RSS
guest-blogger

Obama: Mental Distress Can't Justify Late Term Abortion

By talkleft

Here's Obama reaching out to the evangelical right. The Associated Press reports:

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."

Obama made no such distinction last year:

Last year, after the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on late-term abortions, Obama said he "strongly disagreed" with the ruling because it "dramatically departs form previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women."

NARAL leaders ought to feel like idiots. [More...]

The official position of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group that endorsed Obama in May, states: "A health exception must also account for the mental health problems that may occur in pregnancy. Severe fetal anomalies, for example, can exact a tremendous emotional toll on a pregnant woman and her family."

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?

Comments

(45)

Doesn't know what he's talking about

But it sounds good to the evangelicals? Sheesharoo. How much pander does a panderer have to do to kiss the slippers of the ... [there's no one there]?

By NamaimoJuly 3, 2008 - 9:54pm

Obama: Mental Distress

It's amazing how John Mccain gets away with saying and doing the stupidest things, While Barack is grilled and misinterpreted at every single turn. No wonder the republicans get a free pass to the white house more times than not.

By wit1July 3, 2008 - 10:46pm

IOKIYAR.

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith

By nonexistent manJuly 4, 2008 - 4:40am

Flip Flop Flip Flop --- An Empty Suit

It's easy to "misinterprete" Hussein Obama since he has changed his position on ten issues in the last two weeks. I personally do not misinterprete his comments. He is a typical left wing commie that will say what ever he thinks will get him elected. Just like Billiary "The Buffoon" Clinton.

Hussein's theme of Hope and Change is pure political rhetoric. He "hopes" he can BS the American people and he can change his position for political expediency.

By AuburnDonJuly 4, 2008 - 7:03am

199 days and counting

...until your precious g0p gets kicked to the curb.

Remember THIS?

It's going to be a LOT worse for you RepubliCANTs this year, because you're going to lose BOTH houses of Congress, AND the White house!

Cry me a river, troll-monkey. Then go enlist.

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith

By nonexistent manJuly 4, 2008 - 4:18pm

Why don't you provide example's of the

stupidest things McCain is alledged to have said? And provide example's of things that Obama has said, that has been misinterpreted.
And I disagree with the Obama been grilled tidbit. So far, Obama's been given a fairly free ride by the MSM.

By leftysrsickJuly 4, 2008 - 9:21am

Because you have yet to respond

in kind. We are not going to jump through hoops for you if you do not put in the same effort.

By gt6July 4, 2008 - 11:15am

Respond to what?

I have responded in kind.

By leftysrsickJuly 4, 2008 - 11:19am

You still haven't admitted

Condi LIED

By gt6July 4, 2008 - 11:24am

Condi lied?

About what?

By leftysrsickJuly 4, 2008 - 4:12pm

Let's start with

..."aluminum tubes that can only have one use".

Next time, make it harder. (Hey, that's what your NAMBLA-buddy said, isn't it? It's in his blog, anyway!)

Now go teabag a shotgun, traitor scum.

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith

By nonexistent manJuly 4, 2008 - 4:16pm

Aluminum tubes?

What tubes are these? You mean for rockets, and such? Condi's not a scientist, so any thing she would have to say on the matter would be from a report she would have gotten from somewhere, and whoever she is making the statements to, would know this.

Before you criticize people, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them…
you are a mile away from them…
and you have their shoes.

By leftysrsickJuly 4, 2008 - 8:34pm

Condi was briefed

The nuke scientists said they were for rockets but Condi said they were really only suited for nuclear refining. SHE KNEW BETTER but she LIED.

By gt6July 4, 2008 - 10:19pm

She did? And who did she tell this to?

Why did they ask her and not the one's he briefed her? Apperantly you where briefed by them, or how else would you know?

By leftysrsickJuly 4, 2008 - 10:59pm

If I document this

will you admit she lied?

By gt6July 4, 2008 - 11:01pm

Depends.

