home

Barack Channels Scalia & Thomas on Abortion

Jan Crawford Greenburg had a detailed piece online yesterday at abcnews entitled "Obama Sounding Like Thomas and Scalia?"   LINK  After pointing out Obama's agreement with conservative views of recent Supreme Court decisions regarding gun control and the death penalty, she then zeroes in on Obama's recent comments to Relevant Magazine regarding abortion rights [Link].

In a recent interview, Obama appears to back away from his long-stated positions on abortion (and a proposed federal abortion rights law he had co-sponsored), repudiate 35 years of accepted Supreme Court rulings on the issue and embrace a view on abortion restrictions that has been expressed on the Court only by Justices Thomas and Scalia.

According to Greenburg, an ABC news correspondent and University of Chicago Law grad,

-- there's no mistaking that Obama says he no longer will support what's long been a cornerstone of the abortion rights debate: The Court's insistence that laws banning abortions after the fetus is viable... contain an exception to allow doctors to perform them if necessary to protect a pregnant woman's mental health.

Obama told Relevant Magazine:
"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..."

This dismissal by Obama of the exception to late-term abortion bans on grounds of "mental distress" minimizes concerns expressed by the Supreme Court for the mother's emotional health and, as Greenburg points out, echoes current arguments of anti-abortion rights groups claiming that the "mental health" exception does little more than create a basis on which late-term abortions become readily available.  

Greenburg reminds us that the exception required by the Supreme Court in 1973 were designed to protect the '"well-being"' of the mother; and whether her well-being requires a late term abortion is to be determined by
'"Medical judgment, ...exercised in the light of all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age--..."'
 As Greenburg also points out, even the Supreme Court's 2007 decisions (Gonzales v. Carhart and v. Planned Parenthood) banning the partial birth abortion procedure when the fetus is viable fall short of specifically extending the ban to those situations in which it can be demonstrated that abortion is required for the mother's mental or physical health. Greenburg tells us:  
"Only Thomas and Scalia have expressly supported the position that a mental health exception is not necessary."
The position voiced by Obama just days ago to Relevant not only echoes their conservative views on abortion, but also represents a departure from his prior stance -- to wit, his support of the Freedom of Choice Act.  While some may view Obama's change in position on abortion as merely one of many on a growing list of recent flip-flops, others may worry that his new view of abortion could be the last straw for voters who had decided to support Obama to protect the precarious balance on the Supreme Court.
< CenterShot: The Myth Of The Middle | Matt Yglesias: A Case for Liberal Internationalism >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Thanks BackFromOhio. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:04:51 PM EST
    The Obama defenders that I mentioned in the other thread insist that he is not referring to "mental illness" here but just to mental distress which they define as a mild temporary stress.

    I don't understand how they can ignore that he said

    I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy..."
    According to them, true mental illness is a physical condition and that's what he really meant.

    I hope he gets asked about this...the Supreme Court argument is out the door for me if that's really what he believes.

    Obama explains what he meant (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:15:21 PM EST
    here.

    I'm still not sure how he defines serious clinical mental health.

    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. 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."



    Parent
    Teresa (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:31:32 PM EST
    I reread the campaign's clarification statements of today. Seems like back-peddling. Seems like he used mental distress to appeal to the right.  I'm not sure the concern he references that someone might use superficial mental discomfort to claim an exception to the late-term ban has been expressed by anyone other than those who generally oppose abortion at any stage.  

    Parent
    Now he needs to clairify (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:07:36 PM EST
    "when someone feels 'blue'".

    Senator would you describe what you mean by "blue"?

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by nell on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:21:35 PM EST
    he does need to clarify...

    More than one patient has described their state of mind as feeling "really blue" when the medical diagnosis was clinical depression.

    Parent

    "mental health" (none / 0) (#21)
    by diogenes on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:57:30 PM EST
    Sorry, but as a public sector psychiatrist I can assure you that if mental health reasons are allowed for third trimester abortions then psychiatrists will make up all sort of stuff-"potential risk of suicidality"-when pressured to by our patients.  If third trimester abortions are as rare as advocates say then the medical evidence should have to go in front of a superior court judge or administrative judge to show with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the abortion is justified.  
    I have never seen a pregnant patient in thirty years of practice whose mental illness was caused by being in the third trimester of pregnancy, much less someone who couldn't safely be treated in a psychiatric hospital until delivery.

