Obama comes out in favor of forced pregnancy (and manages to belittle mental illness at the same time)

This entry was posted on Friday, July 4th, 2008 at 9:09 pm EST and is filed under Gender Issues, Election 2008, PUMA. You can follow any responses to this entry through the comments RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

31 Responses to “Obama comes out in favor of forced pregnancy (and manages to belittle mental illness at the same time)”

1. slythwolf says:
   

   Oh my god. Oh, my god.

   Yeah, you know what? Fuck him and everyone who votes for him.

   July 5th, 2008 at 1:33 am EST
2. Janis says:
   

   I’d like to take every faux-feministe who fluffed this guy and rub their faces in it. Any feedback from any of them, I wonder?

   Aah, who am I kidding — who the hell cares. He’s a dickhead, we were right, nyah nyah, next question.

   July 5th, 2008 at 2:37 am EST
3. Happenstance says:
   

   There is, apparently, absolutely NO issue Obama won’t flip-flop on anymore. I’m just gonna cut-and-paste this post from No Blood For Hubris:

   A couple of months ago on another blog, I described it this way:

   “It’s going to be like a combination of his SNL skit and Michelle’s tasteful description: one day, he’s going to pull off the mask and show us the real Barack Obama, and his morning breath is going to stink like a particularly flatulent horse’s ass. But by then we’ll be married to him, and divorce will take four years, and as usual it’s the kids who’ll suffer, both in the interim and afterwards, and we’ll just marry stupid again because we’ll tell ourselves none of it was our fault, and consequently, like Republicans and Reagan-worship, we won’t learn a damn thing from the experience.”

   I was totally wrong. The mask is coming off a LOT sooner than I thought.

   However, I am enjoying watching the most seriously-stupid amongst the cult flip-flop from “Hope! Change! Different!” to “Changing positions just shows he’s thoughtful and pragmatic!!” with increasing flop-sweaty desperation…

   July 5th, 2008 at 4:17 am EST
4. kenoshaMarge says:
   

   Well what the hell are the Obamacrats gonna use to try and scare us into voting for him now? It has been “think about SCOTUS” and Roe v Wade. Now tell me how Obama’s position is any different than McCains?

   This cheap, two-timing, poser has no more right being a nominee for the DEMOCRATIC PARTY than any Republican Pro-Lifer walking the street.

   How about it Obamacrats, like being played for fools?

   July 5th, 2008 at 8:31 am EST
5. Cara says:
   

   Oh, they don’t give a crap. It’s only about WOMEN, after all. It’s not important. Why should they feel foolish? They knew he didn’t care about women, that’s why they relate to him so well.

   July 5th, 2008 at 11:03 am EST
6. minty says:
   

   This really shows the ignorance of Obama on multiple levels.

   He probably has no clue that medications to treat mental illness are contraindicated during pregnancy. He is also probably unaware that mental illness does lead to death from suicide or from participating risk taking behavior. People with mental illness also suffer from higher mortality rates from medical illness that the general population.

   Thus a pregnant woman suffering from “emotional distress” is at high risk for mortality and her life may indeed be in danger. Medications are contraindicated depending upon the symptoms of the “emotional distress”. Thus the options are either an abortion then the initiation of medication treatment or long term hospitalization without medications to monitor and protect the woman. Serious mental illness occurs in late teens to the twenties. This is the most likely time that women will become pregnant and some women have their first onset of mental illness during the stress of pregnancy.

   I find little comfort withholding medications from someone who is suffering from pervasive hallucinations, mania or severe depression to ensure the completion of the pregnancy. The longer these symptoms go untreated, the more difficult they become to successfully treat. Thus one is also risking the long term mental health of the mother and may indeed result in permanent disability that she may not be able to return to baseline functioning. Thus one cannot make a blanket rule regarding this complex issue reducing it to black and white parameters that rarely exist in real life.

   It is truly up to the woman suffering from the “emotional distress” or her surrogate if she is incapacitated to make that decision with support of family and health care providers to ensure that all risks and benefits are discussed so an informed decision may be fully reached. It is not up to the government or any “pro-life” group to meddle into affairs they know nothing about.

   July 5th, 2008 at 12:01 pm EST
7. Greenconsciousness says:
   

   I knew this was coming as he acts out his mother hatred for his childhood abandoment ALL THE TIME. PUMA has buses leaving for Denver from 8 major cities and is asking for contributions to get people who can’t afford to fly there safely.

   P.U.M.A. PAC UPDATE DENVER, JULY 4TH, 2008

   http://blog.pumapac.org/

   Step One of Puma PAC’s planning for Denver is now underway. We will be posting updates and details OFTEN over the next week, so don’t fret.

   Puma PAC will be providing buses from New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, Jacksonville, and Washington DC to bring Pumas from all across the country to Denver, starting on August 24th.

