what the hell is going on here? Yes, I knew Obama would move toward the center after getting the nomination, mostly because I never believed he was a "different kind of politician" in the first place. But I never considered the Fourth Amendment or a whole new reason to start executing people to be the middle. I thought those were positions way on the right. When Obama went there I was mortified. But there were still three good reasons to vote for him- John, Paul, and Stevens.
So what do I do when Barack Obama, Democratic nominee for President, prior possessor of an 100% NARAL rating and their endorsement, starts talking off Right to Life's playbook?
After Obama's speech the other day laying out his own version of "Faith Based Initiatives" (did I mention he was jerking hard right, well past center?), he gave a quick interview to Relevant, a Christian magazine. Before I get to that, please let me remind you of Obama's position on abortion during the primaries. In April, in a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court upheld the ban on "partial birth abortions." Obama responded:
I strongly disagree with today's Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman's medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient.
I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.
What is NARAL's position? You know about NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, the one that gave Obama a 100% rating and their endorsement?
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.
But now that Obama won the nomination, he says this:
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.
What does this mean? It means Barack Obama has now come out in favor of banning late-term abortions for the mental health of the mother, including mental health issues due to gross fetal issues with the baby. In other words, the DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT has now endorsed a position forcing an otherwise healthy woman to take a tragically, perhaps even fatally, deformed fetus to term.
I wrote a few days ago about accusations that people are "purity trolls" and different people's "deal breakers." At the time I wrote:
Everybody, you see, has their deal breakers. What the purity troll hunters are really telling you is that THEIR deal breaker has not been hit yet, so it doesn't matter if yours has.
I will tell you the honest to [insert the deity or lack thereof of your choice here] truth, I will vote for Vlad the Impaler for President if he's running as a Democrat against McCain. But I truly never thought I would have to vote for a "Democrat" who supports reduced Fourth Amendment rights, increased "Faith Based Initiatives" (and by the way, go to the Relevant article, he talks about those, too, and creates loopholes to drive trucks through for disciminatory hiring), increased use of the death penalty, and now, oh God and now, reducing access to abortion. Abortion is a big "deal breaker" for me.
I am so stunned right now, so utterly flabbergasted, I have absolutely no idea what to do. All I could do this late at night was write this diary, something that will either scroll away in late-night lassitude, or get troll-rated into oblivion with accusations of "purity troll." Well folks, if we can't be "pure" about the First, Fourth, or Eighth Amendments to the Constitution, if we can't be "pure" about a woman's right to choose, well, what are we doing here in the first place?