by Frank James, updated at 5:37 pm with Obama campaign response.
Does Sen. Barack Obama really mean to say he supports new restrictions on late-term abortions that would effectively weaken Roe v Wade?
That's the huge question that remains following the Democratic presidential candidate's statement yesterday that he doesn't believe a pregnant woman's "mental distress" should be considered a sufficient exception to bans against late-term abortions.
As Jan Crawford Greenburg, ABC News legal correspondent so ably points out in her Legalities blog, Obama's response yesterday to a reporter's question in which the senator sought to clarify his earlier remarks on the issue, left open the possibility that he actually supports a significant narrowing of abortion rights.
This, of course, would come as a shock to his liberal supporters and many of those voters who backed Sen. Hillary Clinton in the primaries, voters Obama is now trying to win over. Many of those voters very much support abortion rights.
Attempting to clarify comments he made during an interview in Relevant magazine in which he seemed to strongly indicate that he supported a late-term abortion exception for the physical-health of the mother but left the impression he might not support a mental-health exception, Obama yesterday told reporters on his campaign plane that he, indeed, supported mental-health exceptions. Such exceptions were acceptable so long as they were for clinically-diagnosed conditions, he indicated.
What he did not support was the idea of exceptions that would allow late-term abortions based on "mental distress." "It is not just a matter of feeling blue," Obama said.
I'm not too proud to say that answer was enough to throw this non-lawyer off the scent but it didn't Jan, a University of Chicago trained lawyer. That's why when she worked with us at the Chicago Tribune where she covered the Supreme Court, her nickname was Justice Greenburg, because of her detailed knowledge of the high court and her probing mind.


