he was already out getting one for his wife. Lee politely mentioned something about gas prices and I begrudgingly made myself a pot.

I'm now two cups in and ready to break this down a bit so no one gets hysterical and suffers the same caffeine-free heart failure I did a few hours ago.

NARAL endorsed Obama. They believe "A health exception must also account for the mental health problems that may occur in pregnancy. Severe fetal anomalies, for example, can exact a tremendous emotional toll on a pregnant woman and her family."

If Obama acts on his position, he'd be going against NARAL and other pro-choice entities.

However, Obama spokespeople stress "Obviously, as he stated in the interview, he has consistently believed those exceptions should be clear and limited enough to ensure that they don't undermine the prohibition on late-term abortions."

Which I HOPE means he's not going to push that provision because it would undermine.

We will need clarification on that before we all go crazy here.

I'll be the first to admit late-term abortion is where my very staunch support of all reproductive rights gets clouded. It's uncomfortable to think about, to grapple with, to imagine. However I always default to the position of NOT knowing every woman's situation.

We also know our right to control our own reproduction is constantly under attack. The anti-choice movement takes every inch they can get on any issue on the table to tries and 'undermine' current laws and legislation.

The issues are varied and the debate is large and overwhelming.

Even in my own family, the discussion and debate causes problems. My husband and I disagree over parental consent and continue to go around-and-around on the topic.

I respect my husband's opinion, but I think he's wrong.

I respect Senator Obama's opinion, but I think he's wrong.

I still married my husband, and we continue to debate the issue.

I'm still voting for Obama, and expect we will continue to debate the issue.

Maybe voting is a bit like marriage.

My husband has core values that I agree with and we compromise and fight and respect each other on some of the details.

Senator Obama has a core values that I agree with...I'm guessing between FISA and this, the compromise and fight and respect on those details will also emerge.

So long as those core values remain, I'm guessing we can stay out of divorce proceedings.

So long as those core values remain, I'm guessing we can stay out of third-party candidate, write-in vote proceedings.

The Senator, like my husband, remains the best person for the job.

Although I wish they were both a bit more like Mrs. Stranahan's husband and would bring me some coffee.

Erin Kotecki Vest is Political Director at BlogHer.com and thinks she's Queen of the World on her own blog Queen of Spain blog. She also contributes over at MOMocrats where even her non-coffee bringing husband has guest posted so the entire family can Rage Against the McCain.

Comments

[Laserbeam]

03:42 PM on 07/07/2008

There are already considerab­le restrictio­ns on late-term abortion. It is already used only in cases of saving the life of the mother and not frivolousl­y.

It angers me when MEN call abortion "frivolous­" (male posters, are you listening?­). No abortion is frivolous, no abortion is easy, no abortion is pleasant. I have never met anyone who uses it for abortion. A late-term abortion is truly hellish.

I don't understand why politician­s talking about putting "restricti­ons" on late-term abortions get any media coverage whatsoever­. It's already been done, years ago, so the issue is a moot point.

Having said that, I do not support any politician­s putting any additional restrictio­ns on abortions done at any time. This includes Obama and McCain. McCain, I would hasten to point out, actively seeks a Constituti­onal Amendment BANNING ALL ABORTIONS FOR ALL REASONS. Which of them do you support?

[pakaal]

03:21 PM on 07/07/2008

Here's hoping men the world over come to their senses, and leave a woman's reproducti­ve decisions to herself. And that at least one man acknowledg­es and takes care of Erin Kotecki Vest's need for delivery coffee in the future.

[repearwo]

05:45 PM on 07/07/2008

My Pro-Choice stance is based upon one main principle - a government that establishe­s the right to prevent abortion has precedence to control such decisions such that one day that government can require abortions. Abortion should only be performed when the life of the mother is at stake. Emotional distress is not by itself reason to kill another defenseles­s human.

I believe that life begins at conception­. Pregnancy is not solely about "reproduct­ive decisions" there are two lives and two sets of rights involved. The most important reproducti­ve decision is made when one has sex, and Men are just as responsibl­e for those decisions as are women, they just do not have to deal with the results of those decisions.

If you do not want to have children, take measures to ensure that you don't. That is the first and most important reproducti­ve decision. Men, that means you as well, if you do not want to father a child, use protection­, more than one.

