Laura Bush Possibly Changes Her Mind on Abortion, Says She's Pro-Life

LifeNews.com ^ | August 19, 2004 | Steven Ertelt

[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.

[ravingnutter]

In August 2001, President Bush put forward an executive order preventing taxpayer funding of any new embryonic stem cell research.

Arrrrrggghhh...why don't these people do their research!

Origins of the Current Policy

In accordance with the Dickey Amendment, passed each year since 1995, research involving the destruction of human embryos cannot be funded with taxpayer dollars. This is not Bush's policy; it is the law of the land, passed annually by Congress and signed by both Presidents Clinton and Bush. This law does not ban embryo research, and it does not fund embryo research. It is a policy of public silence.

In 2000, the Clinton administration discovered a loophole that would allow the NIH to provide some federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research without asking Congress to overturn the Dickey amendment. By law, the government could not fund research in which embryos were destroyed. But if the destruction itself were funded privately, the government could offer funds for subsequent research on embryonic-stem-cell lines derived from the destroyed embryos. In other words: A researcher could destroy endless numbers of embryos in his private lab, and then use the fruits of such destruction to get public funding. This would not violate the letter of the law, but surely the spirit.

When he took office in 2001, President Bush put implementation of the Clinton guidelines on hold. He wanted a way to support potentially promising research, but he also did not believe the federal government should create an ongoing incentive for the destruction of human embryos. On August 9, 2001, President Bush announced his new guidelines: federal funding for research using stem-cell lines that existed before the announcement, but not for those created after. In this way, federal money would not act as an incentive for destroying human embryos in the future, but stem cells derived from embryos already destroyed in the past could be used with federal money to explore the basic science.

This was the fundamental bargain of the policy: no limits on embryonic-stem-cell research in the private sector (unlike much of the world, which regulates this practice), but no public subsidies to encourage a limitless industry of embryo destruction.

At a May 11 hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee on Aging, for example, Johns Hopkins Alzheimer's Disease expert Peter Rabins and Washington University Alzheimer's researcher John Morris both told the senators that they do not expect embryonic stem cells to play a role in Alzheimer's treatment. Experts on other diseases speak with similar restraint. In the end, the research may bear therapeutic fruit and it may not — we cannot know in advance. It may cure some diseases and not others. But by seeming to promise medical salvation without limits, stem-cell advocates risk blurring the difficult ethical questions that surround this new science.

Inflated Promise, Distorted Facts

Though embryonic stem cell research advocates euphemistically refer to the current state of research as an “early stage”, the unfortunate reality is the goal of embryonic stem cell therapies is, at this point, more accurately described as a pipe dream. No researcher is anywhere close to significant progress in developing practical embryonic stem cell therapies.

The only thing certain is that the cost of that research will be high. If embryonic stem cell research had real and imminent possibilities, private investors would be pouring capital into research hoping for real and imminent profits. Instead, venture capital firms are contributing to political efforts to get taxpayers to fund research. What the venture capitalists seem to be hoping for is that taxpayer funding of stem cell research will increase the value of their stakes in biotech companies. The venture capitalists can then cash out at a hefty profit, leaving taxpayers holding the bag of fruitless research.

Ron Reagan Wrong on Stem Cells

“Embryonic stem cells are not going to be the source of a cure for Alzheimer's”, Dobson told the capacity crowd. ”Are you aware that not one human being anywhere in the world is being treated with embryonic stem cells? There is not a single clinical trial going on anywhere in the world, because (embryonic) stem cells in laboratory animals ... create tumors. Nobody will use them.”

By comparison, adult stem cells have shown great promise in the treatment of diseases such as diabetes, Dobson explained. And they do not require the destruction of embryonic human life, since they can be harvested from such sources as umbilical cord blood and bone marrow.

Dr. Dobson: Media Hiding Truth on Stem Cells

[bondjamesbond]

The civilized world made it clear following the destruction of Nazi Germany that any medical research using involuntary subjects should never be legitimized. That's why we can never legitimize embryonic stem cell research. Period

Embryonic stem cell research is perfectly legal in this country. You could go down to a medical lab, buy embryos by the dozens and mix them into yoghurt smoothies if you wanted to.

