Senator Obama has consistently claimed to be a pro-choice progressive. However, there have been several alarm bells signaling he is not as progressive or pro-choice as he claims.
His seven ‘present’ votes on choice, including a ban on “partial-birth abortion,” two parental notification laws and three ‘born alive’ bills, were worrisome. Especially since Illinois Planned Parenthood president, Pam Sutherland had this to say:
Speaking to ABC News as Obama was preparing to join Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and the wife of Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., in addressing Planned Parenthood’s national conference in Washington, D.C., Sutherland said Obama approached her in the late 1990s and worked with her and others in crafting the strategy of voting “present.” She remembers meeting with Obama outside of the Illinois Senate chambers on the Democratic side of the aisle. She and Obama finished their conversation in his office.
“He came to me and said: ‘My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women,’ ” said Sutherland in recounting her conversation with Obama. “A ‘present’ vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted.”
“What it did,” she continued, “was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so” because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. “A ‘present’ vote would protect them. Your senator voted ‘present.’ Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means.”
While Sutherland was happy to give Obama latitude in voting “present,” rather than “no,” she was quick to note that “it’s also not a ‘yes’ vote.”
As reported by The Wall Street Journal, some of the specific abortion votes in question include two occasions in 1997 (HB 382 and SB 230) when he voted “present” on bills which would have prohibited a procedure referred to by its critics as “partial-birth abortion.” In 2001, he voted “present” on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted “present” on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if he or she survived a failed abortion.
It was upsetting that he was “in the closet,” per se, concerning his unyielding support for choice, and along with Sutherland, we noted it wasn’t a ‘yes’ vote. Was he really with us on these issues, or was he planning on using these votes as a way to gain ground with Republicans. There was no way to now, until he said this, which was not only an indication of the latter, but also infuriating:
“The mistake pro-choice forces have sometimes made in the past, and this is a generalization . . . has been to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved,” he said. “And so the debate got so polarized that both sides tended to exaggerate the other side’s positions. Most Americans, I think, recognize that what we want to do is avoid, or help people avoid, making this difficult choice. That nobody is pro-abortion — abortions are never a good thing.” [emphasis mine]
“Pro-choice forces”?!?! Really? We don’t “acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved”?!? That’s surprising, because I thought if anyone acknowledged and understood the “wrenching” nature of abortion it was the women who had to make the choice! Oh, yeah, I’m sure we all appreciate his addition to the all the shame, guilt and stigma of abortion with his “abortions are never a good thing” line, because that’s exactly what rape and incest victims need to hear. Also, I’m sure the woman who had to have an abortion to save her life really appreciated that sentiment as well.
But it is not those words or what he communicated with his ‘present’ votes that is the most upsetting. His newest statements are not only offensive, but intolerable.
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.”
The health care exception is crucial to abortion rights advocates and is considered a legal loophole by abortion opponents. By limiting the health exception to a “serious physical issue,” Obama set himself apart from other abortion rights proponents.
The official position of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group that endorsed Obama in May, states: “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.“
The 1973 landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, established a right to an abortion, and a concurrent case, Doe v. Bolton, established that medical judgments about the need for an abortion could include physical, emotional and psychological health factors. [emphasis mine]
In an unprompted pander, Senator Obama has contradicted NARAL, previous pro-choice Supreme Court decisions, and the majority of pro-choice Americans.
Even pro-lifers understand that Senator Obama’s words don’t make much sense in a pro-choice framework:
David N. O’Steen, the executive director of National Right to Life, said Obama’s remarks to the magazine “are either quite disingenuous or they reflect that Obama does not know what he is talking about.”
“You cannot believe that abortion should not be allowed for mental health reasons and support Roe v Wade,” O’Steen said.
Further, Senator Obama’s anti-choice pander is patronizing and offensive. Implying that mental distress in pregnant women is not “real” or “significant” is patently sexist. It revives and relies on the stereotypical notions of women suffering from “hysterics” who simply need to be prescribed Valium and confined to a bed in a dark room.
Senator Obama doesn’t seem to have a problem with mental health care in general, claiming on his site that he will work to improve mental health care:
Improve Mental Health Care. Mental illness affects approximately one in five American families. The National Alliance on Mental Illness estimates that untreated mental illnesses cost the U.S. more than $100 billion per year. As president, Obama will support mental health parity so that coverage for serious mental illnesses are provided on the same terms and conditions as other illnesses and diseases.
So, what is it about pregnant women that makes their “mental distress” in-equivalent to physical complications they may encounter? Claiming the late-term nature of the abortion should exclude mental health as a consideration doesn’t fly, because the “partial-birth/late-term” abortion scare tactics are a ruse.
