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.
Why do you want to punish the mother for the sins of the rapist?
Well, I have news for you, he's not wrong. What is wrong is to rush this piece of legislation through the SD legislature. I'll bet you the governor doesn't know what sham he penned his name to.
No, you are not. And I agree with you both.
When McCain runs and all the conservatives stay home they'll get their dream President :radical anti-abortionist Hillary!.
LOL!
The fire-breathers will look back on Bush with misty memory.
That's right - we are talking "justified homicide" - it's the same concept whether it's re: abortion or the cops / robbers (just thought maybe you would realize that, but I guess not).
EC, how dare you show them one they would want to allow to be killed. Don't you have any feelings for people who want to allow the killing of babies? ;-)
"Definitely barbaric. And conservatives will lose ALL support on this issue if they push it without those exceptions."
Absolutely agree. You can't (or shouldn't) legislate heroism. It's a heroic thing for a woman who was a victim of rape or incest to have the baby. I admire such a woman but can readily sympathize with someone who isn't able to do it. I know I wouldn't. Sorry, but we will lose on this issue without those exceptions.
this is what puzzles me...
you say..
Do you care about anyone's feelings or life except that of unborn children? Unbelievable.
this is quite sad... why pit one's feelings over another to begin with? why? Why act like the one with the power is a victim?
that is just ridiculous...
How do you pit HEARTACHE against LIFE?
where does PAIN AND HEARTACHE TRUMP LIFE ITSELF?
I don't get it....
out troops serve for MONTHS... FOR YEARS,.... to make our life better....
but somehow... a woman is supposed to be free of all pain....so that murder and death can prevail....sad, really.... very sad...
"The morning after pill will abort a fertilized egg too."
100% not true. There is a slight risk that it might weaken the lining of the uterus, but the normal birth control pill does the same thing, as well as many over the counter drugs.
If it aborted fertilized eggs too then it would be 100% effective, instead it only prevent the release of an egg and is only 75% effective. This is backed up by a prolife docter, Dr Drew Pinksy, of radio fame on Loveline, a nationally broadcast show.
no problem....
later
Yeah, after all, the baby is responsible for the rape so it should die.
The morning-after pill, or Plan B - works in 2 ways. 1 way is somewhat like birth control pills, just repackaged and at much higher doses. It can prevent ovulation if taken soon enough. The 2nd way is to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. It used to be called the Yuzpe regimen: giving a woman massive amounts of birth control hormones to make the womb hostile to a fertilized egg. That is the main component of the morning-after pill. Talk to your doctor and ask them about it. I spoke to 3 about this and was told the same thing by 2 - the 3rd said he "wasn't sure" but thought it would "cause a natural miscarriage" (interesting statement, isn't it?) if taken soon enough after rape (what they would prescribe it for at UCLA).
It was repackaged to diminish the "taking of a life" aspect that has so many on the fence. That is why it is also called 'emergency contraception' as in to prevent contraception. It can work as such, but it can also prevent the already-fertilized egg from implanting, resulting in miscarriage. In that way, it is an abortifacient drug.
So your comment here: If the egg is already released, then it doesn't work and the women gets pregnant. Thats the reason why it is so ineffective, there's a good chance the women might have already ovulated. is not accurate. If the egg is already released, and fertilized, use of the morning-after pill will result in a hostile womb and the end of an unwanted pregnancy.
If this drug were so ineffective, it would not be available as it were, or so fiercely promoted from the pro-abortion crowd.
Finally, your closing comment here: So the fact is the morning after pill prevents abortion, and you keeping women from getting it just causes more women to die. It isn't a moral question its a scientific one. Don't reply, "I think its an abortion" because your wrong. makes you sound completely hysterical and pro-abortion. Not to mention completely wrong.
There is NOTHING to back your quite astonishing assertion that preventing women from receiving the morning-after pill will result in their deaths. You cannot back that claim up from either a moral position or a scientific one, though you claim it's based in science.
INCONVENIENCED? Are you serious?
A morning after pill can cause a fertilized egg to spontaneuous abort too. Same for some of the standard oral contraceptives that many people take believing they stop conception, when in fact they simply stop impantation in the uterous.
exactly....
Another issue where you haven't been paying attention.
This has always been the president's position, and it has been an easily defensible one for the pro-life movement. Arguing about an infinitismal amount of abortions distracts us from potential victories over abortion on demand and partial birth abortion. Good grief, people. We are winning. We're gonna be fighting over Coke versus Pepsi next.
Will it be less trauma to have an abortion? I don't think so.
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.