Posted on 08/19/2004 1:48:14 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- First Lady Laura Bush has possibly changed her position on abortion. When her husband George W. Bush was running for president in 2000, Laura Bush indicated she was pro-choice on the issue of abortion and did not favor overturning Roe v. Wade.
Last week, the First Lady came to the defense of her husband's policy on embryonic stem cell research.
In August 2001, President Bush put forward an executive order preventing taxpayer funding of any new embryonic stem cell research.
In response to critics who contend the decision stalls important scientific research, Laura Bush promoted the use of adult stem cells and sided with numerous doctors who say such cures, if they happen, are likely many years away.
Her actions prompted a Washington Times reporter to ask Laura Bush whether she has changed her mind on the issue of abortion.
Asked on Thursday whether she is now pro-life, the First Lady responded, "Yes, I think abortion should be rare."
Laura Bush also told Times reporter Bill Sammon that she agreed with President Bush that human life begins at conception.
No one was available in Laura Bush's press office to provide further details on the quote.
Elizabeth Graham, associate director of Texas Right to Life, told LifeNews.com she wasn't sure if the brief comment indicates Laura Bush has changed her mind on abortion and overturning Roe v. Wade.
"Hopefully [she] is realizing that abortion harms and exploits women, which may be motivating her to speak out a little more forcefully than usual on a controversial issue," Graham said.
Previously, the Fist Lady has said that she didn't think the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion should be reversed.
"No, I don't think it should be overturned," Mrs. Bush told NBC's "Today Show" in January 2001.
In a followup interview, she told CNN that she believes more could be done to reduce the number of abortions, but that Roe should not be overturned.
She did not respond to a question in that interview about whether women have a "right" to an abortion, but said, "[we should do] what we can to limit the number of abortions, to try to reduce the number of abortions in a lot of ways, and that is, by talking about responsibility with girls and boys, by teaching abstinence, having abstinence classes everywhere in schools and in churches and in Sunday school."
"I agree with my husband that we should try to reduce the number of abortions in our country by doing all those things," Bush said.
In July, 2001 Laura Bush told CNN's Judy Woodruff in an interview that, though she disagreed with her husband on overturning Roe v. Wade, they agreed on issues such as promoting adoption and abstinence.
Correct. In answering, "are you
hoping the SCOTUS will overturn
it?", she said "no". My previous
post gives two strong reasons for
her answer, and neither supposes
a positive support for Roe. Katie
achieved her "gotcha" moment, tho.
And that's all I need ... Thanks, Artist. Trust all is well with you.
Nothing could be farther from the truth ... please check the links in post 23, I believe.
Although not nearly so strident as Kissinger's now de-classified document NSSM-200 ("abortion is vital to the Solution ..."), the 1970 report of the GOP's "Earth Resources & Population" clearly lays the foundation not only for legal abortion (as part of a comprehensive depopulation program) but establishes the "economic disparity" basis for making legalized homicide of the unborn a federal fiat.
If a parent isn't home when the kids get home from school, there are a couple of hours of 'mischief time' available. I would venture a guess that most teenagers have sex at home in their own beds during the after school hours cause no one is there to supervise them!
Don't mistake my differentiating the arguments as support for either of them. I am merely pointing out that Roe vs. Wade is an individual freedom-based argument. Funding embryonic stem cell research would be based on a utilitarian argument. One can logically buy one argument and reject the other.
True, those who buy the individual freedom argument in Roe vs. Wade are more likely to buy a utilitarian argument, because they have already accepted that human life is not an absolute value. But that is not necessarily so.
I'm going to try to be polite here. I'm as pro-life as anyone on this forum, but you are guilty of slander.
You have absolutely NO basis on which to make this statement, and we, on the other hand, have the statement of our honorable First Lady to refute your false charges.
If you have a modicum of logic in your head, think about this........
In a deep, loving, Christian marriage, is the wife more likely to share a position of this importance with her HUSBAND, or with her MOTHER-in-LAW????
You people are pathetic.
We are FINALLY starting to make progress against the evil of abortion, AND YOU ARE ATTACKING THE ONES WHO ARE MAKING IT HAPPEN!!!
SHAME on you!! SHAME!!
I take that as support for Roe vs. Wade. Remember that one of the reasons many social conservatives went with GWB instead of McCain was that a Bush administration would work hard to get Roe v Wade overturned.