    Parent
    If a patient waits for the third trimester (none / 0) (#24)
    by MeMyselfAndI on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 02:58:22 AM EST
    for an abortion, it's far more likely there was a mental health issue causing the delay in the first place.

    Far as I'm concerned, let the doctors lie if they like.

    Parent

    You make a very good point (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:25:36 PM EST
    I'm not sure, but in light of this week's faith-based initiatives, conservative position on gun control, pro-death penalty statement on child rape, he statements that AA dads need to buck up, etc., either Obama is pandering to the right or telling us what he truly believes.  I'm inclined to believe the latter, because no other national Democratic political figure I can think of would articulate all of these positions or even the majority of them.  My sense is that Obama is of the view that people ought to buck up & get over their problems, whether they are women deciding on an abortion, or working class people who cannot now make ends meet. He doesn't seem to feel anyone's pain.  On the other hand, perhaps he was simply pandering. I don't know.
    I suggest reading Greenburg's piece -- it is far more detailed, and makes clear that there have always been two clear types of exceptions to the late-term abortion pan, one for mom's physical health & one for her mental health. She also believes Obama's statement regarding mental distress meant he subscribes to the Thomas/Scalia view.

    If Obama doesn't agree with Thomas & Scalia that the mother's mental health should not be a basis for permitting late term abortion, then why did he raise the issue of "mental distress"? He contrasted "mental distress" with a physical condition; he did not contrast "mental distress" with a true "mental health" condition, and the cases don't get into this.  The 1973 companion decision to Roe, cited by Greenburg, talks about the determination of a woman's physician, in light of her overall medical condition, that abortion is necessary.    

    Parent

    This sums up Obama for me (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:41:10 PM EST
    He doesn't seem to feel anyone's pain.

    He addressed the issue again today and still doesn't define mental distress. As someone who was treated for severe depression a long time ago, even psychiatrists can't always define each mental illness according to what they told me. A lot of times, they determine it after the fact based on what medicine does or doesn't work.

    I'm also confused as to what he believes if the mother's physical health is fine and then she finds out something is wrong with her unborn child. Does she still qualify? Does her mental distress matter then? (Is that even an issue? Does the unborn child's health automatically make the mother eligible for a late term abortion?)

    As for his pandering, it bothers me a lot because there is no need for it (yet anyway). That he is doing it freely makes me wonder, like you, if this is the real Obama.

    Parent

    I'd like to know if he is only talking (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Grace on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:39:20 PM EST
    about a physical issue with the mother or if a physical issue with the fetus would qualify under his definition?  

    I really don't like how he is trying to dance around these issues.  

    Parent

    I have the same question Grace. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:57:03 PM EST
    If the fetus has something wrong with it, can a late-term abortion be done regardless of the woman's distress? I'm ashamed that I don't know this.

    I don't understand why he brought up the "mental distress" issue to begin with. Why give them an opening? It isn't reassuring to me.

    Parent

    There Is Precedent (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 12:56:39 AM EST
    Dashle and others tried to close, what they thought was the weak point of attack from the anti-abortionists. They separated mental health from physical health in 1998, S 2497 :"Late Term Abortion Limitation Act".

    It failed. Here and Here is some background.

    The idea behind it is to make roe v wade bulletproof.

    In the Relevance interview, Obama was referring to certain emails that were circulating around anti-abortionists. It is not clear what he specifically was responding to but the Dashle Act was a president.

    Parent

    One of the worst birth defects (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Grace on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 12:58:17 AM EST
    that often isn't discovered until late in a pregnancy is a fetus with a brainstem but no brain.  Unfortunately, this is compatible with life -- but I don't feel like I or anyone else should tell a woman that she needs to continue to carry a baby to term like this and I don't believe doctors should be forced to deliver it early and wait to see if it dies after it's born or put it on life support so it can life "forever."    

    I really feel like this is between a woman and her doctor (yes, her doctor, because he has to do the dirty work).

    If I was carrying a baby with no brain, I might not turn into a schizophrenic, but I'm sure I would feel "mental distress."  

    Anyway, I find Obama's comments frustrating.      

    Parent

    Here is an article that ran in the (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Grace on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:22:20 AM EST
    NYT way back in 1993 about babies with brain defects.  It's worth reading since it speaks to the late term abortion issue too.

