Patterico's Pontifications

7/6/2008

How Is NARAL Reacting to Obama’s Statements on Abortion? With Less Distress Than Earl Ofari Hutchinson!

Filed under: 2008 Election,Abortion,General — Patterico @ 10:44 am



So: Obama claims that we should be able to ban post-viability abortions absent a “serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy” — with a later “clarification” that he means to include “serious clinical mental health diseases.” Jan Crawford Greenburg notes that, even with the clarification, this position would allow restrictions that are not allowed by the Roe v. Wade line of cases, or by federal legislation that Obama has supported.

So what does NARAL think of all this?

They know he’s pandering, so they’re unconcerned:

In a statement, NARAL Pro-Choice said Obama’s magazine interview is consistent with Roe v. Wade.

“Sen. Obama has consistently said he supports the tenets set forth by Roe, and has made strong statements against President Bush’s Federal Abortion Ban, which does not have an exception to protect a woman’s health,” the organization’s statement said.

If John McCain had said exactly the same thing, they would have blasted him. But they know that Obama has never taken a single step to actually implement what he now suggests should be possible — and they know he never will.

He would nominate justices like Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter, who would invalidate bans like the ones he suggests should exist. He has voted against Roberts and Alito, who might allow such bans. He has voted for legislation that would allow abortions in exactly the sorts of cases where Obama suggests there should be a ban.

It’s a kabuki dance. NARAL knows better to get taken in.

They need to pull aside Earl Ofari Hutchinson and have a little whispered conversation with him, because he apparently doesn’t get it. He has a post titled Question for NARAL Pro Choice America: Please Explain Your Tortured Defense of Obama’s Flop on Abortion Rights:

Obama’s position on the mental distress exception is the diametric opposite of NARAL’s. As such, it also flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe versus Wade ruling which held that states can ban late term abortions except when the pregnancy directly threatens a woman’s physical and mental health. His position flies in the face of three decades of federal and state court rulings which have upheld mental distress as a legitimate reason for approving a late term abortion. Obama’s reversal flies in the face of the Freedom of Choice Act that he himself has co-sponsored in Congress. The act unequivocally permits late term abortions when the physical and mental health of a woman is jeopardized.

. . . . You have done an unconscionable political somersault to rationalize Obama’s back flip on abortion rights even though it’s obvious his flip is nothing more than a crass political pander to Christian fundamentalists and conservative pro life advocates for votes.

If you could hear the whispered conversation, it would go something like this: Earl. SHUT UP! Don’t you get it?! We have done an unconscionable political somersault to rationalize Obama’s back flip on abortion rights BECAUSE it’s obvious his flip is nothing more than a crass political pander to Christian fundamentalists and conservative pro life advocates for votes!

But until someone has that conversation with him, grab some popcorn and join the party.

15 Responses to “How Is NARAL Reacting to Obama’s Statements on Abortion? With Less Distress Than Earl Ofari Hutchinson!”

  1. John McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

    This wasn’t always McCain’s position on abortion. In 1999, as he was mounting his first presidential bid, he said this: ‘Certainly in the short-term, or even the long-term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade.’ Why not? Because without Roe, he said, ‘thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations.’ Therefore, he said, Roe was ‘necessary.'”

    jharp (00ec6a)

  2. John McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

    It should. Oh, wait, you’ve never read either the Ninth or Tenth Amendments, have you?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  3. John McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

    And what, exactly,does McCain have to do with NARAL’s response to Obama’s statements on abortion…you know, the topic of the thread?

    Paul (0ea0cf)

  4. Sorry, wrong thread.

    Thanks. I’ll get it over where it belongs.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  5. NARAL realized the truth; they didn’t even need the reassuring “it’s only campaign rhetoric” phone call from the O Campaign.

    Patricia (f56a97)

  6. I correct my earlier comment regarding how “debating” with Harpy’s like debating a Bobo Doll – it’s more akin to debating a parrot:

    Commenter: “Obama Changes his position on abortion.”

    Harpy: “McCain’s a Flip – Flopper! Wraaack!”

    Commenter: “Looks like Obama’s also changing his position on Iraq.”

