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.
I agree that was completely uncalled for.
I agree with Bush on the exceptions. But whether one agrees with him or not - it's at least refreshing to see a politician have a consistent stand on that issue and not have their position blowing in the wind over time.
Not an epidemic, but a few.
Just think we wouldn't have Jack Nicholson, had he been aborted by his sister/mother.
Oh? Please elaborate. What is so "out there" about my opinions?
But President Bush is not. He thinks there should be exceptions for rape and incest. Those two combined account for less than 0.5% of abortions in this country.
I don't believe that visting the sins of the father, or mother for that case, is good policy. I understand others have different views. But Bush's views here have been the same since I I heard him speak in the Hartford airport whne he was campaigning for the republican nomination the first time around.
Bush is, if nothing else, a man of his word be it on immigration, abortion or the WOT. And while we don't always agree I knew where he stood before I pulled the lever both times, three times if you count that primary.
My God!!!!
Bush said this...but this is NOT about Bush. It is about innocent children. Picking and choosing which ones can be killed and which ones can't is wrong on all accounts. It's life and death stuff and is bigger than Bush.
I made a comment about national public opinion as well. Obviously views vary across this pocket and that on the fruited plain.
No, to rape a woman is "incredibly wrong". To not execute a rapist is "incredibly wrong". And...
...to slaughter a child, because of who/what his father is or did is INCREDIBLY WRONG. We are more than just a memorial to our parents. We are all of us, even the bastards, created in the image of God and we glorify his goodness, grace and mercy.
Rob Roy: "It's not the child that needs killin"
I am a woman... and my youngest child was....
anyway DON'T GO THERE.. YOU ARE WRONG!
Maybe it's disingenuous to you, but it's not to me.
Well, wait a second - no one said it's a wonderful thing.
Peddle it somewhere else. This has been the president's position since he was running for the presidency.
I guess you haven't been paying much attention since January 20, 2001.
But the anger at him on this issue mystifies me.He has been consistent on this issue.He has done more than any president to restrict abortion.He has battled hard to appoint what we believe are two pro-life Justices.He has pushed Congress harder than any president on late term abortion prohibitions.
He has spoken constantly about his belief that abortion is wrong.He has taken the slings and arrows and walked the tough road.
How can so many people here hate him so, on this issue?
Yes, totally uncalled for. I saw that too. Demonstrates a very weak poster.
oh- so what then.. only women are capable of determining if an unborn child is a life or not?
PAHLEEEZE!
What does DNA testing have to do with killing a baby?
You mean the 2 or 3% that scream the loudest?
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.