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.
Sooner or later everyone has to make up their mind about who they will serve. Sorry to here about your decision, the unborn babies of rape and incest are too.
The problem, of course, is that there won't be a huge backlog - every lower federal Court could strike down the laws and then the Supreme Court just has to deny cert. Worse case, if there's some conflict among the lower Court rulings, they take ONE case and fix it.
I AM ONE YOU NINNY!
WHO IS JUDGING NOW!?
I hope it's for golf in Hawaii or something. Take care.
:sigh: I really didn't want to get into this but you say that to someone who is in real pain and don't be surprised when you get a nasty response. I used to HATE it when xtians would tell me that BS and I still think most of the syrupy junk they say in church is BS. No need to sugarcoat things in my opinion. If I decided to give up such a child for adoption, I certainly don't want people patting me on the back for what I did. It's a personal decision and righteousness has nothing to do with it. I don't think I could have an abortion EVER not even for rape.
less that that. Women are given birth control at the hospital to prevent pregnancy after rape. I used to work at EMS. Most of the "I was raped" victims refused to press charges against the rapists but they wanted a free abortion. It was a ruse.
Good post.
You have your opinion and I have mine.
ping
Me too. We should turn them over to the Orkin Man.
I know... I know what you were saying... We are on the same team... sorry if I did not make it clear that I knew what you were saying...
I'd rather talk about THE SHIELD, than what we're talking about now. I, too, watched the first three seasons on DVD. Best way to watch a show like this. This season is REALLY good...actually, I think it's better than the third season. We tivo 2 episodes and then watch them back to back without commercial interruption. The Shield, is the best drama on TV ... EVER.
I'm an absolutist on this too, but I knew the President was not, before I voted for him. I'm not sure it's quite logical to be an absolutist about pro-life, and yet vote for someone who isn't...but there you go.
You other absolutists, did you vote for him? How could you?
not really.. I am just a woman that understands what being a victim is... and wish it on NO ONE... especially my own child....
God is my strength.. He gave me what I needed when I looked to HIM instead of man or myself....
NO, just kind of disappointed.
Ronald Maximus Reagan agreed with you.
Her child? Why is it her child? She didn't consent to it's creation.
Of course! Where did I say otherwise? I was responding to a cowardly lack of principle, not the kind of practical compromise that's admittedly necessary to get a law passed.
And, most of them don't. They're just the ones who don't go around talking about it all the time. That's the majority, believe me.
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.