Is it someone's opinion, or interpartation of what she said? I want to see what the one's who briefed her said, and what she said. From the source, not from some site. Someone you say briefed her. I want that persons words, from that person, and then her words.

By the way, she has spoken to many people, everyday, for years, and is this the only thing you got regarding her honesty?

By leftysrsickJuly 4, 2008 - 11:07pm

It is a direct quote

and there are many sources. It was said on TV in an interview. So will you admit it or are you going to weasel out of it.

"We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know
that there has been shipments going into Iraq, for instance, of
aluminum tubes that are really only suited for nuclear weapons
programs."
−− Condoleeza Rice Sept. 8, 2002

By gt6July 4, 2008 - 11:29pm

Huh, what are you talking about?

I've never heard her lie, nor have I heard any responsible journalist accuse her of lying. She actually gets high marks from those she deals with. Hell, the lady was head of NSA, and also head of the State Dept.
I do remember her saying this: She stated that while: "Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the actual attacks on America, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a part of the Middle East that was festering and unstable, [and] was part of the circumstances that created the problem on September 11."[(Wikipedia) and this: "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."[41]also from Wikipedia.

By leftysrsickJuly 4, 2008 - 11:32pm

Don't side step here

Her statement about the tubes is a lie. Admit it.

I am not concerned at this point about any other statements. so don't blather on about them. THIS ONE IS A LIE.

By gt6July 5, 2008 - 9:59am

I'm still waiting for your documentation

And again, out of the thousand's and thousand's of sentence's she has uttered in the last 7 years, if you can only come up with one inaccuracy, I'd have to say she's 99.99% honest, wouldn't you? Tell me, are you so perfect, that in the last 7 1/2 years, you haven't uttered a thing that was not true?
No one's perfect, not even Condi. And especially Obama.

Your Village Called, they Want Their Idiot Back

By leftysrsickJuly 5, 2008 - 10:08am

We can talk about others later

one at a time or it is just rhetoric. She spoke often of the alumionum tubes always trying to portray them as something they were not. This is not about perfeect it is about a dishonesty that has cost thousands of lives.

Transcript of Second Day of Rice Hearings

Published: January 19, 2005

(Page 12 of 22)

So you received a memo in September '01 clearly stating there was no link. The president himself was part of a State Department publication which said there were no al Qaeda in Iraq prior to 9/11. There's documented history of bin Laden's loathing of Saddam. And in spite of this, you went on TV and told the American people there was a clear connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Even the State Department was very clear that there was no such contacts.

Advertisement

Advertise on NYTimes.com

So it is very disturbing to think that in spite of everything and all the information that you had, you continued to go out there and claim this contact and make the people feel that somehow going to war against Iraq was our response to 9/11.

Now on the aluminum tubes, I'm not going to get into the back and forth with you on the aluminum tubes but I'm going to lay this into the record because I think it's essential. On September 8th - first, I believe you tried to convince the American people that Iraq's purchase of aluminum tubes proved positively that they were going to build a nuclear weapon; thus your statement about the mushroom cloud, which scared the heck out of every American.

On September 8th, '02, you were on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" and you made this statement: "We do know there have been shipments going into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that are really only suited to" - "high-quality aluminum tubes that are only" - I'm reiterating what you said - "really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." That unequivocal statement was wrong.

You never mentioned to the American people that there was a major dispute about the tubes, even though our nation's leading nuclear experts in Department of Energy in 2001 said the tubes were for small artillery rockets, not for nuclear weapons. It is reported that one Energy Department analyst summed up this issue for the Senate Intelligence Committee saying, quote, "The tubes were so poorly suited for centrifuges that if Iraq truly wanted to use them this way, we should just give them the tubes," unquote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/politics/19cnd-rtex.html?pagewanted=12

For example, in a September 8, 2002 interview on CNN, Rice issued this dire warning about Saddam Hussein: “We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know that there have been shipments going into … Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes … that are really only suited for nuclear weapons programs.”

http://peacepundit.com/category/a-war-based-on-lies/

By gt6July 5, 2008 - 10:21am

gt6

Why did you only post the question? Why didn't you post her answer? The question may be a lie. Just because the questioner makes a statement, doesn't make the statement a fact, as you seem to be stating, now does it? Please post her response. And again, one sentence, does not a liar make.

