I don't have much to say about Obama's "clarification", except perhaps this.
Here's some recommended reading:
Jeff Fecke's post (and, as always, the entire comment thread) at Shakesville.
Jan Crawford Greenburg's analysis. (Also, her comments on his original statement.)
Jill at Writes like she Talks highlighted Jan Crawford Greenburg's response and has some very good points to add.
I've done my ranting and venting over at SHakesville and today I just feel so tired. Tired that even with a Democrat we have to fight like hell and still backslide on abortion rights.
ETA Another Couple Links:
The Raging Prosecutrix:
(Who has many excellent things to say about Obama's statement, the reaction from the fauxgressives and also points out that if a mental health issue is not sufficiently severe under the kind of ban Obama is saying he supports, a woman will be not only forced to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want, but will also likely be denied medication she's taking for her mental health.)
Red Queen of Elizabitches describes her own experience with late term abortion (which Obama AND his supporters seem to constantly confuse with third-trimester abortions) and why a mental health exception was critical for her.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Thanks for the link and nice words.
I completely agree with you. This is what makes people feel...a lot of things and not so many that are good. I wasn't for Clinton or Obama but I'm not voting McCain. But this kind of situation with this issue just totally totally makes me feel so ignored and used and I thought that's what we're trying to get out from being under for eight years.
I'm not naive - I get the need to appeal to as many as you think you need will vote - but where's the fireline? And why on this issue? Why not give in or give up or finesse on something someone else holds dear - why something that Democratic and/or liberal or even moderate women hold dear?
It's just really, really aggravating.
I'd like to hear Michelle Obama on this issue - just to know where she stands.
I'm not naive - I get the need to appeal to as many as you think you need will vote - but where's the fireline? And why on this issue?
He's a lawyer. He taught constitutional law. I would think the fireline could at least be the Supreme Court's judgment on what is constitutional. Either he is willing to pander so much that he can't just say that he supports the Supreme Court's decisions in Roe and Doe, or he hasn't even read the damn opinions.
Duh, yes - that's a good answer. Interesting...makes me feel as though it was no mistake at all, saying "mental distress" on his part, and yet, if that's the case, it seems to show a lack of understanding just how unfamiliar (and unacceptable) the distinctions are between what he thinks is the legal def. of "mental distress" and what it is for the purposes of Roe and Doe.
Hmmm. Thanks again.
Post a Comment