Bush disagrees with South Dakota abortion ban

AFP ^ | 1 March 2006

[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.

[Hildy]

You don't think I know your argument? There are almost 1000 posts on this thread alone. 60% said the same thing you just said. Life is more complicated than that. I believe abortions should be very hard to get. I believe in parental notification. But I believe they should be kept legal. I know what you're saying...no need to keep repeating it.

[Not A Snowbird]

True. I just wouldn't want to add to the total.

[spikeytx86]

If you allow it only in cases of rape incest and life of the mother, all a women will have to do to have an abortion is say they were raped.

We can not say that an unborn child is life and then say it is acceptable to end a life because of the means it was conceived. If the rape victim dose not want to keep the baby they may put the child up for adoption. It is silly to say that it is cruel to make a rape victim carry around a byproduct of the rape because a rape victim will always carry around the pain of the crime in there minds for ever. It is even more cruel to allow a women in a fragile and vulnerable state to murder the child who was conceived out of the sins of his fathers act. We all know the pain women go through after they have had an abortion and they realize that they have killed there child and not a mound of flesh that planned parenthood told them it was. To couple that guilt with the pain of rape would be to much for even the strongest amongst us to cope with.

[GrandEagle]

Sorry, Somehow I just got to this thread and didn't realize it was over 1000 posts until after I hit it.

Cordially,
GE

[Paul Ross]

The kind of 'conservative' you're looking for is unelectable

Sez you. In fact, we have had that kind of president I am looking for before....Ronald Reagan for one. And Theodore Roosevelt for another. All of whom were more "openly Christian, openly moral, openly pro-life" etc. ..and far more convincing about doing what they said they would do.

And, praise be to God in the highest, we have been blessed with still more candidates today who need to be drafted into the Presidential race, IMHO both electable and solidly authentic conservative patriots. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ). Duncan Hunter (R-CA). Tom Tancredo (R-CO). Curt Weldon (R-PA). And there are many others.

If you care about this country, PRAY for him. Don't just attack him.

I do pray for him. And if you read much you'd know I don't just attack him. I prayed for him right along since he was designated the party nominee in 2000. I pray for his wellbeing, and peace within this nation, his glorifying God before all men, and softening his heart, willing to let God lead...not using his own rags of self-righteousnes...(note his condemning Jerry Falwell)... and his returning to Godly principles of Government, and to eschew the easy outs of mouthing liberal condemnations of conservatives. I have praised him numerous times when appropriate. His Afghan campaign. His Iraq campaign. His timely...and successful effort to save our steel industry when the world was dumping on our market. His modest tax cuts. His modest increases in Defense R&D. His modest increases in alternative energy research. His energetic and highly successful monetary efforts to prevent economic collapse after 9-11.

That being said, his deployments posture in defense is simply not sufficient. So what can any one concerned about the actual state (the Bigger Picture than the WOT) of our national security say?

I am not going to be writing him a blank check, and never will.

"To announce that there should be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, it is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt

[Lesforlife]

Denver Bible Church and Columbine Dad, Brian Rhorbough.

[Lesforlife]

Thanks!

[muawiyah]

Glad to hear I'm not just asking a rhetorical question.

Most folks forget that the death penalty used to be available in rape cases ~ not all of them, but certain categories.

[Cindy_Cin]

the past week or so??
How about from day 1?
SIGH

[Hildy]

It is even more cruel to allow a women in a fragile and vulnerable state to murder the child who was conceived out of the sins of his fathers act. We all know the pain women go through after they have had an abortion and they realize that they have killed there child and not a mound of flesh that planned parenthood told them it was.

I'm sorry, but that's just pure bull.

[GovernmentShrinker]

For starters, because forcing a woman (sometimes a young girl) to spend several months walking around obviously pregnant, when it's the result of rape or incest, is indescribably cruel. Is she supposed to explain the circumstances of the conception to everyone she knows at work/school and in her neighborhood? Or just let them assume that she can't keep her legs together or remember to use reliable contraceptives? Not to mention that it prevents her putting the horror behind her and starting to recover psychologically, and that delay can have a permanent impact.

