BlogHer - Barack Obama is 100% Pro-Choice. Period. - Comments

Agree with you too :)

Jill Miller Zimon — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:33:58 -0500

Can I agree with everyone? lol

Yeah - well - I've written a bit about this but i need to write a post. I see it like this: Obama is considered a uniter, bipartisan, reaching across aisles, listening to others. These are great traits, much of the time. But - in doing so, sometimes, that behavior can be portrayed as playing both (or all) sides and what's the impact of that on any one side? So I think people who are negotiator types or are using that kind of approach need to make it clear that that's what they're doing otherwise it does sound or it risks sounding duplicitous.

And then, there is just the politics of speaking that way - to appeal to as many as possible, cast a wide net and so on. But this can be infuriating even while understandable.

Obama strikes me as someone who seeks information, serves as a repository for information and opinions and then integrates as much of it as he can into fulifilling as many interests as possible. Again - this is a great thing - I'm totally sympatico with that. But the danger is disappointing people who do not want that or fear the loss of their interests being tended to.

Trust is the bottom line - and I think those of us who weren't big supporters or aren't, are being cautious, even if there is no circumstance under which some of us - myself absolutely in this category - who would ever think of voting for John McCain. We just want Obama to be more...something, better at...whatever it is. I think that's not unfair to expect.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Agree

Jill Miller Zimon — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:26:51 -0500

I think for me, any slight to mental health as a legitimate concern hits my personal buggaboo meter - that's not his fault. What I probably should have done and will do is check NAMI and some other groups like that to see if they even cared.

Thanks for the post, Erin.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

I find his record is all you can track

Erin Kotecki Vest — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:57:06 -0500

and I think he make an unfortunate remark, and I don't think it was pandering. I think it was a slip. But, that's just me

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

Not thrilled about it, either

Suzanne Reisman — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:56:00 -0500

I agree with you that it is disconcerting for him to use such language, but so much of what was said in his response was very slippery use of language. Which is, of course, a problem, but I'm going with his track record on this.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants

Mental health

Jill Miller Zimon — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:57:29 -0500

I'm totally distracted by the sacrifcing of making sure people and gov't and industry understand and do not compromise mental health illness, disease AND distress. That is what gives me the heebeejeebees about what Obama said.

I agree with the notion that he is pro-choice. I don't have a problem with his stance regarding abortion - as a general proposition.

But the issue of legally defining "mental health" - whether it's legislation, case law or administratively law (including education and emoloyee benefits or the ADA) DOES make get me riled up unlike almost any other topic. And so I was and remain unhappy with his use of kind of finessing or messing with mental health references.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

The problem with the statements

Suzanne Reisman — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:00:30 -0500

When Sen. Obama said what he did about late-term abortions, he was answering a question specifically about 3rd trimester abortions, which already are severely restricted in 36 states, according to the Allan Guttmacher Institute. While I am not thrilled with the semantics of his answer (and in fact was initially very confused by what he was saying), I think he's actually just reiterating what the current laws are. I would have liked it if he said, "Well, no one gets a third trimester abortion unless her life or health is in grave danger, or the fetus is already dead or will die not long after birth," but I can live with his answer as long as he holds it to the 3rd trimester and doesn't start mucking around with what I call "later-term" abortions, which are 16-24 weeks. Third trimester abortions are very rare in the US, and since they always take place for a woman's health or life, unless Roe is completely overturned (and it won't be for the stated two comments above, although laws will be passed restricting it so that it is safe, legal, and never accessible if we continue on the current path), I'm not gonna worry about them.

Incidentally, Hillary Clinton is a massive waffler when it comes to abortion rights. She's suggested that we not focus on abortion rights, but moving toward a world in which abortion is unnecessary. Of course, I would love to see that world, but it is not going to happen and we need to keep abortion rights as a vital plank in the Democratic party. Is she 100% pro-choice? Yes. So it is hypocritical to hold Obama to a higher standard than we would Clinton if she were the candidate.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants

Is it his beliefs or voting records that matter?

Laracolvin — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:21:15 -0500

This is a question I've spent a lot of time mulling over, and while Obama's statements are disappointing to me on a personal level, I have to put faith in his voting record. Comments on a variety of posts especially from PunditMom and Jill have made me see that this election has very little room for idealism (of which I have an obscene amount), and it is necessary to compare voting records of both the candidates and against what each says in the media.

Of course, I was surprised by Obama's statements. I'm sure, as Denise says above, I'll be surprised again. But that would have happened with Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, too. It happened with Bill Clinton, certainly. But this election is too important to consider taking away my support from Obama - especially in light of his 100% voting record on this issue.

Notions of Identity

The only constant is change

artpax — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:07:23 -0500

Nothing is ever certain. Women have had the vote for less than a century in the U.S. My mother was born before women were granted that right. It could all go away more quickly than any of us can imagine. Citizens of the U.S. have rights but we also have responsibilities that many of us ignore. We must be vigilent, participate, speak out... and for the most part, we leave that to others. We need to be our beliefs. If we don't want to have our bodies governed by others, then we need to be at the clinics making sure women are safe. If we don't want our children to got to war we must stop recruiters from being in our schools. We have to walk our talk. We can't take anything for granted and we have to work to maintain the gains we have made.

As a friend of mine has painted on her truck,

"Well Behaved Women,

Snap Out of It!"

-Nancy
Build Peace
Virtuality
My Life As An Avatar

Roe is safe.

