Tigermike 3,046 Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Are there any issues left for him to “finesse� Iraq, FISA, now this. No hot button is safe from the Messiah’s nuance. Isn't abortion guananteed in the constitution? Isn't that one of the dims core values? This is getting hard to keep up with. Obama: Mental distress can't justify late abortion By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer 32 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says "mental distress" should not qualify as a justification for late-term abortions, a key distinction not embraced by many supporters of abortion rights. 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. "Senator Obama has consistently maintained that laws restricting abortions must contain exceptions for the health and life of the mother," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said Thursday. "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." Obama's position is similar to that taken by a bipartisan group of senators in 1998 who tried to counter efforts to ban certain late-term abortions with their own legislation. That proposal, which failed, would have banned all late-term abortions except for those that are necessary to protect the physical health of the mother. In a statement, NARAL Pro-Choice said Obama's magazine interview is consistent with Roe v. Wade. "Sen. Obama has consistently said he supports the tenets set forth by Roe, and has made strong statements against President Bush's Federal Abortion Ban, which does not have an exception to protect a woman's health," the organization's statement said. A leading abortion opponent, however, said Obama's rhetoric does not match his voting record and his previously stated views on abortion rights. 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. In the interview with Relevant, conducted on Tuesday, Obama also defended his opposition to restrictions on induced abortions where the fetus sometimes survives for short periods. Obama voted against such a bill when he was in the Illinois Senate. He has said he supported a federal version of the law that contained more specific language because he feared the Illinois proposal would have applied to all abortions. "There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the 'Born Alive' bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill," Obama said Tuesday. "The reason was 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, so I didn't think it was going to pass constitutional muster." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080703/ap_on_.../obama_abortion A spokesman from the National Right to Life is quoted as saying you can’t be pro-Roe if you think abortion shouldn’t be allowed for mental health reasons, but as I read this Obama’s only talking about late-term abortions precipitated by a medical emergency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,979 Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 So you disagree with Obama on this? Are there any issues left for him to “finesse� Iraq, FISA, now this. No hot button is safe from the Messiah’s nuance. Isn't abortion guananteed in the constitution? Isn't that one of the dims core values? This is getting hard to keep up with. Obama: Mental distress can't justify late abortion By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer 32 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says "mental distress" should not qualify as a justification for late-term abortions, a key distinction not embraced by many supporters of abortion rights. 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. "Senator Obama has consistently maintained that laws restricting abortions must contain exceptions for the health and life of the mother," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said Thursday. "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." Obama's position is similar to that taken by a bipartisan group of senators in 1998 who tried to counter efforts to ban certain late-term abortions with their own legislation. That proposal, which failed, would have banned all late-term abortions except for those that are necessary to protect the physical health of the mother. In a statement, NARAL Pro-Choice said Obama's magazine interview is consistent with Roe v. Wade. "Sen. Obama has consistently said he supports the tenets set forth by Roe, and has made strong statements against President Bush's Federal Abortion Ban, which does not have an exception to protect a woman's health," the organization's statement said. A leading abortion opponent, however, said Obama's rhetoric does not match his voting record and his previously stated views on abortion rights. 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. In the interview with Relevant, conducted on Tuesday, Obama also defended his opposition to restrictions on induced abortions where the fetus sometimes survives for short periods. Obama voted against such a bill when he was in the Illinois Senate. He has said he supported a federal version of the law that contained more specific language because he feared the Illinois proposal would have applied to all abortions. "There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the 'Born Alive' bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill," Obama said Tuesday. "The reason was 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, so I didn't think it was going to pass constitutional muster." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080703/ap_on_.../obama_abortion A spokesman from the National Right to Life is quoted as saying you can’t be pro-Roe if you think abortion shouldn’t be allowed for mental health reasons, but as I read this Obama’s only talking about late-term abortions precipitated by a medical emergency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autiger4life 3 Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 No he agrees, but if Obama chooses in line with him then he has nothing to b!tch about so he tries to turn it into this. Yup, thats right. Hate Obama because he disagrees, then tear him up when he agrees with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
