This is a stunning development in this presidential race. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says “mental distress” should not qualify as a health exception for late term-abortions, a key distinction not embraced by many supporters of abortion rights, says the AP.
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.”
Ok. That part’s pretty typical Democrat-speak for anyone can get an abortion anytime anywhere including and up to Kindergarten.
But 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.”
What?!
No Democratic Presidential candidate has ever stepped off the extremist line that NARAL has drawn that the health of the mother can include mental stress or even economic hardship.
By limiting the health exception to a “serious physical issue,” Obama set himself apart from other abortion rights proponents.
The 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.”
Here’s the thing. All week Obama has been pushing towards the center, downscaling his immediate pullout of Iraq to a “gradual” one. His semi-support of faith based charities was an attempt to reach out to people of faith. And Obama was already beginning to suffer the slings and arrows of the left the past few days, hesitant and minor attacks, mind you.
But you don’t mess with abortion if you’re a Democrat. Millions of dollars are bundled yearly for the Democrats by abortion-rights groups like Emily’s List.
Two things about this. One -I think you’re going to see a massive backtrack on this one from the Obama camp like he did on the faith based initiatives. Two – If there is no backtrack, Obama has seen something in his internal polls which indicates he’s very weak in the middle of the political spectrum. You don’t willy nilly shift your view on abortion in an election year.
Now, mind you, I don’t think it matters in any real sense to us because the Roe V. Wade decision can only be reversed at this point by the Supreme Court and there’s no way Obama’s putting a constructionist judge on the court who would overturn Roe. And Obama, let’s remember, voted against saving babies accidentally born during an abortion. This guy is as extreme as they come.
What I’m getting from this is that Obama’s willing to say anything and shift any position in order to win this election. I know he’s the candidate of “change” and all but this is ridiculous.
One final thought – I can’t wait to see what Doug Kmiec has to say about this.
July 4, 2008 at 1:56 am
As you’re likely aware, the mental health exception (which swallows the rule) comes from Doe v. Bolton (a case decided the same day as Roe), not Roe.
But yeah, you’re exactly on point. Obama is scary bad.
God Bless,
Ryan
July 4, 2008 at 3:53 am
Obama has either no true convictions at all or he is a complete liar.
I’ll go with both.
July 4, 2008 at 3:57 am
“I can’t wait to see what Doug Kmiec has to say about this.”
Doug Kmiec can say anything that he wants. It doesn’t change the evil inherent in his support of Senator Obama.
Basically Obama’s support of partial birth abortion and aganist the care of infants born during an abortion attempt are utterly ghoulish as is Mr. Kmiec’s support of these ghastly procedures through his support of Obama.
The more I learn about Senator Obama the more nauseated I become.
July 4, 2008 at 4:14 am
But didn’t Obama back the passing of the abortion rights act in front of NARAL a year or so ago? Doesn’t that remove every restriction on getting an abortion?
July 4, 2008 at 7:47 am
Note that in the very same interview, Obama spinned his vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by stating that “there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade” and besides, “It defies common sense to think that a hospital wouldn’t provide life-saving treatment to an infant that was alive and had a chance of survival.”
Consider, however, his actual words on the Illinois Senate floor that day. Read his words and judge for yourself.
July 4, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Off-topic: Take a look at how insane the Cafeteria man has become here.
July 4, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I read wow’s link to a recent comment by Gerald A. (former Cafeteria is Closed blogger) and I concur completely.
What the heck happened to this guy? He makes reference to his former life as a Catholic with an orthodox perspective as “pre-meds.”
Is he kidding? If not, it would explain a lot.
As for Obama, he is basically a talented but unprincipled opportunist. I am not a big fan of Fox news and the pundits of the right but I hope they (and more importantly McCain) hold Obama’s feet to the fire on some of these issues in the coming months. It will be fun to watch.
July 5, 2008 at 9:04 am
Watching Obama flip flop is becoming entertaining TV
July 5, 2008 at 11:13 am
I agree: and, now, the last “excuse” of the “pro-life pro-Obama” people is gone: he is not withdrawing from Iraq anytime soon. It has always been a pathetic excuse: do these “pro-life pro Obama” voters REALLY think that a Democratic president wouldn’t start new wars? They love wars, too… Why, Clinton completely obliterated any Christian culture in the ancient Serbian possession of Kosovo (for instance)… And he bombed, and bombed, and bombed when he saw fit.
July 5, 2008 at 4:51 pm
do these “pro-life pro Obama” voters REALLY think that a Democratic president wouldn’t start new wars? They love wars, too…
To be fair, I don’t think either Party loves war.
But with regards to Iraq, regardless of what promises are made on the campaign trail about “immediate withdrawal” I believe there is little to distinguish Obama from McCain on Iraq policy, except that the latter has his feet on the ground, has made more visits to Iraq and the troops (and thereby has a better grasp of the situation, including what measures were needed to correct some policy/strategy blunders of Rumsfeld and co., cooperating with the tribes to root out Al Qaeda from their neighborhoods, etc. Judging by what’s happening it seems to be working. To the extent that in 2007 many of those pushing “immmediate withdrawal” were now working with the GOP (see The ‘surge’ is working Los Angeles Times 9/8/07).
Our bishops have said:
“Our nation’s military forces should remain in Iraq only so long as their presence contributes to a responsible transition. Our nation should look for effective ways to end their deployment at the earliest opportunity consistent with this goal.”
I honestly think both candidates at their heart are interested in facilitating troop-withdrawal without undue bloodshed to the people of Iraq — but the policies which McCain in part supported (even at a time when many in his own party weren’t) are working to that extent.
Obama now appears to be changing his tune with talk of “honorable withdrawal” and promises to visit Iraq before the election (unlike McCain, I don’t recall the last time he went?), promises to “talk to some of the commanders on the ground” and obtain “more information and will continue to refine my policies.”
From my perspective, the more he sounds like McCain on Iraq, that’s one less “proportionate reason” that Catholics can argue supercedes his dreadful policies on abortion.