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.
Do you really believe that?
I agree with you on this one. But seriously, and I do mean this -- how much are you getting paid to type the Bush White House position on everything?
Almost anything.
Incest and rape-life of the mother are reasonable exceptions.
It takes and idiot to know an idiot ARCADIA.
You do nothing but bash the President on practically every thread I see you post on.
Well when I heard him talk about the Holy Ramadan or whatever it is those crazed Muslims celebrate, I knew he was lost.
For President of the United States?
Nothing. It is possible for a woman to recover from rape. No baby EVER recovers from an abortion.
This is the scenario some people are concerned about regarding having a rape/incest exception for abortion:
www.overlawyered.com/2004/ 10/rapist_can_interfere_with_adop.html
If that's your position, then you have no basis for restricting first trimester abortions for any reason.
But let's take this argument a little futher. Suppose the raped woman, for whatever reason, is unable to get an abortion before the 2nd trimester. Suppose the rapist has her tied up in a cabin in Montana and she can't escape until the 2nd trimester. Would you deny her an abortion then?
Live women deserve better than abortion.
No, it's saying a woman has a choice whether to have a baby. In most cases she has the choice whether to have sex, after which he has to deal with the consequences. In the case that the sex is forced on her, she isn't forced to deal with (all) the consequences. Some would certainly still argue that it is wrong for her to have an abortion, but I think the law should leave it up to her.
Definitely reasonable. It's only on this board that I hear people think they aren't reasonable exceptions. In real life, I've never met a person who thought the way these barbarians are thinking. Even in the Baptist churches down here, these are exceptions which are acceptable.
And how exactly is the abortion going to change that?
Hon, you're so out there we have nothing to discuss.
I have to agree with Bush on this one.
This issue can't be argued because it depends on what type of fetus should have legal protection from abortion, and that depends on a whole host of a priori assumptions, even assuming one can agree on the scientific facts about a fetus as it matures. All one can do, is point out erroneous statements about the current state of public opinion, as to the details.
well, maybe not...
I just refrained posting until you brought this into it...
I disagree with you both... abortion is a LIFE issue.. not a man/woman issue.. it is an issue of life and death.. of murder or slavery... I am beeehaving so far.. but don't try ot make this a woman vs male chauvanist pig issue.. that is just plain disingenuis.....
Yeah, but California is..er...well...California. A breed apart.
A child is a child no matter which state he or she happens to be in.
You know all these clowns who think it's a wonderful thing to carry a rape/incest pregnancy to term are not women. No skin off their nose.
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.