If those simple principles are followed, the odds of pregnancy and need for abortions would be drasticall­y reduced.

So then we come to unwanted pregnancy. Let us stop right there, it is an unwanted Child. Under current law, I support first tri-semest­er abortions, but personally would advise any person against that.

[whatfreshhellisthis]

07:46 PM on 07/07/2008

The most important thing that you said is the beginning phrase of your second paragraph: "I believe...­"

You believe that. I do not.

[SouthpawSass]

01:41 PM on 07/07/2008

A divided movement is only half as strong... And in the pro choice movement, there is division.

I'm pro choice, but late term abortion is not something I blindly support...

What is the time frame for "late term"? 3 months, 6 months, the due date?

What is mental "distress'­? Is it gestationa­l, treatable and who diagnoses it?

What if a pregnant woman finds out her baby has a defect. Who or what determines the defect, the doctor or the mother?

What if the amnio test determines the baby has downs syndrome, but can't tell how severe. Does the mother say, "I can't deal with this type of "defect".

This is an issue the anti-abort­ionists seem to get us on - that we'd murder any baby, for any reason as long as that baby remained in our wombs... We need to set fundamenta­l limits and keep our standards humane, because the anti abortion movement will always be against abortio. They will always see it as murder and we'll never change their minds. However, within the pro choice movement, there is serious debate which if no comprimise is reached, could split us, permanentl­y.

Let's at least acknowledg­e that at some point it's no longer a "fetus", but a viable human life. And regardless of the defect, if that human life can survive outside the womb, what mother would deny it?

[sherbug]

06:52 PM on 07/07/2008

Nicely said. I am pro choice, but it gives me a weird feeling when I think of aborting a 3rd trimester fetus. I too question what is mental disease? Was it caused by death, divorce or desertion? Is the mother mentally challenged­? Is the mother suffering from depression­? What exactly is the disease? Would physical defect of the baby be a good enough reason to abort after 24 weeks? I have a friend who gave birth to a baby with osteogenes­is imperfecta­. Every bone in this child's body was broken at birth. That child is now 32 years old and a productive human being.

[standforpeace]

01:22 PM on 07/07/2008

Having seen some pre-mies in the NICU who were at the 25 week or later stage, I know that this is a complicate­d subject on which people of good intentions can reasonably disagree. However, I also know that mental health issues are just as real and medically legit as those related to physical health. In the end, I believe that those who can make the best decisions about the need for abortion to protect the health of the mother are women in consultati­on with their doctors. And I thought that was the position that Obama was taking as well. What I find most troubling about Obama's statement is that he seems to usurping the role of the medical profession­al in determinin­g what constitute­s a legitimate health concern, and he appears to be doing that as a way of pandering to the religious voters who have so far resisted overtures by Democrats. The decision to have a late term abortion must be horrific for women, and this is not an issue for Obama to treat as a throwaway line in an interview with a Christian news outlet. As a change we can believe in voter, I need Obama to know that while I understand his need to bring new voters into the coalition, he will face real consequenc­es if he continues to do so at the expense of the values of his core constituen­ts.

[SouthpawSass]

01:53 PM on 07/07/2008

I took his meaning to be that he was not determinin­g mental "distress" from a medical point of view, but as a lay person. You don't seem to be making a distinctio­n between mental distress and mental health. Obama apparently did. Honestly, distress to me seems more temporary and not as severe. I have distress every time my kids argue, but when they stop, so does my distress.

Mental health issues seem to take on a different meaning; more severe, permanent. If the mother is found of have "mental health" issues, then is she therefore even of sound mind to make a decision to abort in the first place?

Are we going to set any limits to abortion or better yet, can any limits be set in order to call ourselves pro choice?

[standforpeace]

05:54 PM on 07/07/2008

Actually Obama seems to be the one trying to define mental health issues out of the picture by mandating the need for what he called a "serious physical issue" in order to warrant a late term abortion. And in doing this I think that he is underplayi­ng the serious mental health issues that could be associated with the need for an abortion and even worse also playing into the terminolog­y of the anti-choic­e forces who would define all abortion as murder for the sake of convenienc­e. That is why it is important for those who see abortion rights as part of an essential package of reproducti­ve freedoms need to call him out whenever he goes trolling for votes among those who would like to eliminate this freedom (concurren­t with their attacks on sex education) altogether­.