Planned Parenthood explains:
Q6. What is a “partial-birth abortion”? Is this law about “late-term” or “third- trimester” abortions?A6. The Act defines the term “partial-birth abortion” so broadly that it would prohibit a wide range of abortions performed in the second trimester. Indeed, there is no such medical term as “partial-birth abortion.” Nor is this law about third-trimester abortions. Forty states and the District of Columbia already ban third-trimester abortions except when the life or health of the woman is at stake. Instead, the broad language of the law would ban abortions as early as 12 to 15 weeks, and it fails to include a health exception to protect women.
Q7. When do most abortions occur?
A7. The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester of pregnancy. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that 58 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks (based on the most recent data from 2000). Just over 10 percent are performed between 13 and 20 weeks. Less than one-half-of-one percent occur after 24 weeks. [emphasis mine]
In short, this shouldn’t even be an issue. Begging the question: Just whose side is Senator Obama on when it comes to choice? Not only is he playing on the Right’s playing field, but he is scoring points for them. The Right has essentially made up the term “partial-birth abortion” to gin up votes and to severely limit access to abortion. Not only is Senator Obama legitimizing the Right’s memes, he has now effectively said that mental health should not be a criteria for women seeking abortions as early as 12 to 15 weeks. Senator Obama must know that removing mental health as a health criteria only serves to limit access to abortion for women who are in medical need of them. That he is now considered the standard bearer for the Democratic Party and its pro-choice platform is more than disappointing. It’s enough to make one Just Say No Deal.
[UPDATE] Apparently Obama has felt the need to “clarify” is remarks.
ABC Reports:
In clarifying his remarks, Obama said this afternoon that he has “consistently” said health exceptions are required for laws banning or seriously restricting abortion. But he then goes on to try to carve out exceptions to the exceptions, and he ends up suggesting, again, he would support more limits on abortion than the law currently allows.
Speaking to reporters on his campaign plane, Obama said mental health exceptions—which are a real battleground issue in the abortion debate–can be “rigorously” limited to only those women with “serious clinical mental health diseases.” He said mental health exceptions are not intended permit abortions when a woman simply “doesn’t feel good.”
“It is not just a matter of feeling blue,” Obama said.
Here’s the problem with that, and why Obama’s remarks are so startling. Obama is trying to restrict abortions after 22 weeks to those women who have a serious disease or illness. But the law today also covers some women who are in “mental distress,” those women who would suffer emotional and psychological harm without an abortion.
This standard has long been understood to require less than “serious clinical mental health disease.” Women today don’t have to show they are suffering from a “serious clinical mental health disease” or “mental illness” before getting an abortion post-viability, as Obama now says is appropriate.
And for 35 years—since Roe v. Wade—they’ve never had to show that.
So Obama, it seems to me, still is backing away from what the law says—and backing away from a proposed federal law (of which he is a co-sponsor) that envisions a much broader definition of mental health than the one he laid out this week.
Yes, he’s still backing away, and quick, from federal and judicial precedent and backing pregnant women into a corner. Here’s his statement in its entirety:
“My only point is this-historically I have been a strong believer in a women’s right to choose with her doctor, her pastor and her family,” Obama said. “I have consistently been saying that you have to have a health exception on many significant restrictions or bans on abortions, including late-term abortions.
“In the past, there has been some fear on the part of people who–not only people who are anti-abortion, but people who may be in the middle–that that means that if a woman just doesn’t feel good then that is an exception. That’s never been the case. I don’t think that is how it has been interpreted.
“My only point is that in an area like partial birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously,” Obama continued.
“It can be defined through physical health. It can be defined by serious clinical mental health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue. I don’t think that’s how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don’t think that’s how the courts have interpreted it and I think that’s important to emphasize and understand.”
Here’s my question Senator Obama: how are Democrats supposed to win the debate when you are using Republican memes like “partial birth abortion”? Further, exactly who is served by you giving voice to and legitimizing ignorant and sexist claims that women are seeking abortions 22 weeks into gestation because “they are feeling blue”? Seems you think a lot of women do things like seek abortions, or point out inconsistencies in your campaign rhetoric because “periodically” we are “feeling down.”
And whose vote are you trying to win by claiming that a woman has “a right to choose with her doctor, her pastor and her family.” Last time I checked my right to choose started and ended with me. But I guess emotionally unstable women can’t be trusted to make their own decisions. I hope you’re not planning on changing even more Court precedent by making it a legal requirement that a woman gets permission from her pastor (how about Rev. Wright?!?) and her family (most likely her husband or father, of course).
In short, Senator Obama, you’re not winning any core Democratic votes, much less the women you and your surrogates have been trying to strong arm and blackmail with Roe v Wade and the Supreme Court into voting for you against their better judgment, by capitulating to the far Right on abortion.
No need to “clarify” because we know what you really meant…you don’t need or want our votes. Fine, win without us.
