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.
Ditto, okay?
Why do you want to punish the mother for the sins of the rapist?
What kind of "logic" is this? Should I be able to kill an innocent person because someone else committed a crime against me?
Maybe we've had it backward all this time...instead of early abortions when it's just a "blob of tissue," we should make only 3rd trimester abortions legal. 95% of women would NOT opt to undergo the procedure by that time, I'm sure.
Only those men who think they're speaking for all men don't understand the issue.
You sir are a damn fool and if I said what I really think of your stupid post I would be banned forever. You are an ass!
ok, ok, fair enough...
But you left one unanswered...did you prefer to name mommy's little reminder Bubba or Splash?
Or will you just go with the DNA test for a name?
"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."
Go ahead and kill the children of the guilty.
Well I couldn't leave a few friends all by themselves esp. since I agree. My position on this was very different in the past, not well thought out and totally irrational. Now I know what I'd do in this situation but I'm not getting into another woman's painful, personal business.
"However Bush was asked a Question and he answered it."
From the sounds of all the comments on this thread I thought he had declared a Presidential Decree and Mandate!
Hildy
c'mon
You are much brighter and wiser than you are acting...
stop making this a man issue...
WOMEN DISAGREE WITH ABORTION MORE THAN MEN DO!
knock it off... stop using your sex as a right to justify abortion....
you are better and higher quality than that... make your case on something that counts...
No, I have a superior gene set. Any woman would be well advised to find them among her children's genomes.
O.K., so we agree on biology then - that's a start. Can you help me convince some others above? Good thing for us humans that God the Father does not say "I could never love you id you killed my Son." As for "no man wants to raise another man's child, especially if the child will clearly look different than the couple's other children" Joseph did not "want" to, but he did. Sometimes, this may come as a shock to you, humans are capable of the selfless act.
You mis-read my post. I was talking about compensating her for bearing the child, not raising it.
OK, so because the majority agrees with it, it must be right. Do we really have to go over how many unspeakable acts have been committed throughout history that was supported by a majority of people?
I agree with you except that I do think a oops baby is a little different from a rape.
I would probably recommend adopting out is such a situation - if my hypothetical daughter kept the baby, I would abide by whatever name such a selfless person would give.
Torei,
I don't mean to try to belittle your emotions or feelings about it. Your feelings are 100% valid. It's just that men rarely are able to understand 9 months of the physical consequences of pregnancy.
federalize? by judicial fiat? I have heard Scalia comment on that - he is against Roe, but he has been clear to say that if the people through their legislatures want abortion (some), they can have it.
you will never see a SCOTUS conservative enough to use judicial fiat to rule that an embryo is a person with constitutional rights that no state can abridge. you could get such a ruling on late term abortion, because medical science can validate the child is viable outside the mother, but not for an non viable embryo.
in any case, for those here who want to change the subject - I am still fuming over the ports deal.
Oh give me a break and get off your high horse. By the same token I could say the same to you, unless you've been raped and bore a child then you have no right to comment on how a rape victim feels.So don't speak for them in support of killing a child.
BTW I'm a woman who has been blessed with 3 kids. I don't see the sex act that created them, nor do I see their fathers. I see individual people that God choose to bless me with. I wouldn't care how they got here,I would still be thankful for them.
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.