no skin off my nose at all....
MY HEART!
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.
They don't hate him over this. They hate him for simply existing. This is just another excuse.
It's 24/7 Bash Bush now on FR. When this dies down, there will be something else. And that they have to lie to try and make their point is very telling.
personally, I agree 100% with the president on this one.
Although I can easily see the dubious "life of mother arguments" that will no doubt arise. I'd also expect to see an increase of "but I was raped in my sleep" claims.
Fine, let's investigate...
I'm willing to grant that possibility in order to eliminate the "I just don't feel like having a child today" abortions.
For me it has a lot to do with personal responsibility. If you were willing to have sex, then you are dang sure responsible for your actions.
That said, there is no way I would ever force an unwilling incest victim or rape victim to carry a child forced on them. That IS Taliban mentality.
though I'll surely be called un-Christian by our "Holier Than Jesus" crowd.
Of course, and that's why I'd support a law that bans abortion in every case other than rape and incest. Philosophically, of course, I would oppose these exceptions, but I think the pro-life movement should take what it can get.
Incrimentalism has been pretty effective a strategy thus far. I am convinced within my lifetime Roe v. Wade will be overturned, and there will be several states with laws as strict as South Dakota's. But I realize that now is not the time.
Was what, a child of incest and/or rape?
Many/most of the people claiming to hate Bush on this issue, hate him on every other issue as well.
$ 1000 for each White House position :)
Quote "I'm sorry, I know how alot of you feel, but to make a woman carry a baby conceived from rape is so incredibly wrong."
The stupidity of comments these days on Freepers.
DID IT OCCUR TO YOU THAT THE MURDER OF A LITTLE BABY IS INCREDIBLY WRONG???????????//
Guess not
This has been his stand from day one. Nothing new.
no skin off my nose at all....
MY HEART!
YES
Either you think a fetus has the right to live as a person, or as property of the mother. You can't be both. Whats the difference if the mother was raped or if the mother was 17 and stupid. I could argue a 17 year old with a child would screw up her life and the childs life much more than a 30 year old who has a child of rape who is immediatly adopted.
Forcing a young child who has been sexually assaulted to bring the child to term is barbaric.
Thank you!
Check out the grin! What a cutie.
No, you're just being illogical. Either an unborn baby is a human being with a right to life or not. If yes, then there is no justification for allowing abortion in cases of rape. If no, then there is no basis for banning any abortion.
Definitely barbaric. And conservatives will lose ALL support on this issue if they push it without those exceptions.
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.