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.
exactly right.
and it IS working.
Thank God, somebody gets it.
By the way, as to that other post:
At least Specter supported Holmes, while Hutchison, Snowe, Collins, Chafee, and Warner did not. (I would have had to get Holmes to do a little more explaining about wives and husbands, myself, and I'm a circumcised-by-Christ-not-with-hands-fully-reconciled-to-God-by-God Christian!)
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4426
Perhaps you should spend more time trying to figure out the answer to that question.
One of my best friends from college is pro-choice. She loves kids, has five of them, stays at home by choice, and would never consider abortion for herself.
She also had a very difficult childhood. Her father died unexpectedly leaving her mother with seven children to support. Her mother subsequently had a nervous breakdown.
She isn't an evil person, she's just wrong. That should be the pro-life movement's starting point.
Yes, I am a fan of George and Laura Bush, but the reason for that is in great measure due to their impeccable character.
Everyone on this thread who says that Laura is NOT pro-life is accusing her of lying (and her husband of either instigating or going along with her lies).
I find that despicable.
Well, perhaps that's because they know that very few people who support the President jumped to absurd conclusions (as you did) based on that interview. I have been strongly pro-life for 30 years, and when I heard her comment, I didn't assume that she was FOR abortion. Her position has been all along that she didn't make policy statements, and only recently has she changed that.
These are facts not attacks.
I'm sorry cp, but saying that the First Lady is not pro-life when she says she is IS an attack on her and her husband. If it's not true then she is a liar. THAT'S AN ATTACK.
I am working for a Bush second term. I am also trying to hold them to a higher standard and be more Pro-Life.
Well bully for you.
But, how, might I ask, is accusing the First Lady of deceit holding the President to a higher standard?
I will repeat, he is the strongest pro-Life President we have EVER had, and now we know, because she has stated it clearly for the first time, what most of us (except you, of course) have thought all along, that Laura is in agreement with her husband on this most important of all issues.
And you are still criticising her. That says much more about YOU than it does about her.........and what it says about you is not good.
As for your answer to the question.......you aren't the wife of the President, are you now? I would have answered yes as well, but whether you realize it or not, it was a question intended to trap her, and I'm sure she knew that and answered it very briefly, and in my view, inconclusively. It was radical, you-have-to-say-and-do-everything-exactly-as-I-want-you-to pro-lifers who drew absurd conclusions that she was a 'baby-killer' from her answer.
And as for driving a wedge. Any pro-lifer who lets the evil left drive a wedge between them and the President on any issue is a complete idiot.
Others on this thread apparently base their 'opinions' on their own omniscience.......
Think about it ...
I can't think about it.
That may have been the most sinister comment that I've EVER read about the President.
He MARRIED Laura, a pro-abort, so that he could play both sides of the abortion issue????
That's SICK!
(And WHY is she now lying and claiming to be pro-life and against embryonic stem cell research.......kinda STUPID for such diabolical people, don't you think?? SHEESH!!!)
Amen!
I swear, some of these people would rather hear themselves talk that to actually END THE HOLOCAUST OF ABORTION!!
Progress is finally being made under this President........HUGE progress toward becoming once again a culture of LIFE.........and these people are griping.
Unbelievable!
That is a good point and should be the topic of future interviews of Mrs. Bush and her daughters to see if this is more than some kind of falling off the elephant election conversion. The GOP is not walking the walk. The Democrats are pro-abortion and say so.
Bush campaigning for Specter and the convention speaker lineup tell the tale. The GOP has nominated Patacki, Guiliani, Schwartenegger, and Ridge. If they were pro-racism they rightly would not have been nomiated. Being anti-NAFTA is more an impediment that being pro-abortion in the GOP.
The Emperor's new clothes are now fully arrayed.
exactly.
That is my impression as well.
The other day, I made some positive suggestions regarding trying to reach women so that they might choose life instead of aborting their babies, and I was actually criticized for it. Though I can't believe it's true, it honestly almost appeared that getting their anger out was more important to some people than the end result.
