Martin Bosworth brings us the news that one of Bush's final eff yous to the women of America will be an attempt to define contraception as abortion, covering such things as birth control and the morning after pill.

Bosworth surmises that the right wing just wants people to breed more, which seems a reasonable conclusion. While that's always seemed the case to me, I never could figure out why they seem so dead set against any kind of financial, food or medical assistance for pregnant women and new mothers. Why not directly incentivize your end goal? I guess that encourages the Wrong Kind of People to breed; for them, we have an infant mortality rate hike, to take care of the problem the other way around. Once they're born, screw 'em -- but don't use a condom, that'd be morally reprehensible.

It's hard to tell what McCain would do regarding contraception, because as Steve Benen points out, McCain is confused by contraception and acts offended when tricksy reporters ask him about it. I expect though, as baffled as McCain seems to be in the matter, that he'll be happy to listen to his new best friends in the fundamentalist community to supply him with the correct views.

And looking for good news in all this, because it's been in short supply lately, I'm gratified to be reading about these issues from progressive male colleagues outside the 'usual suspect' ring of feminist bloggers. Maybe one of these days it could come to seem strange that anyone would make a distinction between feminist and progressive sites. I can dream.

Update [2008-7-16 16:53:2 by Todd Beeton]:Senators Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray are on it. They sent the following letter to Health & Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt:

Dear Mr. Secretary:

It has come to our attention that the Department of Health and Human Services may be preparing draft regulations that would create new obstacles for women seeking contraceptive services.

One of the most troubling aspects of the proposed rules is the overly-broad definition of "abortion." This definition would allow health-care corporations or individuals to classify many common forms of contraception – including the birth control pill, emergency contraception and IUDs – "abortions" and therefore to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it.

As a consequence, these draft regulations could disrupt state laws securing women's access to birth control. They could jeopardize federal programs like Medicaid and Title X that provide family-planning services to millions of women. They could even undermine state laws that ensure survivors of sexual assault and rape receive emergency contraception in hospital emergency rooms.

We strongly urge you to reconsider these regulations before they are released. We are extremely concerned by this proposal's potential to affect millions of women's reproductive health.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

Senator Patty Murray

Maybe President Bush is smarter than he appears. After all, it takes an aspect of cunning to introduce a proposal that would require federally funded medical institutions to hire health care providers who don't believe in abortion or birth control, and present it as an "anti-discrimination rule." I imagine even Houdini could not achieve such an act of illusion.

Some of you may recognize me as a "Clinton supporter" who is currently one of the undecideds.  I am a progressive, but I will make up my mind about who to vote for in October.  For now, I will examine the two candidates on an issue-by-issue basis.

Todays's issue (for me) is abortion.  And I support Sen. Obama on his stance on late term abortions.

Sen. Obama:

"I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions."

Some have interpreted this to mean that Sen. Obama opposes the mental health exception to the late term abortion ban.  This exception is codified by a USSC ruling.  Thus, Sen. Obama's stance would reflect a desire to change current policy.

Okay, someone, please, tell me why this is good:

"But that doesn't mean that Obama should not be lauded for rejecting the extremism and the fanaticism of the worst elements of the Democratic base like NARAL, Emily's List, and Planned Parenthood. It is good to know that whatever Barack personally feels about abortion, he has recognized that certain extremist groups with their extraordinarily liberal positions do not deserve to be part of the national conversation, and for that Obama deserves to be praised. Hillary Clinton, for one, would never have done anything like this. Her husband vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Act twice and by all accounts Hillary treated the Emily's Listers and NARAL extremists like they were important and respectable people. Barack Obama knows better. Good for him."

http://www.redstate.com/stories/election s/2008/in_praise_of_barack_obama

Good afternoon, everyone.

There are few topics more radioactive than abortion.  There are folks on either extreme that simply can not and will not abide by any sort of compromise.  I can certainly respect deeply held morals.  If someone considers abortion murder then I can see why it would be a hot-button issue.  If someone considers the right of the prospective mother to decide whether or not to bring the child to term is a sacred and unassailable right, then I can understand why some might see any restriction as the thin end of the wedge.

I can understand these points of view, and I can respect them.  However, these extremes are if not actually wrong, certainly unhelpful in resolving this matter.  The current regime of Roe v. Wade (as heavily modified by Casey v. Planned Parenthood) is unsustainable.  It is not the place of the judiciary to decide broad issues of policy as I see it.  Moreover, such a regime lasts as long as there is a majority of Supreme Court justices whom support it.  That may be more durable than a legislative regime, but it is far less reflective of the views of the electorate.

I have some thoughts on what may prove a workable legislative solution.  It would make neither extreme happy, but I think it would accomodate everyone as well as anything possibly can.  And I think reading Casey would be a great primer!

Read on?

This may be overkill, but some folks may have overlooked the historical and legal framework that makes even Senator Obama's latest position worrisome to the pro-choice community and to those, like me, who believe that a woman's health is a matter only for her and her physician.
So here's a final attempt to get the point over by pointing folks to a nice recent post by Frank James at The Swamp. The senator may still have some clarification to do to get everyone on the same page.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/pol itics/blog/2008/07/obamas_lateterm_abort ion_probl.html

Quoting from a colleague with a legal background, James writes:

<>Subsequent cases in the Supreme Court and lower courts have said states cannot ban abortions where the doctor deems them necessary to protect a woman's physical and mental health. Lower courts have taken that to mean a state cannot prohibit an abortion--even one post-viability--if the woman would suffer severe emotional harm without it. 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. Abortion rights groups have fought for decades to preserve these exceptions, and I'm awfully curious what they will think about limiting them to women with mental disease or mental illness./

Here is what Obama had to say today on the plane about his recent statement about mental distress and partial birth abortion.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/pol itics/blog/2008/07/obama_backs_late_abor tions_on.html

"My only point is this -- historically I have been a strong believer in a women's right to choose with her doctor, her pastor and her family. And it is ..I have consistently been saying that you have to have a health exception on many significant restrictions or bans on abortions including late-term abortions. In the past there has been some fear on the part of people who, not only people who are anti-abortion, but people who may be in the middle, that that means that if a woman just doesn't feel good then that is an exception. That's never been the case. I don't think that is how it has been interpreted. 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. I don't think that's how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don't think that's how the courts have interpreted it and I think that's important to emphasize and understand."

Linda Douglass had more: "Mental distress is not an illness. He absolutely believes and has always said there has to be a health exception for serious physical and mental illness."

I thought his statements to that Christian magazine were intended to play the wingnuts with a vague term that was meant to trick them into believing that the health exception for partial-birth abortion did not include a mental health.  A wink wink to the base?  Let's hope so.

Is Obama a flip-flopper? Has he been shifting to the right since the end of the primaries?

Let's take a look at Obama's positions on the issues now and then.