All the President did was eliminate federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. But if this research is as promising as the proponents say it is, there will be no shortage of private funding.

The decision to eliminate federal funding means the government is not going to endorse the utilitarian notion that it is worth sacrificing potential life for the potential reward. But the decision does not step in to prevent people from doing so.

[Askel5]

=== This is why I VOTE REPUBLICAN!

It pays to remember that it was the Republicans who actually drew up the blueprints of this nation's populatoin control policy back when the likes of Kennedy, Cuomo and Gore (and the Last Poets) still were charged with fomenting the "civil rights" issues and rightfully excoriating birth control and abortion as targeted genocide of dysgenics.

If you don't believe me, read for yourself Kissinger's NSSM-200 ("no nation has ever had successful population control without legal abortion ... ABORTION IS VITAL TO THE SOLUTION)

And pay close attention to the "Democrat" environmentalist talking points also a part of the 1970 "Earth Resources & Population Task Force" whose key points included:

• -- a right to predetermine the sex of one's children
  
• -- the economic disparity and injustice to poor women resulting from states controlling abortion
  
• -- a recognition of the "moral obligation" to depopulate
  
• -- quoting the American Academy of Sciences, a promise that "if the birth rate does not go back down, the death rate MUST go up"
  
• -- recognition of the need for State Education (and obtaining of multi-millions of 1970 dollars to fund same) in order that Americans might learn to DEMAND as "rights" the elements of population control lest the government be put in the awkward position of FORCING same on the populace.

[txrangerette]

Inacurate. I saw it several times.
Key is how Katie put the question:
"Do you(Laura) hope to see Roe v W
overturned by the Supreme Court?"

She said no. Didn't elaborate, or
if she did, it was cut out.

That isn't affirmative support for
Roe. I despise Roe, but as law for
decades, it fits with the death
culture we have. To combine repeal
of Roe w/the unchanged culture is
a threat of many, many back-alley
abortions, of which many, many
women are afraid will come back.

Then there's this. Her husband as
candidate promised no litmus test
on R v W for court nominees. Katie
was trying to trap her in being
against his position refusing to
say Roe should be overturned.

Instead, Bush himself has been
attacked by some righties for his
wife being "pro-choice".

Katie did her job real good. She
won that round. Gags me to say so.

[Askel5]

=== In this way, federal money would not act as an incentive for destroying human embryos in the future, but stem cells derived from embryos already destroyed in the past could be used with federal money to explore the basic science.


And if those experiments are successful? What then? Will that serve as incentive for limitless manufacture of embryos for mining purposes?

If not, why not?

[k2blader]

On August 9, 2001, President Bush announced his new guidelines: federal funding for research using stem-cell lines that existed before the announcement, but not for those created after. In this way, federal money would not act as an incentive for destroying human embryos in the future, but stem cells derived from embryos already destroyed in the past could be used with federal money to explore the basic science.

"On August 9, 2001, President Bush announced his new guidelines: federal funding for research using stem-cell lines that existed before the announcement, but not for those created after. In this way, federal money would not act as an incentive for destroying human embryos murdering babies in the future, but stem cells derived from embryos already destroyed in the past babies already murdered could be used with federal money to explore the basic science.

That's more accurate.

[xm177e2]

There has been no change on Laura's part. She said:

"I think abortion should be rare."

She did not say that she thought it should be illegal. She took the middle path, which is to claim to be pro-life but still support the legality of abortion, because you don't like abortion. That's basically the position of Condoleezza Rice and a whole lot of other people. It's not a strictly pro-life position. It's no change in Laura's position.

[Tribune7]

Support for Roe vs. Wade is a "Pro-Choice" position.

To find a constitutional right to abortion one has to be mind-numbling pro abortiion to the degree one puts one's desire ahead of the Constitution and the amendment process.

One might oppose a proposed abortion restriction without being pro-abort, but one can't defend Roe without being pro-abort.

[Artist]

Askel, the "======" stuff probably saves you some time, but it clutters up your posts, and makes them harder to understand.

