Obama Now "Refining" His Position on Abortion

As Ronald Reagan would say...there he goes again.

Frank James over at the political blog of the Chicago Tribune posts about Obama's recent declaration that he might support an additional restriction to abortion rights where they concern mental health exemptions.  Such a pronouncement would be the latest in a rapid and growing succession of position flips for the Illinois Senator.  From the post:

Attempting to clarify comments he made during an interview in Relevant magazine in which he seemed to strongly indicate that he supported a late-term abortion exception for the physical-health of the mother but left the impression he might not support a mental-health exception, Obama yesterday told reporters on his campaign plane that he, indeed, supported mental-health exceptions. Such exceptions were acceptable so long as they were for clinically-diagnosed conditions, he indicated.

What he did not support was the idea of exceptions that would allow late-term abortions based on "mental distress." "It is not just a matter of feeling blue," Obama said.

The post cites a legal analysis from Jan Crawford Greenburg of ABC news, where the reporter provides the following background:

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.

 
That proposed federal legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act, refers to the key Supreme Court case on the issue, which was decided the same day as Roe v. Wade in 1973. In that case, Doe v Bolton, the Court said a doctor could decide to perform an abortion based on "all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age--relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."Subsequent cases in the Supreme Court and lower courts have said states cannot ban abortions where the doctor deems them necessary to protect a woman's physical and mental health. Lower courts have taken that to mean a state cannot prohibit an abortion--even one post-viability--if the woman would suffer severe emotional harm without it.

Nowhere do those cases impose criteria of "serious clinical mental health diseases."

That's not what the law is today. The Court has said the Constitution prohibits states from banning post-viability abortions unless those laws contain a broad mental health exception---one that includes mental distress and severe emotional harm. Abortion rights groups have fought for decades to preserve these exceptions, and I'm awfully curious what they will think about limiting them to women with mental disease or mental illness. (A good question for Monday, when we're all back in the office.)

While it's encouraging to see anyone move toward placing restrictions on abortion, Obama is running a serious risk of creating disillusionment among his base.  In particular, think about all of those disappointed women who ardently supported Hillary Clinton.  Obama needs them to coalesce around his candidacy.  "Refining" his position on abortion rights won't help him with these voters, who may stay home, vote for McCain out of spite, or perhaps less likely, cast a protest vote for Ralph Nader.

Comments

[Lydia]

I apologize in advance for the slight digression I am about to make from your original post. Anyhow.. My question is: why aren't abortions illegal for all except those whose lives are threatened by the pregnancy? The mother could easily have it and give it up for adoption- where a family that desperately wants a child could love it!

Well, what I just posted has nothing to do with anything.. I apologize again.

[Joe]

I can't say I disagree with your point. It's always been a mystery to me why somebody would elect to destroy a child instead of giving him or her up for adoption. Loads of people desperately want a child, but for whatever reason, can't conceive one. Maybe the guilt of knowing that there would be a child in the world that one didn't want to be with exceeds the guilt of terminating the pregnancy?

Anybody have any other theories?