Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:00:05 -0400
...women's reproductive rights...
In an interview this week with "Relevant," a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother."Obama then added: "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."
As Jeralyn says,.... "NARAL leaders ought to feel like idiots."
And....
A leading anti-choice group says Obama either is being disingenous or he's or ignorant. (Note they don't mention the third possibility which is that he's on their side):
David N. O'Steen, the executive director of National Right to Life, said Obama's remarks to the magazine "are either quite disingenuous or they reflect that Obama does not know what he is talking about.""You cannot believe that abortion should not be allowed for mental health reasons and support Roe v Wade," O'Steen said.
Looks like no one will be pleased with his new position. As I've said all along about his religious outreach, you don't get something for nothing and if he wants the evangelical vote, he's going to have to offer them something. Is this it?
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/7/3/20917/25581
Roe v Wade now under the bus too.
“No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her self.” - Susan B. Anthony, 1872
A late term abortion is causing pain to a human being. A women can decide and must have the right to decide whether or not to have an abortion before the final term of pregnancy.
Late term abortions are murder of a human being, imo. It's basically killing a baby at that point...it's gone beyond the "fetus" stage.
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Whoever said it, it's true.
There's a misperception about late-term abortions. People don't carry a baby for 7 months that they don't want. Late-term abortions are only performed if necessary or if there's something seriously wrong with the fetus. The problem with legislation is the burden of proof. How do you have to prove it? When? If it's an emergency, do you have to go to court first? This should be left up to doctors not to legislators, especially when it's used as a political football.
And as far as I'm concerned since Obama does not have a degree in psychiatry he should not be making judgments on this.
One of the comments at TL....
....... Whether a woman is in sufficient physical or mental distress that an abortion is indicated is a matter to be decided between her and her doctor.
It is a standard anti-choice canard that all sorts of women are running around getting ninth-month abortions by claiming that they feel stressed or whatever. In the real world, no one is getting a third-term abortion that isn't medically necessary - whether for reasons of physical or mental health.
“No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her self.” - Susan B. Anthony, 1872
such a hard decision.
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
Unless you are an expert in obstetrics and/or pediatrics
you can't have an informed opinion.
There are reasons for late term abortions...but they are not common, and you can't just walk in 8 mos pregnant and ask for an abortion.
Get the damn government out of medical issues. It's bad enough for the insurance companies to butt in.
but isn't the last trimester less unpleasant than the earlier parts of the pregnancy. The idea that a woman would go through "all that" and then terminate a pregnancy on a whim is silly.
As a Labor and Delivery nurse, I've cared for women who had to make the decision to terminate a pregnancy at a "late" stage in consultation with their physicians. This is a very rare situation, medically indicated for the mother or in the event of an anomaly resulting in a non-viable fetus. The distress and grief the parents go through is incredible. It's not too easy on the caregivers, either. Government has no place in these decisions.
...weighs in .....
.....So, let me get this straight. If you get a late term abortion for medical reasons, you will feel suicidal about it in the future. But if you feel suicidal about being pregnant, under no circumstances should you get a late term abortion. Maybe we should ask Andrea Yates for her expert opinion on the subject of regret, self-esteem and depression? Come to think of it, *she* didn’t have much choice in the matter. Her husband/protector and pastor went against the best advice of her doctors who told them she should never get pregnant again as it would make her post-partum psychosis worse. Seven years later, five children dead and a brain permanently damaged by untreated disease, she’s serving out the rest of her life on a psych ward. Nice going, Mr. Yates.
Thank goodness we have all these guys to protect us from the consequences of our rash decisions. We should not trouble our underdeveloped consciences about the fact that the presumptuus nominee and a justice of the Supreme Court contradict themselves. For the women with medical emergencies that just happen to fall one day into that late term stage, it hardly matters. Their options are now limited by the philosophical and moral musings of two men who could be discussing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/independence-day/
“No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her self.” - Susan B. Anthony, 1872
Link: (BarackObama.com)
Armando has it posted at Talk Left, link above. These are the first few comments:
Really, does he have to lie?
by andgarden on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:17:12 PM ESTBecause I'm pretty sure that this is a lie:
As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility.Ugh.
-----------------there are a number of problems with the statement
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:20:26 PM ESTThe first and foremost is the false premise that the current FISA does not have an exclusivity provision.
The second is the omission of his flip flopping on his promise to filibuster any bill that contained retoractive immunity.
the letter is an insult to your intelligence and makes me think worse of him.
This letter may be a deal breaker for me.