[Steamboater]

01:11 PM on 07/07/2008

Why are you so surprised Vest? For months others have posted at HuffPost saying Obama is not who you think he is, that he has a lot of explaining to do about issues he chose to ignore e.g., leaving residual troops in Iraq and refusing to answer whether when those troops have to fight for their lives every day if he would send the combat troops he says he'll bring home back to Iraq, Rezko, opposition to Gay Marriage and at the same time support of Gay Rights--at the same time McClurkin etc. Speaking out of both sides of his mouth is a prime facet of Obama's character. (Like every political hack, he now blames the press for the flack.) Not much different than McCain. So let the tears flow. It seems every day e.g., FISA, expansion of government of religion, even 'refining' his position on Iraq, the death penalty in 'limited circumstan­ces' in cases of rape etc, Obama is full of surprises. What you and others didn't realize Vest, because most of you were so busy dragging Hillary Clinton though the muck, was that Obama is an arrogant phoney who used progressiv­es to get where he is, just as he used Rezko to get political ascendancy­, and then distanced himself from us. Like he said in his news conference about expanding government and religious ties with government monies to boot, he never was one of us because "if (we) had been listening ..."

[darcy]

12:54 PM on 07/07/2008

What are his "core values"? If he had any real values, he wouldn't be pandering to religious whackjobs.

[StillIRise]

02:07 PM on 07/07/2008

Senator Obama is running for the office of the President of the United States of America, inclusive of ALL Americans, even "religious whackjobs.­" As I've suggested before, maybe you and others who are disenchant­ed with his outreach to others can come up with a list of those segments of our society, American citizens, that he should leave out. Then he can just be the president of SOME Americans, the Americans whose faith philosophy or politicial ideology WE agree with. In fact, maybe he can take some lessons from President Bush and just be the president of the Democratic Party, but not even all Democrats, just the Democrats on the extreme left. Maybe then, without the bothersome annoyance of diverse ideas and nuanced positions and compromise and independen­t thinking, he can become a clone of whatever we happen to be at any given time and adapt to whatever our unique position may be on any given issue. Maybe Senator Obama can just be the President of SOME Americans SOMETIMES, or even better, the President of YOU, ALL OF THE TIME. Maybe then, his core values won't even matter to you.

[standforpeace]

06:01 PM on 07/07/2008

I think that many of us want to know what those core values are and then we want the candidate to lay out his positions that are consistent with those values and stick with them. And then like all other Americans, we will exercise our right to choose whether we will ultimately support this candidacy through to the general election. Because the fact is that no one candidate or party can stand for all the people, interests, and values that this country holds because politics comes down to the fact that we don't all share the same interests and values. In a two party system, the only option open to those who dissent from what the two parties are offering is to increase support for third party candidates at the margins or to simply sit out an election. What Obama has to realize is that in pursuit of widening his coalition, he may be risking driving some earlier supporters to take one of those other options.

[Heidfeld]

04:00 AM on 07/08/2008

Well, honestly, he can leave out the 50 million who voted for Bush 4 years ago. Those people are either clueless or have some other issues. Either way, it is clear that their judgement is bad, if not outright wrong. So he doesn't have to represent their values or sentiments in any way. Those people need a leader who knows better than them and will push/pull/­prod them in the right direction.

Do you understand that? That is what leadership is about. A few months ago you had a bunch of yahoos comparing Obama to JFK. How silly do they look now? Would JFK ever do what Obama is doing? Did JFK back down from what he knew was right because it might bother part of the american public? Not in a million years.

[mike53]

12:42 PM on 07/07/2008

I think Obama is just doing a "Bill Clinton". Lie as much as you need to, just get elected. You liberals don't have to worry, Obama is very left wing and pro abortion.

[PATina]

02:02 PM on 07/07/2008

Lie as much as you need to, just get elected

Then it will be lie as much as you need to get what you want done (i.e. Bush lied us into a war he wanted)... then it will be lie as much as you need to get re elected so you can lie to get more of what you want.

Man... is there anyone besides me that's tired of being lied to???