    LINK

    Parent

    Greenburg's Point (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 12:27:26 PM EST
    is that Obama's raising issue of mental distress as insufficient justification for late term abortion is right out of the right-wing, anti-abortionists' playbook. She gives examples. It's a mantra that's been used by anti-abortionists to try to chip away at Roe v Wade.

    Parent
    This thread sounds like people are (none / 0) (#13)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:15:12 AM EST
    looking for a way to prove Obama is anti-choice.  He cited his pro-choice, pro-woman record, reiterated his agreement with us on women's rights, and still you put him down.  

    Anti-choice people think women shouldn't be able to wait until late in a pregnancy to decide to abort.  That's why he was talking about it, because he's reaching out for votes from people who feel strongly about it.  Although we know women don't flippantly get abortions, they are trying to restrict women's right to chose abortion, and late term abortion is a sensible place for them to try to make restrictions.

    Not looking for reasons to (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:51:28 AM EST
    determine Obama is anti-choice. Just wishing our candidate was less ambiguous. You may be absolutely convinced that Obama is solid on women and family issues, but his words leave room for many of us to doubt his commitment. If he's playing politics to secure votes from people who are anti-choice, then the cost to him for doing that is mushy support from many Democrats.

    Parent
    Greenburg's point (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 12:29:53 PM EST
    is that Obama's mentioning of "mental distress" is right out of the anti-abortionists' playbook; it's been used as a method of trying to chip away at abortion rights.  If Obama is staunchly pro-abortion, and I hope you are right on this, why does he parrot right-wing memes?

    Parent
    Nah (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:25:58 AM EST
    That's why he was talking about it, because he's reaching out for votes from people who feel strongly about it
    .

    More likely he was referring to potential constitutional attacks. In the said article he said he was strongly for defending roe v wade. Not a popular position with many of the magazine's readers. The anti abortionists know that and hate him, he is not reaching out to those people who "feel strongly about it"

    In the same interview he was criticized for wanting to end religious discrimination in hiring for institutions that were receiving federal funds for FBIs. Also not a popular position.

    Strongly defending Roe (none / 0) (#19)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:58:59 AM EST
    v. Wade & adding extra restrictions on circumstances under which a late term abortion is allowed due to the health of the mother are mutually contradictory, in my book.  Obama is chipping away at Roe.  I am opposed.  
    And,
    in a year when the economy is in such trouble, the mideast is a powder keg waiting to explode across the continents, the ranks of the power in the U.S. grows everyday, this makes me very concerned.
     And, I would add, the U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate than all other industrialized nations.  Perhaps this should be a focus for Dems who want to show they are pro-life.  I believe this is something the Dems could get behind, and I think far more infants die after birth for reasons other nations seem to be able to address than die in late-term abortions in the U.S.

    Parent
    Sorry - ranks of the poor (none / 0) (#20)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:59:40 AM EST
    not "power"

    Parent
    Apparently, after (none / 0) (#22)
    by JamesTX on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 10:34:56 AM EST
    all the hype and the cultish, nay, militant and violent support of the youthful left, it turns out the guy doesn't really identify with progressives on much of anything. No matter he collected our money and will win the election on the boost we provided, he has no problem promptly disavowing all the promises he made to get our support. Obama is looking more like a Republican every day. We should have known it wouldn't be this simple.

    Perhaps those with more knowledge of politics could explain to me what happened? Did he get bought off by the powers after he reached the threshold? Or did he intentionally lie from the start in a scheme to make us pay for our own downfall?

    Let's see, now. Traditional pro-life stance. No criminal justice reform (add insult to injury by reauthorizing horribly failed conservative policies). Renewed interest in the raw capitalism lie. Can anyone remind me how he got on the Democratic ticket, much less won the primary?

    Increased Prison Sentences (none / 0) (#23)
    by Peter Lagios on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 09:32:14 PM EST
    Undoubtedly incidences of infanticide and toddler abandonment and murder will increase if mothers are forced to carry pregnancies to term who don't want them.  The Casey Anthony type cases will increase.  How will that be addressed should Roe V. Wade be altered or overturned? Is society ready to throw away conflicted mother's to the prison system?  I'm sure Nancy Grace will be ready...I'm not sure I am.