Nah, I always thought he was full of shit about changing D.C. but I do applaud him for having the balls to go and try to pull the rug out from under the wingbats (if that's what he is doing); the problem for Obama is that the base may not see what he's doing as a wink and a nod and the wingbats may interpret his overtures as pandering.  So it could be a lose-lose for Obama.

I would love nothing more for him to appoint Ginsburg II, while the wingnuts throw their arms up in air screaming that Obama lied to them.  Obama's response, "sorry."  I hope this scenario plays out.

The Red State editorial STILL praises him.

I wonder what the reaction would be to say MyDD front page bloggers/ editorial staff writing a "Kudos to McCain" article.

I suppose the reaction from the members on this site would not be kosher?

racist ignorant nuts who will never vote for a democrat, let alone a black one - - so let's not waste one drop of effort compromising with, reaching out to, or trying to appease those folks, particularly if the price is shifting on a women's control over her body.  IMHO.

Heh. You need to read that statement again and also this made in the same article.

The official position of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group that endorsed Obama in May, states: "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

And this what you stated is NARAL simply talking about his past position and tying it to ROE V.

IT IS NOT agreeing with his new one .

"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.

Read highlighted .

most days - - I find it intellectually challenging to read things that I disagree with.  I have corresponded with Jonah Goldberg.  Politically dangerous and wrong headed, but a real nice guy, fwiw.

I think it's a knee-jerk reaction - hard-liners on one side engender hard-liners on the other.

It is bad to insert the government into the decision making process of a woman and her doctor about whether a late term abortion is medically necessary to protect her health.

Elective abortions past fetal viability are not legal in this country, never have been. What is unclear is whether Obama wants to restrict a woman and her doctor's ability to make the determination of what is necessary for her health.

I assume you'd prefer they weren't needed - - that people used precautions, or got early prenatal care / testing, or early decisions were made - - I just don't buy into being called "pro abortion"  - I'm pro CHOICE.  And, the choice rests with the owner of the uterus in question.  IMHO.

You'd think so, but that's not how it works.  

Here's a case related on Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/7/ 6/91424/55481/87?mode=alone;showrate=1#c 87

I have a friend whose fetus died mid pregnancy. Because 'late term abortion' was banned absolutely in her state (no exceptions - no matter what the circumstance) she was forced to carry the remains of that dead fetus until her body naturally expelled it - or nine months expired (which ever came first). After nine months the doctor's hands were no longer tied, you see. They were frightened.  This was a few years ago when anti-choice foes regularly protested clinics and hospitals performing anything they classified as `abortion'.  The doctor's told her it was illegal - and she believed them.  So she waited - the entire nine months, at which point her doctors induced labor and she gave birth to a corpse.

It shattered her. Absolutely shattered her. Her 'mental distress' before, during and after was overwhelming. Most people don't think about this.  It's not something they consider when anyone mentions late term abortion. My friend was 6 ½ months along when the fetus died. That's way too late to fit anyone's idea of `early' termination. And that's what's wrong with limitation language. There are always exceptions. Good ones. Ones that need consideration. Would any of you have denied her? Made her risk both physical and mental health to satisfy some sense of moral outrage?  No?  So please - have a care.  Extremes are what come out of didactic opinions. That's why I believe it should be the medical community who helps decide.

In Nicaragua, where all abortions have been banned, women are now dying of ectopic pregnancies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21601045/

The doctor was more afraid of losing his medial license than he was of the woman dying.

That's how these things work, sadly.

It's also why I copied out the admission criteria for Dr. Tiller's clinic.

You don't just waltz in and say abort my baby quick before I go into labor.  You have to be recommended by your physician and they want the genetic diagnostic data.

So?  You don't get it?  Jesus Christ, he's using women as the ultimate strawpeople.  It's disgusting.  He's giving credence to the right wing extremist argument that women are so dopey that they seek late-term abortions just 'cause they are feeling a bit down, and that doctors who perform abortions are so unethical they would give an abortion of a perfectly healthy baby to a perfectly healthy, albeit blue mom, in the 8th month.  It's terribly damaging to women's standing in this society and to the pro-choice cause.  

It doesn't matter if a woman agrees with him.  States already regulate abortion, much less late-term abortions.  Further, find me the woman, the doctor and the state for which an 8th month abortion occured because a healthy woman carrying a viable baby was "feeling blue".