Print This Post
Jul
6
Jan Crawford Greenburg at Legalities has a statement from Barack Obama that seeks to clarify what he meant when he told a Christian magazine that only physical health exceptions might be acceptable for late term abortions. Her synopsis:
In clarifying his remarks, Obama said this afternoon that he has “consistently” said health exceptions are required for laws banning or seriously restricting abortion. But he then goes on to try to carve out exceptions to the exceptions, and he ends up suggesting, again, he would support more limits on abortion than the law currently allows.
Speaking to reporters on his campaign plane, Obama said mental health exceptions—which are a real battleground issue in the abortion debate–can be “rigorously” limited to only those women with “serious clinical mental health diseases.” He said mental health exceptions are not intended permit abortions when a woman simply “doesn’t feel good.”
“It is not just a matter of feeling blue,” Obama said.
And then she publishes his entire response:
“My only point is this-historically I have been a strong believer in a women’s right to choose with her doctor, her pastor and her family,” Obama said. “I have consistently been saying that you have to have a health exception on many significant restrictions or bans on abortions, including late-term abortions.
“In the past, there has been some fear on the part of people who–not only people who are anti-abortion, but people who may be in the middle–that that means that if a woman just doesn’t feel good then that is an exception. That’s never been the case. I don’t think that is how it has been interpreted.
“My only point is that in an area like partial birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously,” Obama continued.
“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.”
Greenburg’s analysis:
Here’s the problem with that, and why Obama’s remarks are so startling. Obama is trying to restrict abortions after 22 weeks to those women who have a serious disease or illness. But the law today also covers some women who are in “mental distress,” those women who would suffer emotional and psychological harm without an abortion.
This standard has long been understood to require less than “serious clinical mental health disease.” Women today don’t have to show they are suffering from a “serious clinical mental health disease” or “mental illness” before getting an abortion post-viability, as Obama now says is appropriate.
And for 35 years—since Roe v. Wade—they’ve never had to show that.
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.)
Now maybe the law will change–now that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is no longer on the Supreme Court. On this issue, Obama seems to be suggesting it should.
I agree 100% with that interpretation. And I would add all my previous concerns related to the erosion of any gains made in perception and reality that mental health is as worthy of all the respect and protection that physical health garners. Additional thought: Obama cannot possibly realize what he is saying: If a person has a condition that meets the criteria for “serious mental disease” or “serious mental illness,” then that person is very possibly subject to a power of attorney for health care or guardianship of her affairs, medical and otherwise. Which means that the person wouldn’t get to decide his or her fate - including making the decision about abortion.
Sigh. This is nuts. Sounds like Obama needs the counsel of someone with education and experience in law and the mental health profession.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:54 am July 6th, 2008 in Abortion, Barack Obama, Campaigning, Debates, Elections, Health Care, Law, Politics, Social Issues, WH2008, Women
Comments
5 Responses to “Update: Obama’s additional statement on “mental distress” and abortion”
Leave a Reply
-
Upcoming
Post viability, that’s a child that could survive outside of the uterus. Mental distress is very broad.
The numbers of abortions that are late term needs to be kept down, the day after pill and education imperative.
I would not ban on “mental distress” but because it is an emotional/physiological condition then it should require counseling, if the life is viable then all options need to be covered and the assumption that aborting under mental distress is a solution is not 100% valid, it could make for more physiological problems.
There are not that many, most terminations at this point are not requested they are a result of abnormalities, there are a few that request a termination at this point and that’s not very admirable and to say mental distress is the reason is an understatement, it take a unique type to ask to have that done at that stage of development, its actually unconscionable!
The message to the naive is that waiting that long is not really an option, people have a tendency to discount the seriousness of not taking care of it early on. There are easy methods to determine pregnancy, waiting is not wise some woman may not make the determination that they are pregnant and being able to determine that and resolve it quickly is best, its far less emotionally disturbing.
The solution is not banning or making it illegal, but is striving to reduce the numbers through education and accountability.
Obama needs to be more careful what he says, coming to terms with an unwanted pregnancy to late is inherently distressful and far from admirable. I think it not wise to take it to the other end of the spectrum and begin to see this as the end of freedom of choice. People need to be pushed back and saying “I am ok with an abortion “ needs to be reconsidered, its never ok, it always unfortunate and should never be taken lightly. The policy should be that of early terminations easier and late and or repeated instances should require some counseling. The object is to keep the numbers down and not encourage complacency over what is so very serious a circumstance.
Obama is not prefect, why paint him into a corner he is looking for votes and speaking to the majority, we all have issues with abortion, we are sending a message be accountable do not be complacent.
Disturbing.
We are having a lively discussion on the subject over at Bitch PhD.
Kelley - thanks - I’m going to link to it for everyone.
Here’s Bitch PhD on this situation.
[...] “misstatement” and “clarification” by Jan Crawford Greenburg and at Writes Like She Talks and at Shakesville (including the comment thread) again and at Astraea’s Scales. Possibly [...]
obama’s a phony.