The first was some complaints about McCain's debate explanation of what is wrong with having an exception for the mother's "health" in a late-term abortion ban. Guys, I'm not a right-wing nut. I still haven't decided which "side" I'm on in this election, and as you'll know if you read my last political post, I'm pretty evenly split on the issues. Listen to me: McCain was right. Here's my C&P'd answer to the above complaints:
Doe v. Bolton, an important abortion case decided the same day as Roe v. Wade, says, "We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”
In practice, this means that writing a "health" exception into a late-term abortion ban would still allow a woman to have a late-term abortion for just about any reason that her doctor would approve--making the ban essentially useless. So McCain's statement that "health" has been misused by abortion rights supporters is 100% right on.
The second incident was a comment to an anti-Obama entry that recently appeared on my flist, posted by one of my staunchly anti-abortion friends, that basically recounted and commented upon Obama's extremism on abortion. (All of this stuff--the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, FOCA, etc.--is commonly discussed on corners of the web that are friendly to those who oppose abortion, and the documentation, arguments, and counterarguments about them are well-known to us). Anyway, the commenter basically said that he or she only hears about this from Evangelical sources, and implied that this would invalidate the complaints, as they are therefore probably not true.
I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. Yes, it's important to consider the source of any information you read. But it does not follow that because a source is biased to a particular point of view you must automatically reject anything they say. Here's the thing about the claims that Obama is an extremist on abortion: yes, almost the only sites that are talking about these things are right-wing and/or evangelical and/or pro-life. But that's just the problem: the "other side" isn't really bothering to defend itself. Okay, there have been some weak defenses of Obama's opposition to the IBAIPA, but that's about it. FOCA hasn't been addressed at all by Obama's supporters, as far as I can see. And I've got to say, from where I'm standing, the silence looks awfully damning.
So come on, Obama supporters. Answer these complaints if you can. Tell my why his opposition to the IBAIPA and the partial-birth abortion ban, and his promises to appeal the Hyde Amendment and enact FOCA if elected somehow don't add up to him being an extremist, partisan JERK, at least when it comes to this issue. Tell me how I can possibly, POSSIBLY give him my support in light of my feelings on this issue. Because as far as I can see right now it sure looks like an Obama presidency, especially if FOCA is enacted, would deliver a deep wound to the hearts and consciences of roughly 40-50% of all Americans. And the silence, ignorance, and casual dismissals of his supporters only make me feel more inclined to take a stand against his candidacy.
Joie, now with a mail-in ballot waiting and more torn than ever