Posted on 02/28/2006 6:36:43 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
US President George W. Bush signalled his opposition to a South Dakota abortion ban that forbids the procedure even in cases of rape or incest, saying he favors such exceptions.
But Bush declined to predict the outcome of any legal challenges to the legislation, which would make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy except in rare cases when it may be necessary to save the life of the mother.
"That, of course, is a state law, but my position has always been three exceptions: Rape, incest, and the life of the mother," the US president told ABC news in an interview.
Asked whether he would include "health" of the mother, Bush replied: "I said life of the mother, and health is a very vague term, but my position has been clear on that ever since I started running for office."
The bill, which recently gained final approval from South Dakota's House of Representatives, directly contradicts the precedent set in 1973 when the US Supreme Court ruled that bans on abortion violate a woman's constitutional right to privacy.
The bill grants no allowances for women who have been raped or are victims of incest. Doctors who perform abortion would be charged with a crime. It also prohibits the sale of emergency contraception and asserts that life begins at fertilization.
The governor of South Dakota has indicated he is likely to sign the bill.
A leading pro-choice advocacy group has already vowed to challenge the ban in federal court. But that seems to be exactly what many promoters of the legislation seek.
Advocates of the ban do not deny they aim much higher than South Dakota, a rural and socially conservative state, which even today has only one abortion clinic.
Instead, they are hoping the bill will offer a full frontal assault on legal abortions now that the balance of power in the Supreme Court appears to have shifted with the confirmation of conservative jurists John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both of whom are seen as pro-life.
In the case of rape, it's usually the perpetrator who wants the abortion. The victims want to have the child, and it's usually their only way out of the situation. The perpetrator wants to "destroy the evidence." It's great we are so sensitive to the needs of those who commit incest.
Freeper. Please.
I'm sorry, I know how alot of you feel, but to make a woman carry a baby conceived from rape is so incredibly wrong.
The last week?
Bush has been bashing his base ... at least since he was reelected.
The sad thing is im afraid your right...... Man needs to wake up.
And killing a baby isn't?
Seriously. That's a bizarre enough statement that I'd honestly like to know the reasoning behind it.
I see, so you'd rather murder a child for the sins of his father.
Why are you against abortion in case of insect or rape?
Actually, if ya' jus' gotta' kill somebody why not take the rapist out and execute him.
It's not the baby's fault. Why should he or she be executed for the crimes of another?
I can't imagine many freepers being upset about the president's statements. Only those who are looking for something to be upset about.
You're right, killing an innocent child is much better. /sarc
Is there really an epidemic of people being impregnated by incestual sex? I know it happens, but I don't see why such an extreme example is always brought up - as if people who get abortions do so with great reservation and take it so seriously... In reality, abortion has been made into something that is a viable guilt-free option for unwanted babies.
Coming out this way, with a law that will be crushed, will merely paint us as extremists. I know people don't like to hear that but it's true--this is just the type of law that makes moderates go "See? They're all extremists!"
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.