   Please help pay for these buses. Many Pumas will find it difficult to pay for getting the time off, motels, food etc. Let’s help as many Puma PAC members as we can join us in Denver. This is a special BUSES TO DENVER FUND. All donations made here will go EXCLUSIVELY to paying for buses.

   If we can raise enough to hire 100 buses, then hell yes we’ll do it.

   If 20,000 members each throw in $10 bucks for a free ride to Denver for a fellow Puma we’ll have enough for 500 buses.

   Grab your fanny packs and get your days off from work Pumas. We’ll have a mighty convoy to Denver rolling on August 24th!

   First, if you are interested in joining us in Denver, please send an email today to gotodenver@pumapac.org.

   Please include the following info: Your real name; your blog user name if you have one; the closest major city and your state; how many in your party; and very important: whether you are DEFINITELY going, might be going, want to go but have problems.

   ALSO, PLEASE PLEASE include your cell phone number.

   Obviously we will only call you if absolutely necessary and would NEVER give the number away; this is a safety precaution.

   IMPORTANT: Puma PAC cannot provide housing. We will be providing links and tips for accommodations, but housing all the Pumas is beyond our scope. We WILL help people get there.

   Please let us know in your email HOW you plan to get to Denver: car, plane, train, bus, or Puma PAC bus. We will do our VERY BEST to help everyone get there.

   Friends and family members WELCOME

   Contribute to the BUSES TO DENVER FUND (suggested donation is $10 or $20)

   July 5th, 2008 at 3:04 pm EST
8. Iman says:
   

   I just find obama amazing, and not in a very good way sometimes! but I think ill have to chose the better of two evils in this race as most races!

   July 5th, 2008 at 5:55 pm EST
9. nameless and angry says:
   

   Janis asked: Any feedback from any of them, I wonder?

   From what I have seen, they are bending and twisting to express disappointment or argue we can push Obama to do better, while simultaneously still endorsing him, and allowing so-called progressive MEN to bully them into using the most cautious language possible on their OWN BLOGS. There are only a handful of blogs I can read anymore. I think I am losing my mind.

   July 5th, 2008 at 6:54 pm EST
10. Violet says:
    

    push Obama to do better

    How? Without using our leverage?

    It reminds me of a comment I saw somewhere from a young woman saying that unless feminists go along with Obama and promise not to make waves or demand anything, they’ll never be taken seriously again. I kid you not.

    July 5th, 2008 at 10:01 pm EST
11. nameless and angry says:
    

    As for that young woman’s comment, wow, i have no words. I guess the blogger boyz / ruthless obamamedia got to a lot of people. Either that, or she’s got a pretty abusive family or controlling boyfriend, maybe?

    I haven’t seen the question of the “how” addressed yet on the young feminist blogs…seems like by “pushing him to do better” they mean by writing thoughtful blog posts about it. ‘Cuz, you know, he’s reading! He gives a shit! Keep dreaming!!

    July 5th, 2008 at 11:02 pm EST
12. Anna Belle says:
    

    That leverage post of yours is one of my all time favorite posts ever, Dr. Socks. It electrified me, and I use that term to describe it whenever I write about it or talk about it. I wrote about your post and gave you kudos at my site at the time. I consider an important contribution to the movement now developing.

    July 6th, 2008 at 12:45 am EST
13. Shane says:
    

    Hmm… See that Obama’s once again deigned to ‘clarify’ his remarks for all us ignorant people who thought he meant what he actually said? Kinda.

    Even when trying to make up (so to speak–I don’t think he’s really making up at all) on an issue like this, he blatantly panders to evangelicals and anti-choicers by claiming that he only believes in a woman’s right to choice so long as its made in conjunction with her family and her pastor. Because you know, all women are good godfearing Christians who entrust their bodies to their religious leaders. What an asshole.

    July 6th, 2008 at 3:42 am EST
14. kenoshaMarge says:
    

    Since most of the so-called left blogs have all ready said they will support and/or vote for Obama no matter what, where’s their leverage?

    Once you’ve rolled over and offered your belly for scratching, your tiny little protests are meaningless.

    PUMA is, IMHO, the only hope for the salvation of the REAL Democratic Party and it’s ideals. Never perfect and never what it should have been, but better than the alternative.

    Now, not even close.

    PUMAs to the rescue!

    July 6th, 2008 at 6:09 am EST
15. Greenconsciousness says:
    

    Here is something I wish our better writers would post about. Is anyone as insulted as I am over this meme of “all candidates move to the right in the general election” as an excuse for Nobama actually changing his previous primary positions? Moving to the right used as a cover, as an excuse for actually lying to the base in order to defeat your primary opponent?

    I did not see the kind of extreme changes after a primary in past elections as are put forth by Obama in this election.