au2004ece 30 Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 No he agrees, but if Obama chooses in line with him then he has nothing to b!tch about so he tries to turn it into this. Yup, thats right. Hate Obama because he disagrees, then tear him up when he agrees with you. I think the reason that Obama's new thoughts on this issue are interesting is that they are in stark constrast to his earlier views on the issue. While in IL he voted against a bill that preventing the killing or the denying help to children that survived an abortion attempt. Now Obama says he is against an abortion if it only is being done to prevent mental distress in the mother. These views are almost directly opposed. On the one hand, abortion is not legal, on the other, he says it fine to deny help to infants born alive after a mistake in an abortion. How are we to know what his real thoughts are when he has views that are in confrontation? Which of these views does he share not because he believes them but because he wants votes? Could it be that he doesn't care either way and wants votes from both sides? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autiger4life 3 Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 I understand why it is considered a flip-flop. I just think it is ironic because he is blasted for having the wrong views and then when he has the right views he is blasted for flip-flopping. Tough crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,979 Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 No he agrees, but if Obama chooses in line with him then he has nothing to b!tch about so he tries to turn it into this. Yup, thats right. Hate Obama because he disagrees, then tear him up when he agrees with you. I think the reason that Obama's new thoughts on this issue are interesting is that they are in stark constrast to his earlier views on the issue. While in IL he voted against a bill that preventing the killing or the denying help to children that survived an abortion attempt. Now Obama says he is against an abortion if it only is being done to prevent mental distress in the mother. These views are almost directly opposed. On the one hand, abortion is not legal, on the other, he says it fine to deny help to infants born alive after a mistake in an abortion. How are we to know what his real thoughts are when he has views that are in confrontation? Which of these views does he share not because he believes them but because he wants votes? Could it be that he doesn't care either way and wants votes from both sides? He's positions are not inconsistent. He addressed this issue in the article: In the interview with Relevant, conducted on Tuesday, Obama also defended his opposition to restrictions on induced abortions where the fetus sometimes survives for short periods. Obama voted against such a bill when he was in the Illinois Senate. He has said he supported a federal version of the law that contained more specific language because he feared the Illinois proposal would have applied to all abortions. "There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the 'Born Alive' bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill," Obama said Tuesday. "The reason was 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, so I didn't think it was going to pass constitutional muster." Republicans have played politics with abortion as an issue more than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,046 Posted July 4, 2008 Author Share Posted July 4, 2008 He's positions are not inconsistent. He addressed this issue in the article: Republicans have played politics with abortion as an issue more than anything else. That is the response we have come to expect from dims. He is not inconsistent,,,,,,,,,,,,as he changes his position. Blame it on the Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,454 Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Since we are talking about flip-flops... www.flipfloptracker.blogspot.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
au2004ece 30 Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I understand why it is considered a flip-flop. I just think it is ironic because he is blasted for having the wrong views and then when he has the right views he is blasted for flip-flopping. Tough crowd. You may understand what a flip-flop is, but you definitely don't know why it bothers people. It bothers people because you cannot tell when the campaigner is telling the truth. Obama held liberal positions to win the democratic primary, but now he is choosing positions that conflict with those liberal positions so that he can win the general election. Which does he really believe? How do you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autiger4life 3 Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 You may understand what a flip-flop is, but you definitely don't know why it bothers people. It bothers people because you cannot tell when the campaigner is telling the truth. Obama held liberal positions to win the democratic primary, but now he is choosing positions that conflict with those liberal positions so that he can win the general election. Which does he really believe? How do you know? You can't know what they truly believe. There is zero way to know. Obama and McCain have already flipped on several issues, and so with either candidate all you can do is either take them at their word or believe what you want to believe. But you cannot know what a candidate believes, even a voting record can be decieving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,046 Posted July 8, 2008 Author Share Posted July 8, 2008 You may understand what a flip-flop is, but you definitely don't know why it bothers people. It bothers people because you cannot tell when the campaigner is telling the truth. Obama held liberal positions to win the democratic primary, but now he is choosing positions that conflict with those liberal positions so that he can win the general election. Which does he really believe? How do you know? You can't know what they truly believe. There is zero way to know. Obama and McCain have already flipped on several issues, and so with either candidate all you can do is either take them at their word or believe what you want to believe. But you cannot know what a candidate believes, even a voting record can be decieving. But when the most liberal member of the senate is the presidential candidate for a party and he starts making statements that do not reflect his liberal voting record, what should be the conclusion? (A) that he is pandering and will return to his liberal roots, (2) he has had a change of heart (3) he really isn't liberal and has only been voting that way because of the people in his state or district. (4) when in front of moderates he will say whatever needs to be said in order to get their vote but if elected he will return to his very liberal roots (5) and if elected with a liberal congress behind him will transform America to a socialist paradise. Which do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.