By leftysrsickJuly 5, 2008 - 10:32am

She made a statement

the statement is a lie. Once we have agreed that this staement is a lie, we can move on to others to determine whether or not she is pathological.

The question illustrates her earlier statement as a direct quote as does the second link. there are many more. You can google them yourself.

By gt6July 5, 2008 - 10:54am

Your dancing in circles, as always.

What was Condi's response to the allegation? Why won't you post it? I'm sure she told whoever made that statement that he was full of shit. Is that why you won't post her response? Who else on the panel agreed with the statement? Your spinning, dude. So far, you seem to be hiding some crucial piece of information. Why won't you actually post the entire conversation between the two. Typical propagandists. Advance a theory that they refuse to support with facts.

By leftysrsickJuly 5, 2008 - 2:09pm

you are talking about a later conversation

which I Do not have. If you want to find some place where there is evidence that refutes it, knock yourself out. I proved she made the statement and the statement is a lie.

By gt6July 5, 2008 - 3:17pm

here it is again

from another source

“The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he (meaning Saddam) can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” That was Dr. Rice speaking. Dr. Rice also claimed that she had conclusive evidence about Iraq’s alleged nuclear weapons program. During that same interview, she also said, “We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know that there has been shipments going into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that are really only suited for nuclear weapons programs.”

http://www.democracynow.org/2005/1/26/sen_byrd_rice_responsible_for_most

By gt6July 5, 2008 - 3:28pm

That wasn't the only evidence, asshole.

No one, except you, apparently, took that one line, to justify the invasion of Iraq. And it was not a lie. That was a belief that may not have been accurate. You got anything else? So far, you only have shown Condi to be human, and prone to human error. So, all in all, I'd have to say that you have proved that Condi may have been wrong, once in her life. Pretty good batting average, I would think. A person can't get more perfect than that.

So, lets move on and talk about Obama's fifty lies, seeing as how he is running for president, not Condi.

By leftysrsickJuly 5, 2008 - 6:20pm

She had already been briefed

so she knew it was a lie

By gt6July 5, 2008 - 6:26pm

*KAPOW*

...and the sock-puppet receives yet ANOTHER Atomic Bitch-Slap™!

It's a good thing he and his party's days are numbered...and unless I'm erring in my maths, that number is now down to 198, as in "days remaining in the Cowboy-hat Oathbreaker's errant reign".

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith

By nonexistent manJuly 5, 2008 - 1:59pm

How is that?

Advancing a lie about Condi is not a bitch slap. Nothing he has posted proves she lied. What's he hiding? He apparently has access to the entire dialogue, but refuses to put it forth. I put she told him he was full of shit. A real bitch slap.