Html italic is a very good thing.

[Lilllabettt]

"Are you pro-life?"

"No. I'm pro-death."

Who would say that?

Everyone and their dog says that they're pro-life. Ask an abortionist and she'll say "yes I'm pro-life; pro-women's lives." The phrase means next to nothing.

[youngtory]

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.

I never knew that she was pro-choice. BTW, She was just defending her husband, that does not mean she has changed her position.

[MHGinTN]

Wonderful exposition of the facts. Kudos! May I add that the embryonic stem cell researchers admit--now openly--that their future applications of what they discover will entail using a clone and kill methodology. They are banking on the liberal press to promote their arbitrary dehumanization of individual humans at their embryo age in their individual lifetime. For anyone wishing to read more about embryonic stem cell exploitation, cloning and the science involved, written for the layreader, there is a free manuscript for downloading at THIS LINK. I only ask that if you download it, pass it on to someone else, especially Pastors and Priests.

[cpforlife.org]

Yep, IMO she's about as "Pro-Life" as her maw-in-law.

What's so frustrating is the line so many use "It is my opinion" or "I believe" that life begins at conception.

It is not a matter of faith or belief damn it, it's a basic scientific fact.

When does life begin?
We have ABSOLUTE Irrefutable truth, Scientific proof
http://www.roevwade.org/upl39.html

* In 1981, a US Senate committee held hearings on when human life begins. Speaking on behalf of the scientific community was a group of internationally known geneticists and biologists who had the same story to tell, namely, that human life begins at conception - and they told their story with a profound absence of opposing testimony.

Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life begins at conception.

* "The Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence. Human life begins at conception "

* Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

* Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the "Father of In Vitro Fertilization" notes, "Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind." And on the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, "To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion."

* Professor Eugene Diamond on the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade: "...either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty."

14 weeks

15 weeks, Hey look this nonviable disposable blob of tissue is sucking it’s thumb

16 weeks

18 weeks

Let’s review the milestones of a person’s life before they are born:
· By the seventh day of life, the new person is planted in the uterus, home for the next nine months.
· By day 17, the blood cells and the heart are formed.
· By day 24, there is a heartbeat.
· By six weeks, the child’s nervous system is controlling their body. He or she now looks distinctly human. Throughout pregnancy the child is mostly in control--even to what day they will be born.
· By day 45, the baby has his own brain waves, which he will keep for life.
· By seven weeks, he has all the internal organs of an adult (though he weighs only one-thirtieth of an ounce and is less than one inch long.)
· By eight weeks, all external organs are formed, by nine to ten weeks, he can drink and breath amniotic fluid.
· From this age on is just a matter of time for growth. Before he is born, he can suck his thumb, cry (if he had air), and recognize his mother's voice and heartbeat.
· By the fourth month the child weighs about 5 ounces and is between 6 and 7 inches long. He has developing fingernails and eyelashes, and already has unique fingerprints that will remain the same for the rest of his life.
· At 32 weeks of gestation - two months before a baby is considered fully prepared for the world, or "at term" - a fetus is behaving almost exactly as a newborn. And it continues to do so for the next 12 weeks.
· By nine weeks, a developing fetus can hiccup and react to loud noises. By the end of the 2nd trimester it can hear.
· Just as adults do, the fetus experiences the rapid eye movement (REM) sleep of dreams.
· The fetus savors its mother's meals, first picking up the food tastes of a culture in the womb.
· Among other mental feats, the fetus can distinguish between the voice of Mom and that of a stranger, and respond to a familiar story read to it.
· Before the first trimester is over, he or she yawns, sucks, and swallows, as well as feels and smells. By the end of the second trimester, he or she can hear; toward the end of pregnancy, can see.

[bondjamesbond]

Oh, I am not going into the tortured logic of penumbras and emanations. I am just saying that the argument of Roe vs. Wade is fundamentally about limiting the power of government to interfere in this process. Government is basically neutral in the whole matter. Not saying it's right, I'm just saying that it is.

Government funding of the destruction of human embryos, OTOH, means that the government is no longer neutral. It means that the government has made the utilitarian judgement that the benefits of the research justify the destruction of the nascent human life. That is another kettle of fish altogether, and can only be called Pro-Death.

