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.
It doesn't ban abortion.
Who ever said life was fair?
So you think a baby should die because his/her conception was the result of somebody else's crime?
You think that's justice?
I can not disagree with the President more on his stance. But I respect him because he opposes the murder of the unborn wholeheartedly yet understands the trauma women go through in these horrific circumstances. Many people are reluctant to leave the victims of such horrendous crime with such a forceful and lasting reminder, even though that is sometimes the case as mothers chose not to punish their baby for the sins of the "father".
Besides, his position is 44 milliion times more moral and just than any horsesh!zer NARAL, NOW, and other deathmonger lies foisted upon the unsuspecting populous.
Re: children of rape and incest, with thorough counselling and familial support, many women opt to keep the child.
As long as the mofo who did this to her is worm food and the precious baby isn't, we shouldn't have problems.
I'm with you on this, Hildy. It's mostly men, I suspect, who thinks it's okay for women to carry the result of a rape for 9 months and deal with all the attendant trauma of that. No concern for the already fully formed, living women.
This is where the rubber meets the road. Any president who felt differently would lose my complete support and I applaud the president for his statement.
You're aboslutely right. I want to know what they were smoking. The only way to succeed in American politics is through incrimentalism. Trying to get too much too quickly only hurts the cause.
I could be wrong, but President Bush seems to be going out of his way to antagonize his base this past week or so...
You are wrong.
Dubya seems to be holding his position on most things. Can he not state his position on anything without antagonizing his base?
It is saving the mother from the severe psychological trauma of carrying a rape or incest child. If you ask women about this the vast majority of them will favor abortion rather than going through this.
Please clip and paste where I said any such thing.
It would cover all medical emergencies. Rape, incest, and certain "health" are all pure judgement calls.
But that's all beside the point if creating these extreme laws which are doomed from the start just get shot down.
Which would you rather have--a sweeping law banning all abortions that gets shot down and doesn't save a single human child, or a minor adjustment that saves actual lives and leads to later adjustments that will save more and pave the way for REALLY ending abortion?
We have to live in the real world, folks.
The complications of pregnancy and childbirth are a leading cause of death and disability among women of reproductive age in developing countries. It is estimated that around 529,000 women die each year from maternal causes. Even in the United States, more women died from pregnancy-related reasons than five years ago. The latest figures were 12 deaths per 100,000 births, compared to eight per 100,000 in the 1991 study.
http://www.childinfo.org/areas/maternalmortality/
democrats love this bill...it's much easier to portray us as unthinking, knuckle-dragging zealots with the rape, incest and life of mother provisions wiped out....(I suspect the majority US position on this issue is Abortion should be illegal except for the three horrible instances)
Imagine the ads in suburbia
"The Republican theocracy now will make rape victims suffer through... Under the Taliban-Republicans, young women, molested by a step-father, or gang raped in an alley will now be forced to..."
A great ad in congressional elections..If I were a dem I'd pound this all over swing districts, hit the soccer moms with daughters...scare the holy hell outta them.
So--the answer to the trauma that the woman has already gone through, is to add to her burden by having her kill the child?
Perhaps it would ease the effect of the trauma a little bit if the woman was able to give the gift of a child to a childless couple who desperately want one.
So you're against rape and incest, but you think murder of a baby is OK.
You think this reflects balanced moral priorities?
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.