[photodawg]

"I'm right and that's that!" is going to get us nowhere
///////////////////////////////////////////////////

Its going to get me to heaven when the lord asks where I stand on abortion. I'm not talking politics, I'm talking "VIRTUE". You know, RIGHT FROM WRONG!!!!!!I'm not making some deal on abortion so I can save 30% of the murdered babies by selling the rest down the toilet. If everyone felt the way I do, no compromise would be necessary. Its my job to convince the non-believers that my view of morality is the correct one....not compromise my principles to pragmatically get some concessions from the devil.

[photodawg]

rather be an extremist/religious zealot standing against murder than a hypocrit that okays it for political gain anyday...
//////////////////////////////////////////////

Well said and exactly right. We have become too concerned with what others believe and not sensitive enough to our own feelings. When you know you are right, you don't have to look for anyones approval. It becomes you moral duty to live by your beliefs.That doesn't mean you lawlessly force your will on others, but you steadfastly stand up for what you believe.

[Sonny M]

I have a friend who is the result of her Mother being raped. Would you tell her to her face that she doesn't deserve to live?

Thats how I changed my view on abortion to no exceptions.

I was in college and met a guest speaker who told us the story about how her mother was raped in the late 1960s.

Her mother actually did want to have an abortion, and tried to get one several times but failed (one incident being that her mother couldn't afford to travel to another state and stay in a hotel).

She then asked us, if she should or should not have been allowed to have been born.

She dared us to tell her that her mother should have had the right to terminate her.

I changed my mind on the spot.

Sidenote: One idiot actually did argue that the speaker had no right to be there because of the circumstances in which she was conceived, and since it was rape, her mother should have been allowed to abort her.

All I kept thinking was what a horrible vile little punk.

[muawiyah]

Not "punk", but "puke". He was a vile little "puke". One might well hope that he went home and put an end to his own misery.

[NewCenturions]

I cannot imagine dealing with the hellish nightmare of being raped and then the helling nightmare of having "gotten rid of" your OWN baby - no matter how he/she got there...you have the LIFE of a child inside you. The horror of rape plus the horror of abortion must be extra torture for the victim.

[ohioWfan]

You're one of those fuzzy memoried Reaganites who has conveniently forgotten where he failed to do what he promised, and had to compromise in the world of political reality.

Those of us who admire President Bush for his integrity, courage and moral strength are the same people who admired Reagan for those qualities, but we also remember the reality of his Presidency and not just the good parts.

It would behoove you to not use Reagan against Bush, as you confuse history with your nostalgia.

Let me also request that you not to mix your politics with faith...........that is not to say don't use your faith in politics, but you are doing it backwards. You are making spiritual determinations based on your political ideology, and not using your spiritual, God-breathed sense to assess the character of the man you are condemning here.

As long as you get your personal feelings and political opinions entwined with a rosy nostalgia for Reagan, you will never come up with an accurate assessment of who George W. Bush is.

(btw, you do know that TR signed on to Eugenics, don't you?)

Nice talking with you, Paul. Write your book..........but please don't write another one to me here, OK? I see where you're coming from, but my Christian worldview based on years of faith first and politics second, isn't meshing with your politics first approach to faith.

[ohioWfan]

I don't argue with God's wisdom and His sovereignty.

I only have problems with dogmatism based on interpretation of what's in His word, by finite human beings...........that would be ALL of us.

[Sonny M]

Not "punk", but "puke". He was a vile little "puke". One might well hope that he went home and put an end to his own misery.

Actually, it wasn't a "he", the little puke was a girl.

Until that day, I never knew how nasty she really was, telling someone face to face they should not have been born and that the mother was right to try and get an abortion and it was wrong that it wasn't allowed to happen.

Before that day she had always come across as actually decent.