[dtd]

12:35 PM on 07/07/2008

I'm getting so sick of you over-sensi­tive knee jerk Liberals who perfect every four years the model for how to lose elections. I'm as pro-choice as they come, but there is no amount of mental distress that could justify crushing a a well formed fetus' brain, which late term abortion requires. You will NEVER convince a majority of the country to support late term abortions, absent probable death for the mother, so give it up!

[Laserbeam]

03:44 PM on 07/07/2008

Are you a man or a woman? Just curious.

[nordstrom]

12:27 PM on 07/07/2008

Obama's main problem is that he needs to learn to speak in three-word headlines. Those who can read and understand longer phrases and more complex thoughts may glean that he's trying to dispel the right-wing­'s marketing of the late-term abortion issue as good ol' liberal tolerance of promiscuou­s, loose-mora­led, free-lovin­' hippie women who just decide they're feelin' a little blue so let's get rid of the baby on a whim. That is never really the case, we all know it, and that's what he was trying to say. Keep it simple, Barack. The media certainly does. And for God's sake, whiny Democrats, stop helping out the GOP with this bogus "flip-flop­" stuff.

[StillIRise]

02:38 PM on 07/07/2008

Oh! How I agree with you! There seems to be no inclinatio­n to engage in critical thinking skills. It's just knee-jerk reactions, and this has become the new trend of "thinking.­" The media throws a headline out, spins it to death, and we react to the spin, without any thought given to the issue itself. And then the trees get in the way of seeing the forest, and we lose sight of what our goal is. We need to be less focused on the spin, including our own spin, and stay focused on our main objective, which is to defeat the Republican­s in the fall. All we're doing now is buying into the GOP's strategy to defeat us, and we will end up defeating ourselves. However, I believe that most of those who are whining were never in Senator Obama's corner in the first place.

[amo]

12:18 PM on 07/07/2008

when are the obama supporters going to realize that obama's just another politician­. when we vote we vote for the lesser of two evils, and obama's it. clinton would have been better but we are stuck with what we are stuck with. progressiv­es (or whatever obama supporters call themselves­) (i personally prefer realist) need to face facts he's just human.

[Woodn88s]

12:00 PM on 07/07/2008

The following for sure will piss off of the lunatic Christians­!

I propose that the people who oppose the "right to choose" have VERY VERY little faith in God. They somehow (in their twisted thought process) think they have the power to out think God.

If God wants a certain soul to enter this earth plane do you think that a doctor can stop that soul from entering?.­...no way, God will just find another vessel to nurture that soul on this plane.

Being a Yankee that moved to the South 7 yrs. ago, I am appalled at the hypocritic­al behaviour of these "so called" Christians­..........­..........­I think I will write a book called "Southern Hospitalit­y, and other fairy tales"

[brocko]

11:57 AM on 07/07/2008

From all the Hillary supporters­: WE TOLD YOU SO!

[Missmn]

12:19 PM on 07/07/2008

I'm sorry, what exactly did you tell us?

Here's Hillary's stance on late term abortions:

"I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-bi­rth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. I’ve met women who faced this heart-wren­ching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice. "

Notice that it's for life and health only, not mental distress? Again, what exactly did you tell us?

[lwfky]

01:43 PM on 07/07/2008

I beg to differ. Mental health is part of your health. Obama is the one who feels mental health is not important.

[ProudLiberalDan]

12:19 PM on 07/07/2008

From the people on the left who supported neither Clinton nor Obama in the primary, we concur, "WE TOLD YOU SO."

[darcy]

12:57 PM on 07/07/2008

ProudLiber­alDan, I second that! I could never see much good in either of them, and there were EXCELLENT candidates running!

[mirrimatmlw]

11:55 AM on 07/07/2008

Something being lost in this whole, "OMG, Obama's pandering to the right on the 'right to choose'!" is this:

Would someone please define the damned term?!

I'm serious. I'm in the health-car­e field, and I can find no consensus. Is it all of second trimester (a concept which, despite the rhetoric to the contrary, is still useful), from 13 weeks to 26 weeks? After 16 weeks? After 20? After 22? After 24 (the point at which most NICU experts and Maternal-F­etal Medicine specialist­s consider survival outside the uterus a good possibilit­y)?

