I know there have probably been lots of diaries on this subject. But over the weekend I made some comments on a diary regarding Obama's position on late-term abortions. I expressed concern that Obama had discounted the importance of mental health when he discussed exceptions to the ban on late-term abortion and stated that he didn't think "mental distress" should qualify as such an exception. And I worried that this was part of the "rush to the center" and evidence of Obama backing off from previous pro-choice positions.
I was wrong.
Since my comment, two things have happened that have changed (and corrected) my view on this subject:
- There is a longer quote from Sen. Obama on the subject
- My husband, who is a child and adult psychiatrist, weighed in on the side of those who say "mental distress" shouldn't be an exception.
On Saturday, I read Jim Bow's excellent diary on Obama's position regarding exceptions to the ban on late-term abortions
http://www.dailykos.com/...
and I made the following comment:
Distinctions between mental distress and some other, supposedly more serioius, mental health conditions make no sense coming from the outside of the situation....
Seems like, from the interview, Obama was making a distinction between mental and physical conditions, and I think that is a false dichotomy.
The next day I was telling my psychiatrist husband, who is a strong pro-choice advocate (we've participated in a number of pro-choice marches and rallies with our daughters), about my disappointment with Obama on this issue. My husband totally disagreed with me. He told me that "mental distress" was a foolish term to have in any legislation, he didn't think it should be an exception either, and he thought Obama did a good job framing his answer regarding mental health exceptions. Well, it turns out that my husband was reading this newer quote from the Senator:
My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, It can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue. I don't think that's how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don't think that's how the courts have interpreted it and I think that's important to emphasize and understand."
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/...
So -- I made two mistakes: (which is why my title says errata rather than erratum):
- I defended the "mental distress" terminology and
- I assumed that the limited report I read on Obama's position was the whole story.
This issue and my mistakes are important because of the recent MSM narrative of Obama showing a pattern of "flip-flopping." The items they use to support the accusation are his recent statement on the FISA bill, his "refined" policy on Iraq, his position on accepting public financing and his statement on abortion. With the exception of FISA, none of the other issues is real. His position on Iraq has not changed (the media just decided to emphasize Obama's common-sense statement that he would take into account advice of the military on how to accomplish his plan); his position on public financing was based on a good-faith negotiation with his opponent which can't happen since McCain is already breaking the campaign finance law and says he can't control the 527s; and Obama's statement on abortion turns out to be exactly where he was before and pretty much the same place as anyone who is pro-choice.
While I am still disappointed by his FISA stand, I am once again reminded that Obama represents very well the vast majority of issues I care about. And McCain represents virtually none.