MMarquit — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:03:40 -0500

Like Denise, I am not worried about Roe v. Wade, no matter who is office. If it were overturned, what would the Republicans have to get people out to vote? It's the same reason that there will never be a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. (They don't need one anyway, thanks to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.) Republicans need these social issues so that they can claim the "moral high ground."

Anyway, I'm fairly comfortable with Obama's statements. As much as we'd like him to come out definitively, the practical realities of politics require him to a little disembling and side-stepping. He needs to broaden his appeal, and by using some somewhat cloudy rhetoric, he leaves the way open for those who really don't want to vote for McCain, but are wary of someone Pro-Choice. He's taking what many on the fence call a "reasonable" stance on abortion, and doing a little code-talk to those who are worried about his obviously Pro-Choice record.

YieldingWealth.com

LendingLeaves.com

PS ....

PunditMom — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:27:32 -0500

... sorry for the typos -- using a smaller keyboard than I'm used to.

I hope you're right ...

PunditMom — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:26:20 -0500

I wiah I could be as confident as you. I promise -- even though I am having a crisis of faith in the Democratic party, I will vote AGAINST McCain. But when Obama waffles with the language he used and women's mental states, my stomach turns and the hair on the back of my neck go up. I worry that he will sat one thing, but do another in the name of compromise. For me, there are certain compromises that cannot be made.

No question -- Obama is better than McCain. But I can't imagine John Edwards or Hillary Clinton making the waffly statement Obama made on late term abortions.

PunditMom, BlogHer Politics & News Contributing Editor

Also at MOMocrats & Huffingrton Post

I cannot consider anyone who

Kuri — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:45:27 -0500

I cannot consider anyone who says something like the following pro-choice:

I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for
states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as
there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother.
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. Otherwise, as long as there is such a
medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

Then, when supposed "clarifying" he uses the anti-choice, non-scientific term "partial birth abortion".

My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a
mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously.

Both quotes via Feminist Philosophers. Restrictions on abortion are anti-choice. Full stop. It might not only be about Roe, but also about all those other restrictions on reproductive freedom that seem to be going piecemeal in the US.

- Kuri
Thought, Interrupted By Typos
http://www.thoughtinterrupted.ca/

I'm not worried about Roe

Denise — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:02:13 -0500

Actually I'm not worried about Roe at this juncture - whether Obama or McCain are elected.

Senator Obama's position here doesn't worry me for Roe's sake - it worries me because it is a nice example of Senator Obama's supporters being surprised by something the Senator says, supports and seems to believe.

I'm not surprised by his statement or the statement from his camp, at all. I suspect his supporters will be surprised again in the future - I suspect they will be surprised, over and over again. And that's what worries me about Senator Obama.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

Barack Obama is 100% Pro-Choice. Period.

Erin Kotecki Vest — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:27:35 -0500

PunditMom is considering NOT voting, Cynematichas warning bells blazing, Gloria Feldt is closing her wallet, and AnnRose is recounting her days at a hospital specializing in late abortion.

This is too big.

This has too many women wondering.

I am not comfortable wondering, and I have no intention of wondering my way to November.

I'm taking action.

I talked with Pam Sutherland today, President and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.

We each had one thing on our minds and we both understood it's importance. There was no small talk. There was no chit-chat.

This conversation was arranged knowing what was at stake. She knew what she needed to say, and I knew what I hoped to hear.

And now I get to tell you.

Pam Sutherland does NOT have ONE doubt in her mind that Senator Barack Obama is anything but 100% pro-choice.

And she should know.

"I have worked with Barack Obama for 12 years. And in that 12 years he has never voted wrong on any (women's reproductive) issue. It’s just that simple."

It's just that simple.

I happened to be talking to Pam as I watched Senator John McCain seemingly writhe in pain when asked his position on forcing health insurance companies to cover birth control.

Then we have Senator Obama, speaking DIRECTLY to BlogHer on the issue

Did you catch the difference there? McCain entirely uncomfy on YouTube, Obama talking TO US.

I also talked with the Obama campaign, hoping to clarify the Senator's remarks that had pro-choice women wringing their hands.

The official statement?

"Senator Obama has always fought for a woman's right to choose and has consistently opposed efforts to pass measures lacking a health exception. Senator Obama also 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."- Shannon Gilson

That didn't clear things up for me. I continued my call with Pam and really tried to get to the heart of this.

Point blank I asked her, "Pam, do you worry at all about what he said, his remarks, are you worried?"

"No, Erin. I don't worry at all...He's made it perfectly clear he supports the tenets of Roe...and I have a 12-year experience with someone who is 100% Pro-Choice."

For good measure-

Senator John McCain has received a 0% pro-choice rating from Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Senator Obama received a 100% pro-choice vote rating from Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Not 75%. Not 99%.

100%

Can I also point out McCain co-sponsored and voted for the Federal Abortion Ban? Yea, he did.

Want something even scarier?

Senator McCain voted against legislation that established criminal and civil penalties for those who use threats and violence to keep women from gaining access to reproductive health facilities.

The record by both candidates goes on and on and on. It's not even a contest.

Liza at Culture Kitchen even has a graphic demonstrating the difference.

If Planned Parenthood and NARAL are confident in Senator Obama, why aren't you?

Pam Sutherland isn't worried, and I'm not either.

Contributing Editor Erin Kotecki Vest also blogs at Queen of Spain blog