It is hard to know where to start with this one.
Ben Smith at Politico posted this new ad from Barack Obama blasting McCain for another ad by Gianna Jessen, abortion survivor.
First, the Jessen ad is not John McCain’s ad. Second, McCain does support the availability of abortion in cases of rape and incest (Sarah Palin does not). And third, Barack Obama voted against legal recognition to infants of quesionable viability while an Illinois state senator. Obama has yet to clarify his conflicting statements about why he said he would vote for the federal version of the BAIPA but did not vote for it at the state level.
I recently had an op-ed published in the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin on this topic: When does a baby get human rights?
Tag: abortion
Canadian doctor warns that Palin's decision could lead to fewer abortions
I had to read this several times to understand that this doctor did not mean this in a good way.
I am at a loss for words (for now…)
UPDATE: The above link has been removed but this article mentions the same doctor. The LA Times then ran an explanation here
A September 11 post on this blog based on a September 9 story in the Globe and Mail in Toronto mischaracterized executive vice president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Ottawa Dr. Andre Lalonde’s sentiments as expressed in the Globe and Mail story. The headline for the post read “Canadian doctor warns Sarah Palin’s decision to have Down baby could reduce abortions.” And the second paragraph said, “But a senior Canadian doctor is now expressing concerns that such a prominent public role model as the governor of Alaska and potential vice president of the United States completing a Down syndrome pregnancy may prompt other women to make the same decision against abortion because of that genetic abnormality. And thereby reduce the number of abortions”. Doctor Lalonde’s point of view should not have been portrayed as a concern that the number of abortions would decline but rather, as expressed in the Globe and Mail, that women would be influenced by Gov. Palin’s decision to keep Down syndrome children that they were neither emotionally nor financially prepared to care for. Here’s a link to the article on which the post, since removed was based.
(h/t: sheepcat).
Psychiatric Bulletin publishes David Fergusson editorial on mental health and abortion
I posted extensively on the APA Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion in August, including comments from New Zealand researcher David Fergusson. This month, the Psychiatric Bulletin published an editorial by Dr. Fergusson.
The editorial supports the recent Royal College of Psychiatrists’ statement regarding abortion and mental health.
Fergusson’s editorial notes the contrast between a RCP statements in 1994 and 2008. The 1994 view was that no relationship existed between abortion and mental health. Currently, the RCP cautions about the possible effects and suggests post-abortion counseling.
Fergusson notes that such debates are important, especially in the UK since mental health concerns are offered as the major reason a woman is granted an abortion. If mental health status is not improved, or may be worsened, the effects of abortion have major relevance to policy.
He concludes:
It is unlikely that these problems of evidence, uncertainty and the law will be resolved by further medicolegal debates between pro-life and pro-choice advocates. What is required is a well-designed, well-funded and, above all, impartial programme of research into the mental health risks, benefits and consequences of abortion. The recent Royal College of Psychiatrists’ statement makes an important contribution to this process by highlighting the real uncertainties that exist in the current evidence on abortion and mental health.
It is hard for me to read this in any other way but as a critical contrast to the recent APA report.
Lancet: Women should be offered post-abortion psychological care
The British medical journal, The Lancet, published an editorial in their August 23 issue regarding appropriate care for women after an abortion. Although the editorial could have taken a stronger stance on the APA report, I believe they have issued an important caution to those reviewing literature on mental health and abortion.
More than a third of American women will have an abortion by the age of 45 years, if current rates continue. A study published in The Lancet last year showed that 1·5 million abortions were done in the USA and Canada in 2003, compared with 42 million abortions worldwide.
Much attention has been given to the ethical considerations of terminating a pregnancy, but little effort has been directed at the long-term mental health effects of abortion on women. In 1989, the American Psychological Association (APA) undertook a systematic review of the literature and concluded that a single elective abortion did not result in long-term mental health problems. However, in 2006, a study published in the Journal of Youth & Adolescence concluded that abortion had a greater risk of adverse mental health outcomes compared with childbirth. This review was used in a South Dakota court to support a proposal to have abortion made illegal. The proposal failed, but doctors in the state must now inform women having a termination that they will be at risk of future mental health problems.
Recognising the need for a definitive decision on the issue, the APA commissioned the Mental Health and Abortion report, released on Aug 13. The authors systematically reviewed 50 studies, published in peer-reviewed journals since their last report in 1989, and concluded that, among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy, the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have an elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy.
Although this report shows that there is no causal link between abortion and mental ill-health, the fact that some women do experience psychological problems after a termination should not be trivialised. The APA report concludes that such cases are often the result of confounding issues, such as a history of mental ill-health. Abortion is an important part of comprehensive reproductive health services. Women choosing to terminate must be offered an appropriate package of follow-up care, which includes psychological counselling when needed.
Factcheck.org on Obama's opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Abortion may be the most troubling issue Barack Obama has faced in his bid to lure Evangelical voters to his campaign. Extremely controversial is Obama’s handling of questions surrounding the federal and IL state versions of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA).
This Newsweek article excerpts Factcheck.org’s examination of the controversy. Here is the thumbnail version:
We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee’s 2003 mark-up session.
It appears that Obama did not believe living, possibly pre-viable infants had legal status as persons. It is unclear to me what he believes now. His campaign’s most recent explanation involves an argument that suggests a vote against BAIPA at the state level was necessary to protect Roe v. Wade but a vote in favor at the federal level would have no bearing on RvW. I do not understand this reasoning.
I suppose another way to frame the issue is to ask when is an abortion complete? If the fetus is delivered and is alive but of questionable viability, how do we regard this life? The Obama doctrine appears to be that an infant born alive but of questionable viability is not a legal person – or at least this was his view while an IL Senator. Here is a speech on the 2001 Senate floor:
Obama, Senate floor, 2001: Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.
Rick Warren at the Saddleback Civil Forum asked Sen. Obama when a baby is entitled to human rights and Obama said such answers are above his pay grade. From a reading of this material, making these determinations was at his pay grade at one time not long ago. Simply saying he favors the federal bill now really does not address what protection he now believes should be afforded these infants.