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.
truth hurts Hildy....
I understand that.... but why continue to defend the hurt..?
C'mon....
we all do the best we can..
but when we know better.. we only fail when we refuse to DO better when we KNOW IT!
And God has his and they are the only ones that count in the end.
Lets get a grip, rape is traumatic no doubt. But if you allow the rape to lead you to kill your baby then you have allowed the rapists to invade your soul and steal that part that separates us from them. We have the ability to have compassion and empathy for other humans, if we give that up in our quest to kill what was created in us then you will never heal from the rape.You have only succeeded in allowing it to alter your humanity.
Take your snooty religion and stick it!
LOL - which one is it then - that has been proven wrong OR a small percent might have the effect?! This is the funniest post on the thread.
You still are. I'm very sorry you are a victim of rape, but you're view is still judgmental. If you had a child from the rape I would hail you as heroic, but not everyone could do that and I don't think they should be expected to. Your attitude is smug and holier-than-thou - and pretty rude to boot.
very true....
the sad thing is that what they are really doing is refusing to forgive themselves...and allowing others to travel the same path of pain....
all to avoid facing the pain they have themselves...
once you face the thing that hurts you most... WOW! The SUN IS BRIGHT!
If men carried babies, abortion would be paid for by the State.
Yep. We agree yet again. :)
I think you should avoid reproduction, OK?
just a quick question for ya on this one...
If Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy gang rape your teenage daughter, do you name the name Bubba or Splash?
And do you invite them to the birthday, or just the annual Remember-my-traumatic-rape-day celebration?
I mean if we're gonna be consistant with your position, don't rapist also get "Father's Rights" then?
THIS IS NOT ABOUT BUSH
THIS IS NOT ABOUT BUSH
THIS IS NOT ABOUT BUSH
A child has a right to live regardless of what Bush, or anyone else, says.
To claim that people who think that killing children, no matter how they were conceived, is flat out wrong are doing so simply because they are Bush bashers is sophmoric. Bush isn't infallible you know.
Be that as it may, if you're going to force her to carry the child, perhaps you should pay her for it? If you're so principled and idealistic, you surely wouldn't mind forking over nine month's wages, medical costs, compensation for pain and suffering, etc? Or is she the only one who should sacrifice in this situation?
I wasn't addressing the law or whether abortion was right or wrong. I was addressing how certain people attack the President no matter what the topic simply because they hate his guts.
I'd be curious to know how many women in the United States actually get pregnant from from a violent rape. Exclude statuatory rape, and I suspect it is less than 10 a year. I suppose one could grant an exception in those cases and allow the woman to take a morning after pill as soon as she reports it to the police. In any case, this bill is not about outlawing abortion since it will absolutely be ovedrturned by the first court in which it is challenged. This is about getting it before the supreme court.
And you pretend to know what God thinks... Disgusting.
Exactly.
It also troubles me that there is so much emphasis on making abortion illegal, but so little on convincing people that it is immoral. Unless the public is convinced that abortion is wrong, the states will continue to allow it even if Roe is overturned.
Yep. I take what I can get, in all political candidates too.
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.