But Roooooooooooooe! Part 4

Late-term abortion is a particularly easy area for anti-choicers to gain ground with the sentimental middle grounders who are squeamish about abortion. Even though there are few late-term abortions, anti-choicers stand ready to convince the wafflers that there are millions of women out there who are about to have abortions willy nilly at 6 months, 7 months, the day before the due date!

In the US, only about 4.2% of abortions are performed during weeks 15-20 and only 1.4% after week 21.

But reproductive justice advocates know that attacks on late-term abortion are just a stepping stone for the pro-forced birth groups and that giving in to them on how we talk about late-term abortion can reinforce stereotypes and give ground on the "abortion is immoral but necessary" argument that leads to greater and greater restrictions. That's why I and many others have been very critical about how Barack Obama has talked about abortion. And he has recently made a statement that does not even pass constitutional muster, according to past Supreme Court rulings:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says "mental distress" should not qualify as a justification for late-term abortions. . . . "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."

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court says bans must provide for exceptions for the health of the woman, including mental health. That's been the case since fucking 1973, and Obama is just fine and dandy with rolling that back.

What really boggles is NARAL's defense of this answer. Even though they themselves state that their position is that "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," they claim that Obama's statement is "consistent with Roe v. Wade." Apparently, his interview answer is just fine because he has previously stated he's against a ban that doesn't provide a mental health exception. WTF!?!?! SHorter NARAL: His answer is consistent because even though it's wrong, his actual position is okay.


Who is pointing out that not supporting a mental health exception is inconsistent with suport of Roe v Wade? A LEADING PRO-LIFE ADVOCATE.

AM I IN BIZZARO WORLD??????

Someone please tell me there is a good explanation for this.

UPDATE with further thoughts:
It also hits me, thanks to this publication from the Guttmacher Institute that Obama's statement also reinforces ableist* attitudes towards mental health and mental illness. His statement clearly carries with it the implication that mental health problems are not as serious as physical health problems. The other implication is that women who claim mental health problems are perhaps not being honest, or are just using it as an excuse. This also comes from not just sexist attitudes, but ableist ones as well.

*Someone please correct me if there is a more accurate term or if ableist isn't applied this way.