------------------------It would have been better
by andgarden on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:21:44 PM EST
if he'd just shut up about it.---------------
Certainly better than this insult of a letter
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:22:40 PM ES
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Roomful of guys with long hair wearing tights and knickers!!
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16001
:)
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
~ Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Col. William S. Smith, 1787
to Kelly's blog at Kos promoting the Wes fundraiser!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/3/231957/7447/862/546302
It only takes two clicks and you're done! :)
over in Hot Headlines ---->
about Armando's support of Obama during the primaries was he thought he would remain the media darling through the GE and would be "safe." I have a feeling Team Obama thought the same thing and are going to have a hard time dealing with the media turning on them. Playing the race card and whining isn't going to work this time. Oh well...
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Can it be front paged? I heart Krugman.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
--- for the link. Krugman gets it. I tend to agree with him that Obama, like others, is backing off his initial statment "rejecting" Clark's statement. I've changed a little bit about Obama's use of "inartful." I first thought it was a bum rap and totally unnecessary, but in the context of the question posed to him, the use of inartful could mean that Clark was right in his criticism of McCain but he could have used different words to make his point. If you give Obama the benefit of the doubt, and I don't blame people if they don't, he could be implying that Clark's only mistake was not using the right words to describe what was otherwise obviously true. Also, by limiting his criticism to inartful language and specifically rejecting the Swiftboat people to Clark, there could be an argument that the inartful langage was the only problem with the interview. Of course, Obama should be more specific and use the exact argument that Clark is making about McCain. At least, he could say that while perhaps the language about getting shot down was inartful he agrees with Clark that McCain's judgment is fair game despite his prior military service.
Just a thought. I may not be right on this one. But Krugman's article is a real prize.
told me last night that where Wes has trouble with his comment goes to what he said about Kerry's Navy service helping to qualify him to be president in 2004. I told him that Wes explained that on TV, saying that Kerry progressed as a person and showed courage in protesting the Vietnam war and then moving on with his career of public service. I had to agree, it does resemble hairsplitting. I've watched Wes for so many years, I understand what he's saying, but the uninitiated don't see the difference. It's so silly. Wes isn't running for anything and neither is Kerry.
Kerry showed courage both in fighting in Vietnam and protesting the war when he came home. But Kerry is not a military man. He got out of the service, went to law school, and eventually into politics. His "reporting for duty" comment at his acceptance speech was over the top. By running on his brief military service instead of his entire career, his campaign bordered on being phony at times.
As far as Clark talking about John Kerry's war record at the convention, it made for good theatre and some hyperbole can be excused at times like these. Actually, I didn't get the impression that Clark was emphasizing Kerry's war record as a qualification for the White House. It was more a statement of Kerry's character and courageousness.
I think, however, that the only legitimate question to Clark during the McCain flap was for Clark to explain his speech at the convention praising Kerry's war record. I don't mind that type of questioning by journalists.
The beauty of "inartful" (besides the fact that it's not actually a word) is that it could mean anything. It sounds to me like Obama is using it to avoid saying anything definitive while making you feel silly that for not knowing what he means.
At this point it appears the Democrats have selected John Kerry II to run against the Republicans in 2008.
Meek.
Easily baited and manipulated.
No idea how the corporate news media works.
Clueless as to the Republicans’ overall strategy.
Surrounded by naive idiots.
Ashamed of being either a Democrat or a progressive.
Afraid to take strong stands and therefore prone to flip-flopping (e.g., the awful FISA bill).
In summation, Obama is playing to not lose instead of playing to win, which is a mistake that the Republicans never make.
He thought the turkey a better candidate for our national bird, but I am happy to read things like this.
If we can rescue bald eagles, perhaps we will be able to save the polar bears and other species threatened by climate change.
"Two bald eagles that last year nested in Philadelphia - the first in at least 200 years, according to state game officials - have returned.
And while last year no young survived, this year the pair hatched a tiny eaglet that grew from fluff to feathers and learned to shred a fish.
Finally, in late June, it left the nest to begin its life in the wider world.
A year after eagles were removed from the federal endangered-species list, their numbers continue to grow. Both Pennsylvania and New Jersey report more nesting eagles this year than ever, counting from their nadir in the 1970s."
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_region/20080703_Eagles_increase_and_thrive_in_Pa__and_N_J_.html
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
What was that number that someone posted the other day for the Obama campaign? I can't seem to find it. I need to call them AGAIN because they haven't responded to my multiple requests for a refund of my campaign contribution.
Thanks!
Melange - This may be another way to get your Obama contribution back. It was posted by a blogger on the No Quarter blog:
"You may request a refund of your campaign donations by contacting Alexa Chappell at
"
<---------
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15998