[Moonman62]

Among other mental feats, the fetus can distinguish between the voice of Mom and that of a stranger, and respond to a familiar story read to it.

I posted an article a couple of months ago about how talking to the child in the womb is a distinctly American behavior.

[cpforlife.org]

Can y'all help respond to 7 & 34

[tame]

Interesting!

[cpforlife.org]

"I am just saying that the argument of Roe vs. Wade is fundamentally about limiting the power of government to interfere in this process. Government is basically neutral in the whole matter."

Roe v Wade was/is a lie foisted on the sheeple BY the government. The Sanger sect of our Fed government wanted for years to keep the black and other minorities as low a percentage of the gen. pop as possible & they also wanted to limit the population itself.

The govt could not force abortion on the people - telling them their real reasons as explained above, they knew that they would rightly be seen for the SOB's (Sons of Baal) that they are, so they "discovered" that women have this "right".
The sheeple bought it hook line and stinker.

One False objection the Roe court had to the unborn as a person interpretation is the lack of precedent to support it. But there was a federal court precedent for the unborn as a person reading of the Fourteenth Amendment just 3 years before Roe v. Wade, though this fact was virtually ignored by Justice Harry Blackmun and the Roe Court.

From Constitutional Persons: An Exchange on Abortion

The common law basis of our system embodied in the principle of stare decisis and the just requirements of consistency in applying the law demand a respect for precedent. To this objection I offer two replies. First, there was a federal court precedent for the unborn person reading of Fourteenth Amendment before Roe v. Wade, though this fact was virtually ignored by Justice Harry Blackmun and the Roe Court.

In Steinberg v. Brown (1970) a three-judge federal district court upheld an anti-abortion statute, stating that privacy rights "must inevitably fall in conflict with express provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."

After relating the biological facts of fetal development, the court stated that "those decisions which strike down state abortion statutes by equating contraception and abortion pay no attention to the facts of biology."

"Once new life has commenced," the court wrote, "the constitutional protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose upon the state the duty of safeguarding it."

Yet in commenting on the unborn person argument in Roe, Justice Blackmun wrote that "the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." He did so despite the fact that he had cited the case just five paragraphs earlier!

The failure of both appellees and the Court to treat this case is both unfortunate and inexplicable. Second, while our system is based upon a reasonable and healthy respect for precedent, this has never prevented the Court from revisiting and modifying precedent when the erroneous foundation and unjust results of that precedent become manifest. Such is the case with respect to abortion and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Pro-Choice Advocates Agree that Abortion Kills Humans.
http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/casey/ch3.html#S4

Many abortion advocates have agreed that abortion kills human life: A 1963 Planned Parenthood brochure says that life begins at conception: This is a direct quote "An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun."

Similarly, Dr. Mary Calderone, former director of Planned Parenthood has stated that "abortion is the taking of a human life"

Dr. Magda Denes who performed two years of research in an abortion facility and compiled her results told a Chicago newspaper "There wasn’t an (abortion) doctor who at one time or another in the questioning did not say ‘this is murder.’"

This so called “Women’s Right to Choose…to abort her baby” has as its foundation, three main points:
1. It must ignore universally acknowledged biological facts,
2. It denies federal and state laws that clearly identify the unborn as a person with rights.
3. It promotes a blatant lie that “It’s” a woman’s body” When clearly “IT” is her baby within her body.

Roe v Wade is null and void. It is the invalid ruling of 7 men. It has as much validity as the Dredd Scott decision or of the Nazi courts. It is the antithesis of both the Declaration and the Constitution. Yes it’s ruling has the effect of law, just as the case in Slavery and just as in the case of Nazi Germany. If it is not overturned it will one day be understood as one of the main factors in what ends our Republic.

[Robert_Paulson2]

I never knew that she was pro-choice.

---

She's not.

[ohioWfan]

PLEASE don't deliberately mislead.

Laura NEVER said she supported Roe V. Wade. NEVER.

I hate lies, especially when they're spread by well meaning (I assume) people.