    Kerry “flip flopped ” to explain a vote previous to the Primary. Obama is not doing what other candidates have done. He adopted radical positions before and during the primary in order to defeat Hillary; positions Hillary bravely refused because she knew they were impossible.

    Hillary would not have needed to change positions in the general election because she had the Center and the working class with the platform she was honest enough to put forth in the debates. Her ideas, most of which Nobama parroted, were sensible, radical and acceptable to the working class in the US. Hillary would have known how to sell them as is but BO only knows how to pander. So his minions go forth to tell us betrayal is the norm.

    And now after, Change, Believe, cultists, Wall Street, and political opportunists, along with the corporate party bo$$es, stole the primary for him, Nobama immediately begins to lie to the Right to gain a new source of votes and revenue.

    BO flip flop lies are a new evil in terms of the US political history. And those who lie about history and previous norms in order to support him and excuse Bo’s behavior are part of that evil.

    July 6th, 2008 at 10:11 am EST
16. moxymama says:
    

    All Obama did to “win” this nomination was to sell a more palatable version of patriarchy to the Dems. That’s it.

    I find it hilarious when he’s criticized for being too far left on certain issues or too far right on others. The truth is that he’s exactly where he needs to be to perpetuate the patriarchy. Period.

    It’s all about control for this man. One nation, under Obama.

    Given his results with the electorate in the primary, he is the most frightening candidate I’ve seen since George W — and perhaps he’s even more frightening because of his nearly wholesale endorsement of the academic left. I am a member of that demograph, a lifelong academic (who is not voting for Obama), and I have seen how disillusioned — yet powerful, and in some cases moneyed — that group has been under the W. years. Give this group the illusion of a little power and it will gobble up everything you’re serving.

    Obama is the perfect backlash candidate for this crowd. He’s also perfect for the style-over-substance demograph of the under-30 set.

    And, of course, he’s in the perfect position of giving us eight of the most miserable years the U.S. has ever seen.

    I can’t even adequately articulate how apprehensive I feel about a potential Obama presidency. And I can’t tell you all how disgusted I am by the perpetuation of the patriarchy.

    July 6th, 2008 at 11:30 am EST
17. thebewilderness says:
    

    Hard to believe but his “clarification was worse than the original remark.
    Sometimes, you know, when she feels down, she gets an abortion to cheer herself up.
    Yes of course he supports Roe. It’s just the law he wants to change so the women’s pastor and family don’t have to watch her like a hawk in that last trimester, cause if she feels blue, you know what she’s gonna do.

    July 6th, 2008 at 12:24 pm EST
18. Annie Oakley says:
    

    “a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that ‘mental distress’ qualifies…”

    Maybe Obama could get his council of priests together and they could decide whether psychosis or suicidal ideation is a health issue or if it’s just all in the bitches’ heads. Obama’s whole venture into practicing medicine reminds me of his willingness to constitutionally interfere in Terri Schiavo’s medical care as well.

    Obama has a problem with women, and now we’re returning the favor.

    July 6th, 2008 at 3:37 pm EST
19. Violet says:
    

    His “clarification” is horrible:

    “My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, It can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue.”

    Partial-birth abortion. Feeling blue.

    July 6th, 2008 at 3:47 pm EST
20. ea says:
    

    Methinks ’tis time for folks to call out the one person who was most responsible (in my opinion) for the rise of Obama: Oprah Winfrey. Also call out Rep. Maxine Waters, who was a Hillary supporter, but SWITCHED WHILE VOTING WAS ONGOING on June 3, 2008. Ask these “strong, Black women” how they like it that Obama thinks they have to have a man tell them if they are okay or not. Ask these strong, Black women how they like it that Obama thinks a fetus has more value than they have.

    I truly hate this man.

    July 6th, 2008 at 4:48 pm EST
21. sassysenora says:
    

    Obama’s clarification, while in some ways slightly better than his original statement (in that it allows for some third-trimester abortions for mental health reasons), is still very troubling. it still drastically cuts back the ability to have a third-trimester abortion for mental health reasons.

    Obama now says: having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, It can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue.
    

    leaving aside the misogyny and incredible condescension in the last sentence (as well as his reiteration of the need for a woman to consult with her pastor and her family), the current standard (first enunciated in Roe) is much less than “serious mental illness”. using that standard would greatly limit the availability of abortions. the incidence of serious mental illness (as that term is defined in current federal law) is about 5% of the population during a year. “serious, diagnosed mental illness” is a stringent criteria; it is much more restrictive than the one that has been in place for the last 35 years.

    Jan Crawford Greenburg has two good articles on Obama’s statements and the new mental health restrictions.

    As Greenburg says:
    “Nowhere do those cases impose criteria of “serious clinical mental health diseases. That’s not what the law is today. The Court has said the Constitution prohibits states from banning post-viability abortions unless those laws contain a broad mental health exception—one that includes mental distress and severe emotional harm.”