By leftysrsickJuly 5, 2008 - 2:12pm

Question: how many sentence's has she spoken since

Bush took office?
You take one sentence and make her a liar. Give me a break.
Here's 50 differant sentance's from Obama: 50 Obama claimed he had never prayed in a Mosque; his campaign had to retract that statement
49 Obama dishonestly used third party comments in his ads to pump up his healthcare plan
48 Claims he never discussed politics with Pastor; rebutted by photo of Obama with team of lobbyists led by Wright
47 Obama, an expert at parsing words, claimed he wasn’t familiar with the word “Clintonian”; then changed his story
46 Despite reeking of cigarettes, Obama denied smoking to ABC; now admits smoking on MSNBC
45 Obama said he’d meet unconditionally with Leader of Iran: now claims he “didn’t have Ahmadinejad in mind”
44 Obama claims he is using public financing to avoid special interests: WSJ nails his switcheroo
43 Obama’s rhetoric claims more young black men in jail than college: BoJ Stats disprove
42 Claims he never said he was a proponent of single-payer universal healthcare; Video proves he did
41 Obama claims remarks to industrialists were greeted with silence, shows he can deliver tough message: video of ovation
40 Obamas claim you dont rip opponents & leave on roadside:he did to Alice Palmer
39 Obama denies saying Indiana could be tie-breaker: he did
38 Obama omits that Pastor Wright led divestiture campaign from Israel
37 Obama claims Church not controversial; he lied since 86
36 Lied about intention of taking US out of NAFTA
35 Obamas claim poverty growing up: both distort reality
34 Obama denies meeting Saddam’s Auchi; sworn Fed. witness places Obama at undisclosed party for Auchi at Rezkos
33 Obama lies about not attacking Clinton over her Bosnia lies
32 Obama claims he passed ethics reform; ABC News shows he lied
31 Obama says he’s consistently opposed NAFTA; in October 2007 he supported expansion to Peru
30 Obama claims he’s above dirty political tricks; Clinton proves he lies
29 Obama claims his “bitter” remarks were mangled; then repeats attacks on guns religion and angry people
28 Obama stated he’d stopped wearing flag pin on chest; now denies saying it, but video proves he is lying
27 Obama says he did no favors for Rezko;untrue; he lobbied for him
26 Changes story repeatedly re Rezko’s help in buying mansion
25 Obama claims he never supported a ban on handguns; he has twice
24 Obama claims stays at UCC as Pastor acknowledged comments were inappropriate; Wright never made this statement
23 Campaign is beholden to “only the people” as unlike McCain/Clinton he does not take lobbyist /PAC money; LIES!
22 Claims campaign never called Canada to say Obama not truthful re wanting leave NAFTA; smoking gun memo proves lied
21 Mrs Obama admits she’s never been proud of America; Video disproves Sen. Obama’s later claim she was misquoted
20 Claimed would not run for President
19 Claims famous in Il. for not letting lobbyists even buy him lunch; took from teachers, trial lawyers, hospital admins
18 Claims his parents met at Selma civil rights march; Washington Post noted it occurred 4 yrs after Obama’s birth
17 BO claims courageously opposed war in 2002 during US Senate campaign; He did not announce his senate bid until 2003
16 Claims he passes tough Nuclear Law; NYT uncovers he took Nuclear Industry pay-off and watered down the bill
15 Claimed he didn’t know Rezko was corrupt when did a real estate deal with him; Chicago papers prove he lied
14 Claims does not accept money from Big Oil: Real Clear Politics proves he lied
13 Denies using his Hopefund PAC to influence endorsers; but the Washington Post reviewed the record and disagreed
12 Claims his State Chair is not a drug company lobbyist; Time magazine cries Bullshit
11 Lies about how much he received in campaign funds from Rezko; forced to significantly increase the amount twice
10 Claims he did not fill out the 1996 candidate questionaire; Politico proves he lied
9 Took credit for achievement of others in Chicago; resume puffing exposed by LA Times
8 Claims he kept no State Senate records; now he changes his story
7 Denies doubling wife’s salary was due to becoming US Senator; omits within months he earmarked $1 million for hospital
6 Denied meeting Saddam bagman Auchi; now admits he was at his dinner but does not remember talking to him
5 Denies using his church for politics: IRS disagree
4 Claims he was unaware of Pastor Wrights 911 comments: NYT proves he lied
3 Claims his father was a goat-herd; actually he was a man of privilige
2 Claims not an active muslim as child; Indonesian paper proves he lied
1 Claims father linked to Kennedys; Washington Post proves he lied

By leftysrsickJuly 4, 2008 - 11:35pm

You need links to prove that

You need links to prove that he claimed these things, and then links to prove that each place you say proved he was a liar. Just saying that these things happened is not enough.PROVE it.

