The Candidates of Your Choice

Brady Swenson of RHRealityCheck.org joins a parade of discomfort about Senator Obama's remarks last week about late-term abortions

Obama and Abortion ... Senator Obama continues the politician's seemingly obligatory march to the middle in anticipation of November's general election, this time with abortion rights. In a discussion with Relevant, a magazine intended for "twentysomething Christians," this unsettling exchange occurred:

Strang: Based on emails we received, another issue of deep importance to our readers is a candidate’s stance on abortion. We largely know your platform, but there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?

Obama: I absolutely can, so please don’t believe the emails. 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.

Read the quote in context here.

Let me join the parade as well: I'm not very comfortable with it because one of my core beliefs (as a parent, a citizen, and a humane adult) is that every child needs to be a wanted child. I'm going to give him, with some confidence, the benefit of the doubt that when he speaks about "abortion reduction" he means it in the Clintonian sense that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare." *If* he means that, and I"m only giving him the benefit of the doubt here, then he's reasonably proposing that resources will be available -- educational, medical, and social -- so that late-term abortions would never be *needed* except for health protection...

But I want to hear it from him. At least before I send his campaign a check. (There's no question he'll get my vote.)

Fortunately, as Matthew Yglesias put it repeatedly during primary season, a President can only do so much in the face of a government with three branches and so the makeup of Congress and the Courts is at least as big a deal. And by and large Congress is going to have an awful lot to say about it too. I'm fortunate enough to have fairly rabidly pro-choice legislators (Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell and Congressman Jim McDermott) who have enough seniority to help make a difference. The good news is none of them need my contributions either.

There are a lot of good, solidly pro-choice, True Blue candidates in other Congressional and Senate races, many of whom are challenging *enthusiastically* anti-choice, "women's wrongs" incumbents -- in either party. I know a couple of them who will *definitely* be getting checks from me but it would be wonderful to have a complete list. So...

Action item: If you know anyone who's already got a list can you let me know in comments? I'll promote any and all such comments to this or a separate post. Otherwise I'll start one for this blog. If you want to make your own endorsements I'll add your suggestions to my list.

[Note: I started this post in the car on the way home, and really did assume there would be a list of straight-up champion-of-choice candidates, challengers or incumbents. I haven't had a world of time this morning but so far all the search terms I've tried have come up with generic lists (e.g. Emily's List) while the ones that focus specifically on choice do so only for the recent Presidential primary candidates. --fl]