Saying she wouldn't want it overturned is the same as accepting it. With Republican control of the Senate, HOR, and White House, it's the best it's going to get. I can't help wondering if a first lady who was out there defending life wouldn't have helped the issue.
And she's 'out there defending life' like CRAZY now.
Get up to speed. And don't shoot the good guys..........PLEASE??!!
That's much more readable. Thanks.
No one who says they "believe" that "life begins at conception" can buy either.
The foundation for Roe's "right to be unpregnant" lay in some notion that no one could tell for sure when life began. (This article of Know-Nothingism being enshrined in Carhart, I believe, as a "right to decide" what is and isn't fully human.)
Because science -- particularly in the age of "potential humans" chosen for their Complete and Unique genetic make-up which are Federal Expressed to the womb -- has confirmed unequivocally that each life is a complete package at conception, the mother only nourishing and protecting but herself effecting no essential change, both arguments are utterly morally and scientifically bankrupt.
And this should be the case particularly if we are talking about folks concerned with "individual freedom-based argument" whose premises surely are rooted in the notion of "inalienable" rights ... such as the one essential human right: the right to Life.
I understand the differentiation you're making but it seems both are gratuitous differences made upon acceptance of the same essential error.
Good grief. She's had four years (and many opportunities in interviews) to correct (what you say is) a mistake.....and now, just before the election, she decides it's finally time to say she's pro-life. Better late than never I suppose (if it's true), but she let down a lot of pro-lifers and gave a lot of fuel to pro-aborts in the last four years. NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) has been saying that she's on their side ever since that Today Show interview.
She's done more to hurt than help, IMO.
I only care about the truth. And the truth is that Laura NEVER said she supported Roe v. Wade.
Quit condemning her for her reticence to get involved with her husband's policies in public........please. You are condemning her for who she is.........a classy, reserved, godly wife.
Some of the comments on this thread stink.
If they were claiming me as a fellow pro-abort, I certainly wouldn't sit there with my mouth shut for four years and leave the impression with everyone (expect a few folks like you) that I'm a pro-abort too.
She's let herself be used as a banner for the other side for four years....and that's the real shame.
That is absolutely the sickest twisting of reality to condemn the innocent (Laura Bush) I have seen in a long while.
It is ugly, dishonest and repulsive.
I don't know how many pro-aborts have thrown Laura in my face. She gave everyone that impression right after her husband was elected....and let it stand until now. There's nothing "innocent" at all about that.
baloney.
you are one twisted bush hater.
You will be happier if you would go spread your deceit and twisted "bush hating" thinking elsewhere.
If there were only more "Bush haters" like me....
Most people I know never thought she was "pro-abort" because they (unlike you) didn't jump to ludicrous conclusions based on a very inconclusive and forced comment made 4 years ago.
I'm going to say it again. People who condemn Laura Bush for this make me sick.
We have never had such a strong pro-life President before, and now that his wife is coming out strongly about it, she is STILL being condemned.
She didn't talk about ANY policy decisions, and yet you condemn her for not talking about THIS one before now. It doesn't make a lick of sense unless your only interest is in maligning a classy, moral woman.
Sick.
"No, I don't think it should be overturned," Mrs. Bush told NBC's "Today Show" in January 2001."
In a followup interview, she told CNN that she believes more could be done to reduce the number of abortions, but that Roe should not be overturned.
Now, first for the record, I am expending a considerable amount of time and effort for the Bush campaign. I am a life-long Republican, however my first commitment is to Jesus Christ, He IS WHO holds my allegiance to the restoration of protection of the unborn, not any party, group, or affiliation.
I like Mrs. Bush, the little I know of her she seems to be a very nice lady. But let's be candid: What Pro-Lifer has EVER said "No, I don't think it should be overturned," when questioned about Roe v Wade?
In order to determine where a person stands on an issue we MUST look at what they do and/or don't do more closely than what they say or write.
To my knowledge Mrs. Bush has never recanted what she said on the Today show and she has never acted in a way to help end the holocaust (at least publicly).
To say "I'm Pro-Life" without doing something about it is paying lipservice. The words have no credibility without actions to back them up. We are not all called to the same level of effort in the defense of the unborn, but if we are Christians, we ARE CALLED to do SOMETHING, and our Just Judge will hold us accountable.
How is this different from Kerry's position?
She still gives me the bloodless librarian creeps. I hope she sees the light.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.