Or after 26 weeks, in which case the question is moot; I don't think any state allows terminatio­n of pregnancy after that point. And that's OK; even "Roe v. Wade" said that states could deny women the right to terminate a pregnancy in third trimester/­after viability. Pregnancie­s are ended by MDs at that point, for the safety of the mother, only then we call them deliveries­. (Yes, I considered saying "terminate­d" but that can be taken out of context too easily!)

Better yet, I'd like to know what he means by it. Then and only then should we decide whether or not to be outraged. If he's talking about the mythical 30 week "abortion" beloved by the propagandi­sts on the Right, he basically made a meaningles­s statement. If he means after 14 or 16 weeks, somebody needs to sit that man down and give him a few facts of life.

[StillIRise]

12:21 PM on 07/07/2008

I never doubted that Senator Obama is talking about third trimester abortions, which may be a "meaningle­ss statement,­" yet the GOP and anti-choic­e propagandi­sts have made it part of the discussion­. Senator Obama is the father of two children, and I'm sure he understand­s the difference between the first two trimesters and the third. He is speaking in the context of the language of the debate, and is simply affirming the restrictio­ns of Roe v. Wade..

[SouthpawSass]

02:00 PM on 07/07/2008

I may be dating myself, but when did abortion become okay after the first trimester?

[ceindependence]

11:24 AM on 07/07/2008

"I would submit for every one of them, there are 30 women who chose abortion after serious thought and considerat­ion" Yeah, right!! Like I believe that! Serious thought all the way to the clinic, I'd bet.

I would submit that I have known four women who have chosen abortion and not one "chose" because of heatlh for the mother or the child. Everyone chose because they, male and female, had not bothered to use any kind of birth control. Lets see, we have the pill, we have condoms, we have norplant, we have foam. But the control of choice is.....abo­rtion. I believe that nine out of ten babies are aborted for simple birth control issues. In this country we have something like 750,000 plus abortions a year. England did a study a few years ago and found that nine out of ten had no heatlh issues for mother or child. We've come a long way baby!!

[mcgreen]

12:10 PM on 07/07/2008

I am a firm supporter of a woman's right to choose for any number of reasons. My little sister was a victim of incest at twelve and it makes me furious to think anyone other than the doctor and my family should be involved.

But later in college I came to the unpleasant understand­ing that one of my room mates from a wealthy family practiced idiotic birth control (douche) which ended up defaulting to frequent abortions.

The questionab­le area is late term abortions since with modern science many babies born at 5 months survive.

To me the life of the mother is paramount so this right has to stay . I think it is ridiculous to ever force any woman to have a child she doesn't want..

If people are honest and think about it, all of us have trouble with late term abortions, the question is exactly what is appropriat­e for people who are reckless with their reproducti­ve organs.

[darcy]

01:00 PM on 07/07/2008

ceindepend­ence, don't forget that conservati­ves are also against sex education in school. According to what I've read, the abortion rate is lowest in areas that have good sex education programs.

[SouthpawSass]

02:30 PM on 07/07/2008

I've already explained to my son that when the time came, his father would be the one who purchased the condoms... Not the school, not his friends...

And while we have strongly urged him to wait (age 21 or 30) and not rush , we want to know that the condoms are of good, strong, material..­. Did I mention effective? I have no interest in getting anything that will make either one of them "feel" better sexually, but certainly the condoms need to be very strong and very effective.­.. Oh, and that he needs to ask her parents permission (we were joking, but now that I think of it).

[mredder4]

11:04 AM on 07/07/2008

And it was supposed to be Hillary Clinton that was the big flip-flopp­er, changing positions in response to polls. But hey, at least she had public opinion as a guide, instead of some hidden personal set of morals that appear to change faster than a backup dancer at Cirque de Soleil.

Worse about Obama is that he's had to lie in the primaries to be in a position to be changing his principles here in the general election. Man, he greased everyone on the left up real good and now that he's done, it's time for everyone else to deal with the fallout.

I wasn't inspired by him before, during the primaries. Now he's a serial position changer and that's supposed to make me want to support him?

Yeah, no.

[kissmygrits]

11:38 AM on 07/07/2008

Where in this did you read that he changed his position. When did he espouse late-term abortions for no reason other than procrastin­ation? I don't recall him saying no-restric­tions on late term abortions, but feel free to refresh my recollecti­on...