Whatever their motivation, they are potentially doing harm to the reelection efforts of the President, and in so doing, risking harm to the nation.
And worse than that, are self-righteous about it.
I can't wait to see the next left-wing editorial about how the conservative base is fraying, thanks to this gang.......
You nailed it there, Daughter.
I hope, as you do, that they really DO care about ending abortion, but you'd never know it from some of their posts.
(And I'm not a bit surprised that you were criticized for wanting to help women choose life. It's compassionate, and it works. Bad stuff for those who just want to be mad.....)
Nothing has changed, in other words."
In college our pro-life group invited the first black doctor, a woman, to graduate from Harvard, as a guest speaker. She well articulated the eugenics of Margaret Sanger, and how she believed the democratic party officially assumed the pro-choice mantra for reasons simialr to Ms. Sanger's. Now on FR, 24 years later, I have encountered someone who makes similar claims about the Republicans.
The United States has supported through funding, sterlization and abortion procedures in third world countries, and groups like Planned parenthood, Unicef and others have also been at the forefront. And yes, some Republicans have voted for the funding of such measures. This is no big secret and is old news and thus, I am not shocked by the research you uncovered about Kissinger, a person, along with Nixon and several other of that era, for whom I had great disdain since highschool for many reasons. Such people hold little sway in today's Republican Party, whether they appeared behind a podium with George W or not.
George H seemed to be swayed by the pro-life beliefs of Ronald Reagan, (who incidentally without Nixon's resignation may never have een elected)and did adopt a pro-life stance when he ran for the presidency the second time. The first time round when asked what he thought of infanticide, by a family member of mine, he didn't know what "infanticide" was. Based on his answer to that question and the change in his stance second time 'round, I am inclined to believe that eight years with Ronald Reagan educated and affected him regarding abortion and it's surrounding issues and may also have helped to persuade his sons as well. However, I am aware that from this distance one can never be certain.
Pro-life lost much ground immediately preceeding the Clinton presidency and during it. I believe W has to a great degree made up for much of that lost ground.
However, when considering the state of affairs 30 years ago vs. today there has been virtually no change in the number of babies saved from abortion. There in, is the rub and the frustration, and it has been much like running in place you are absolutley correct.
"She isn't an evil person, she's just wrong." Hear here! Edumacation is the only hope to pull some along where they can see the wrong in dehumanizing an entire age of alive humans. If we don't accomplish more, soon, the cannibalism of cloning attached to embryonic stem cell exploitation will be our reality ... and with the 1973 catastrophic lesson before us, we can easily see where the exploitation now will lead by our tomorrow.
No we base it on one simple answer to a very simple question. You and others on the otherhand refuse to accept her answer for what it is and would rather use your opinion of her and her husband to blind you to what she ACTUALLY said.
I personally don't care what she thinks because she is not running for public office. I would be happier if she came out and said she was misquoted on the today show, though that would be hard to do, and it is unlikely she will do so. That doesn't change the fact that she is not or should not be a policymaker so her opinion is of little consequence.
As I said in another post I am still amazed how some on this forum flame anybody who doesn't think the Bushes walk on water. This forum if not an arm of the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign. I intend to vote for the President regardless of what his wife thinks about abortion. But I reserve the right to comment on either one of them at anytime concerning any topic of interest to me.
Sorry to have offended you........you're obviously a very sensitive child.
btw........there's a BIG difference between 'walking on water' and being a fundamentally honest person.
Maybe someday you'll stop being so defensive (and offensive) and learn the difference.
Have fun at your Laura is a liar party. I'm outta here.......
Well I am glad you are out of here. As for the Laura is a liar comment are you continuing to ignore that she said what she said on the Today Show since that is all I have commented on.
Trust men you didn't offend me which probably upset you no end. I am never offended by people who run their lives based on irrational emotionalism. Feel sorry for them yes. Offended by them no.
As I said I am voting for the President as I did 4 years ago. For the sake of you and other members of your cult of personality I hope he wins because if he doesn't they'll have to remove all the sharp objects from your homes. As for me I will go on with my life and continue to work for Republican and conservative causes.
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.