Update: Obama co-sponsored Freedom of Choice Act, which enshrines mental health exceptions

I’ve been following two very different takes at Mahablog and Shakesville regarding Barack Obama’s statements to a Christian magazine in which he said that mental distress is not a health exception for late-term abortion. This MyDD post is another slant I’ve read on this situation and it tends more toward the Mahablog end (Shakesville is on the irate WTF is he thinking end, Mahablog on the let’s try to be rationale it’s not what it sounds like end).

Now, there’s this post from The Swamp which refers to this post by Jan Crawford Greenburg of ABC News on her blog, Legalities. Greenburg’s entry includes a few fascinating pieces of information. First:

Obama’s comments that he does not support mental health exceptions in so-called post-viability abortions (after 22 weeks) is squarely at odds with that holding [in Doe, which said, “”[M]edical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors–physical, emotional , psychological, familial, and the woman’s age–relevant to the well- being of the patient,”] which remains the law of the land today.

Current Supreme Court jurisprudence is understood by lower courts to prohibit those flat-out bans unless the laws provide exceptions for a woman’s mental health. Lower courts repeatedly have struck down laws that only provide an exception for serious physical issues as being contrary to Supreme Court precedent.

As an Ohio-based federal appeals court recently put it, “States must provide a maternal health exception to an abortion ban that encompasses situations where a woman would suffer severe mental or emotional harm if she were unable to obtain an abortion.”

Indeed, only Thomas and Scalia have expressly supported the position that a mental health exception is not necessary. They penned a dissent to that effect in 1998, when the Court refused to take up the Ohio case that struck down a state law because it did not include an exception to protect a woman’s mental health.

An Ohio-based federal appeals court, eh? Thomas and Scalia?

Then:

The Freedom of Choice Act specifically allows abortions after viability where necessary to protect a woman’s health, and the legislation refers repeatedly to the guarantees of Roe and Doe, which protect the right to an abortion where necessary for a woman’s physical and mental health.

One of its co-sponsors? Barack Obama.

Finally, she concludes with questions, much like I did before:

So here are some questions for the Obama campaign: Does Obama still support the Freedom of Choice Act? Would he appoint justices like Ginsburg — or like Thomas, Scalia, etc.? Would he direct his Solicitor General to file a brief supporting state abortion bans that did not include a mental health exception?

And questions for the McCain campaign: How can you criticize Obama for allegedly shifting positions when McCain himself is reportedly considering as a running mate Mitt Romney — a man whose shifting views (from pro-choice to pro-life!) — make Obama seem fixed in concrete?

I’ve asked both campaigns for answers, so I’ll update when I hear back. In the meantime, Happy 4th!

I’ll be watching her blog to see what more we learn about these statements and positions. But just so you know, Obama is on the record in other places as saying that the first thing he’d do as president is pass FOCA:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) supports the Democrats’ Freedom of Choice Act, putting him in line with the American Civil Liberties Union on abortion and in conflict with pro-life groups.

Following a July 17, 2007 speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Obama was asked what he would do at the federal level, not only to ensure access to abortion but to make sure that the judicial nominees he might pick “are true to the core tenets of Roe v. Wade?”

“Well, the first thing I’d do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act,” Obama said. “That’s the first thing I’d do.” (See video)

He said the same in 1/08, on the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, here - on his website.

I’ve written a few ideas re: what might be going on. The Swamp has the same ideas:

Having been dubbed, unfairly or not, the most liberal member of the Senate by National Journal, and winning more delegates for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination than Sen. Hillary Clinton largely because he was left of her on the Iraq War, it was expected that Obama would move to the political center once the primaries were over.

But it appears that he’s not just moved to the center but, in some respects, gone past it.

The danger for Obama is that one of his greatest weakness with voters comes from his being relatively new to the national political scene. Many voters don’t know very much about him.

Because he appears to be shifting so greatly on so many issues, including how quickly he’d withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq, he may be running the risks of reinforcing voter perceptions that he’s too unknown and unpredicatable to entrust the nation’s fate to.

And his apparent position on the mental-health exception to late-term abortions is only going to raise questions in the minds of many of the liberal activists who have helped him get this far. Some of the larger questions will be: what does he really believe and is he the person we thought we were voting for in the primaries?

I suspect I might be live-blogging another Obama Speech on [fill in the blank] before too long.

Sphere: Related Content

By Jill Miller Zimon at 4:19 pm July 5th, 2008 in Barack Obama, Health Care, Debates, Abortion, Gender, Campaigning, WH2008, Ohio, Elections, Women, Government, Politics

Comments

4 Responses to “Update: Obama co-sponsored Freedom of Choice Act, which enshrines mental health exceptions”

1 Lara on July 5th, 2008 5:11 pm

I think I’m going to go take a nap - a 4-month long one!
I’m not sure what is going on with Obama and his campaign. Is the media spinning it one way? Are the right-wingers trying to trap him? Is the middle beckoning? Regardless of the answer(s), I think the distress many of us staunch supporters are feeling (yes, I know I can only speak for myself) is caused in part by our unwillingness to be as critical as we should be. We are responsible for putting him on a political pedestal, and while I am a bit squeamish about what is coming next, I do know it was only a matter of time before we met up with disappointment.It remains to be seen if Obama’s politics will be the face of change. I’m still hopeful and a staunch supporter, but a more guarded one these days.
2 Anon on July 5th, 2008 7:42 pm

I’m not sure what is going on with Obama and his campaign.

You’re not alone. As the NYT said in a July 4 editorial titled “New and Not Improved,” “Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. […] Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings.”
3 joe on July 5th, 2008 9:14 pm

he is a liar and panderer. woe be unto the suckers that bought into his phony message. it’s no wonder that the majority of his support is from the young crowd. they don’t know any better yet. the brain-washed, hypocritical intelligensia (they know what’s good for you, just ask em) and the “proud” black vote is his constituency because these groups are most succeptable to a snow job. the dems threw their best candidate off the train. she tried to tell em. they have gotten exactly what they have voted for.
4 BizzyBlog » Obama Abortion Flip-Flop Buried in NY Times Blog Item about Rove on July 6th, 2008 8:15 pm

[…] that ABC’s Jan Crawford Greenburg caught at the network’s Legalities Blog (HT Writes Like She Talks). Obama’s new as-of-this-moment position also runs counter to Obama’s co-sponsorship of […]