Otherwise this is just another right-wing propaganda list that you willingly spread without proof.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Dwight Eisenhower

By MichtouJuly 5, 2008 - 12:18am

Ah, I was making a point to GT6

About allegations of lying. He maintains that condi is a liar, because of one statement she made, that may have been incorrect. He provides no links, no context, no proof.

I did the same thing with Obama, but instead of submitting one sentence of his, I provided fifty of them. And I have never maintained he is a liar, even after all of these statements, while gt6 maintains Condi is a liar, based on nothing.

My point being: you can't have it both ways.

If you say 10,000 lemmings can't be wrong would Adolf Hitler say 10,000 left testicles won't make a right one.?

By leftysrsickJuly 5, 2008 - 10:02am

Baby steps here.

If you will admit that the statement is a lie if accurate. I will document it. Go back up and see that I asked twice if you would admit it if I documented it. I'm still waiting on your answer. You have been evading the issue.

By gt6July 5, 2008 - 10:11am

Baby steps, huh.

Why not document it first, that's how adults, not babies do things.

By leftysrsickJuly 5, 2008 - 10:33am

I don't need to see a NY times article, I do

need to see a transcript, of the hearing of which I assume you are relying on. Just because a questioner makes a statement, doesn't make the statement true, now does it?

By leftysrsickJuly 5, 2008 - 10:36am

The statement

was brought up at the hearing, but was originally made on national TV. All of the quotes, including those at the hearing, stem from that occasion. You would know this if you read what I posted. You have obviously not read any of them. That is why I insisted that you agree to admit she lied if I proved my statements in advance of my efforts. You have no interest in the truth. Only in making us jump through hoops and then ignoring the truth when you are cornered by it.

By gt6July 5, 2008 - 6:36pm

So post it. You seem to have only what you alledge .

That she misspoke about some tubes. But it was not the totality of the conversation, speech, or allegations made against her. Why don't you post her response to the guy accusing her of misspeaking? I bet its because she was exonerated, by the panel. And thats why you won't post the entire thing. So, with that being said, I guess we are left with this:

GT6 has admitted that Condi is 99.9999999999999% honest. And he has not disputed the fact that Obama is a liar. I think he's finally left the dark side and has finally seen the light.

By leftysrsickJuly 5, 2008 - 7:54pm

I have posted it repeatedly

Admit she lied already. I never admitted anything I merely ignored your stupid meaningless ass-stat.

By gt6July 5, 2008 - 10:28pm

And what exactly is your point?

Is it that Condi is honest only 99.99999% of the time? I'll readily concede that point.

By leftysrsickJuly 5, 2008 - 10:38am

Condi is a liar

et vous aussi.

By gt6July 5, 2008 - 10:37pm

Translation

righties(r)sick cried "Oh, shit...FACTS! I can't counter THOSE! I'd better try and divert attention, quick, before someone notices I'm losing!"

Go teabag a shotgun, traitor scum.

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith

By nonexistent manJuly 5, 2008 - 3:29am

And don't forget, mistakes sometimes are made while speaking.

Obama has made some, but you don't see me accusing him of being a liar, do you?

By leftysrsickJuly 4, 2008 - 11:09pm

NOBAMA.

New and Not Improved

Published: July 4, 2008

Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.
Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.

Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.

The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11.

In January, when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. “We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend,” he declared.

Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.

The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation.

He says he would not allow those groups to discriminate in employment, as Mr. Bush did, which is nice. But the Constitution exists to protect democracy, no matter who is president and how good his intentions may be.

On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.

Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”

What could be more reasonable than a city restricting handguns, or requiring that firearms be stored in ways that do not present a mortal threat to children?

We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.
More Articles in Opinion »http://www.nytimes.com

By leftysrsickJuly 4, 2008 - 9:49am

Scrolled.

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith

By nonexistent manJuly 4, 2008 - 12:02pm

Comments

(45)