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/legalities/
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/legalities/2008/07/oba…

    another potential complication is that if a woman meets Obama’s standard for “serious mental illness” then her family could potentially have her declared incompetent and gain guardianship over her in court. if they won, they would make all her decisions, including medical ones like abortion. even if they failed, i am not sure if a doctor would want to procede with a planned abortion until the court ruled, which would delay the abortion and jeopardize the woman’s health. http://www.abanet.org/aging/legislativeupdates/docs/Chart-Initiation-1-07ewsbh.pdf

    although this restrictive standard is better than Obama’s first statement, it is profoundly troubling.

    Obama’s “clarification” is worse than his first statement in some way as well. first, it seems to conflate third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. more troubling, according to his senior advisor, he wants to codify his restrictive view on third-trimester abortions.

    According to Linda Douglass, the Obama campaign’s senior spokesperson, the senator from Illinois was making a distinction in the magazine interview between medically diagnosed mental illness and the kind of mental distress that an unwanted pregnancy causes many a pregnant mother.

    “Mental distress is not an illness.” Douglass said. “He absolutely believes and has always said there has to be a health exception for serious physical and mental illness.”

    That makes sense and conforms to the senator’s co-sponsorship of the Freedom of Choice Act legislation which, among other things, would codify a mental-health exception to late-term abortion prohibitions. (emphasis mine)

    the Freedom of Choice Act does not differentiate between physical and mental health, as Obama and his spokesperson do here. it does not require serious mental illness. it merely codifies Roe and its progeny:

    PROHIBITION OF INTERFERENCE- A government may not–

    (1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose–

    (A) to bear a child;

    (B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

    (C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

    (2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

    so either Obama doesn’t understand the legislation he co-sponsored or he’s trying to simultaneously say that he’s for placing severe restrictions on abortions as a result of the woman’s mental health at the same time that he’s against them. that’s quite a flip-flop.

    July 6th, 2008 at 5:21 pm EST
22. Pat Johnson says:
    

    I can only think of Andrea Yates who was at the mercy of both her husband and some lunatic preacher who decided her fate. The woman was mentally ill yet she kept having more babies because it was deemed “God’s will”.

    No man should decide the fate and future of women. And Obama, in my opinion, fails the smell test on all issues but this one stands out. He has two young girls. If and when that decision ever has to be made in their lives I would hope that they, and only they, base their choice on their own circumstances and not some man or preacher telling them what they can and cannot do.

    July 6th, 2008 at 7:26 pm EST
23. Ted says:
    

    If Hillary doesn’t get the top of the ticket, I think Sarah Palin is the way to go. I think she’ll be the first female President (after serving one term as VP under McCain).

    I came across this site: puma4palin.blogspot.com

    July 6th, 2008 at 11:33 pm EST
24. whaleshaman says:
    

    Not so fast, NC/SC Dems!

    Heh.

    July 7th, 2008 at 12:20 pm EST
25. Ted says:
    

    Well, it’s either gonna be McCain/Palin or …

    Barack Obama starring as “Change” the Gardener in remake of movie classic, “Being There”, starring Peter Sellers as “Chance” the Gardener!

    *HT to hs commenting on
    puma4palin.blogspot.com

    July 7th, 2008 at 1:06 pm EST
26. julia says:
    

    I can only think of one good thing ‘President’ Obama will bring: a feminist revolt.

    July 7th, 2008 at 5:44 pm EST
27. ginmar says:
    

    Julia, I like that idea. Where do I sign up?

    July 7th, 2008 at 9:57 pm EST
28. Violet says:
    

    ginmar: Start with PUMA!

    PUMA ROAR!

    July 7th, 2008 at 9:59 pm EST
29. ginmar says:
    

    Let ‘em have it, I say. It’s hard to tell the left from the right these days. Fuck ‘em all. What, exactly, have we got to lose? Where’s the difference?
    It’s about time women rose up and rebelled. We’ve been fucked over too long.

    July 7th, 2008 at 10:05 pm EST
30. Greenconsciousness says:
    

    This is music to my ears
    ginmar julia violet,
    and all of us
    a feminist revolt
    we dream in feminist
    Thank You Hillary

    July 7th, 2008 at 11:16 pm EST
31. Greenconsciousness says:
    

    PUMA meet ups off-line and Denver being co-ordinated with 18 million voices here –scroll down to state actions

    http://www.18millionvoices.blogspot.com/

    July 7th, 2008 at 11:28 pm EST

Leave a Reply

You can choose to be notified of followup comments via e-mail. If you don't see the checkbox for this below, you're the victim of a mysterious formatting bug. Just scroll to the bottom of this page or use the preview feature and the checkbox will appear.