    Harpy: “McCain’s a Flip – Flopper! Wraaack!”

    Commenter: “could you please answer the economic question put to you earlier?”

    Harpy: “Why don’t you show it to me first? Wraaack!”

    Commenter: “Can you please give us one example of increasing taxation resulting in higher revenues?”

    Harpy: “Why don’t you show it to me first? Wraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!”

    Polly want a cracker?

    Dmac (ea35f7)

  7. I thought Alan Keyes ran against him in order to pin down his positions.

    But he has no positions. He has elections.

    Amphipolis (e6b868)

  8. “It should. Oh, wait, you’ve never read either the Ninth or Tenth Amendments, have you?”

    I enjoy your legal skillz

    afall (64f7de)

  9. This is the same deal as when he pulled that NAFTA stunt: making noise against it as a means of pandering to blue-collar voters, all the while assuring Canadian officials that he is going to leave it alone. He’s throwing out the idea that he’ll be tougher on 3rd trimester restrictions in an attempt to attract moderate conservative voters; NARAL knows that once (God forbid!) he gets into office he will side with them 100% of the time.

    Icy Truth (eaa5db)

  10. He is on record as defending infanticide.

    Michael Ejercito (a757fd)

  11. Interesting thing about the changes of position each candidate has made. Obama’s are all towards the right (center) (Iraq, FISA, gun rights, capital punishment, abortion) all in an attempt to attract votes he otherwise wouldn’t attract. As far as NAFTA is concerned, he seems to be a serial liar: against it in the Midwest, for it elsewhere. On campaign finance, Obama just lied. It’s up to McCain, his supporters, and centrist voters to smoke out Obama for the hard-left liar that he is.

    Using a football field as the political spectrum, Obama is on the 10-yard line of the left–which is where he belongs. In contrast, McCain is probably on the 40-yard line of the right.

    McCain changed his position on taxes (awhile ago), but it was a change toward the right to solidify votes he’d likely get anyway. He’ll hardly double back if he wins. Besides, aren’t Obama supporters arguing that Obama’s tax plan is better anyway? On drilling, once again, this is a change that solidifies McCain’s base. It just so happens to be where 70% or more of the country is too. Obama only wishes that his nutty-left enviro supporters would let him do so. Even if he eventually lies about that too, they’ll never go for nuclear, so McCain should try to crush Obama on energy. The left’s solution is wind, solar, and two sticks to rub together. I read above that McCain’s position has changed on abortion, but I’m under the impression that he’s been opposed to it all along. If he has changed, wasn’t the change many years ago? So what? Obama’s changing his mind on a daily basis. Frankly, I can’t debate his stances, because I can’t figure out where he stands.

    In the end, the questions are as follows: (1) Which direction is each flip-flop sending the candidate–to the base or to the middle? (2) How sincere do you believe the candidate is about that particular flop?

    Viewed in this manner, Obama is a lying sack.

    SAM (d671ab)

  12. jharpo marxist wrote: Sorry, wrong thread.

    Thanks. I’ll get it over where it belongs.

    Bring a flashlight to “where it belongs.” The sun don’t shine there.

    L.N. Smithee (729c61)

  13. NARAL’s abandonment of their supposedly solid principles is reminiscent of Gloria Steinem’s March 22, 1998 New York Times editorial supporting Bill Clinton against Paula Jones’ sexual harassment suit against the then-President. She sloughed off his dropped-pants full-monty invitation to Jones to “kiss it” as a “clumsy sexual pass,” unworthy of being defined as harassment. The NYT and/or Steinem flushed that editorial down the memory hole; it’s not in their online archives going back to 1981. Fortunately, it was posted in a feminist newsgroup for posterity.

    Why was uber-feminazi Steinem so willing to let Slick Willie free his willy without penalty? Undoubtedly for the same reason then-Time contributor Nina Burleigh expressed to Howard Kurtz in the thick of the Lewinsky story:

    “I would be happy to give him a blow job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

    L.N. Smithee (729c61)

  14. Ok,he’s just pandering. That makes it all ok.

    Girl (28d7b8)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2421 secs.