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.
Nope since the Whine All The Time Choir was never on his side to start with. Their knee jerk opposition to anything done by Bush demonstrates the lie that they ever part of the base
The cases of of pregnancy upon rape or incest are very rare but I think that abortion is not a problem in these cases. Also abortion shall be allowed in case of a choice between the baby life or his mother life. In all other cases it should be prohibited.
Fighting to stop the Holocaust was ugly as hell but it doesn't take away from the fact that it was, without question, the right thing to do.
Actually, Bush ran on this position from the very first. It was part of his campaign statement in 2000.
For all practical purposes, it's not that politically significant at the moment. I happen to disagree with Bush about two of the three, but it will be well after Bush leaves office before we are in a position to confront these issues.
Meanwhile, the headline is misleading. Bush is simply giving his own position, when pressed by some trouble-making interviewer. He is not telling South Dakota what sort of laws they should pass.
In a way it's irrelevant, but I can't help speaking up on the issue of rape. Rape is not the baby's fault. Why kill the baby for a crime of which it is completely innocent.
As for the mother, rape is a horrible business in any case. But I personally believe it is better to have the child, and adopt it out, than to kill it. Killing it solves nothing, and will only make the mother feel even worse.
Certainly.
I am against abortion except for rape and insect. Absolutism can be very destructive.
And compromise is disgusting. You'd murder some children but not others, by your arbitrary standard.
Goodness sake! As a guy that was adopted I am for the bill as it stands. However Bush was asked a Question and he answered it. What was he suppose to do change his position to satisify the "base". Pleaseee people. That being said I also understand that almost all Americans favor those exceptions. I take what I can get if it ends most abortions. But Bush has done nothing wrong here
Studies show incest victims rarely voluntarily agree to an abortion. The victims see the birth of their child as way out, because it will expose the illicit sexual activity of incest. It's also a chance to have a loving relationship that won't be exploitive.
The person committing the incest will often force abortion upon the victim to keep the crime secret. Unfortunately, other members of the family may also do this to avoide shame, etc.
The last week?
Bush has been bashing his base ... at least since he was reelected.
The media tells the sheeple so.
But you're not listening: It's about the appearance of extremism.
I'd rather take my time and get laws passed that people agree with and get us closer to the day we stop this barbaric act, than preen about how *I* don't compromise, and therefore allow the other side to paint me as an extremist, therefore continuing to own the issue no matter the reality.
Which would you rather be--someone who stops the killing of the innocent, or someone who looks so loony that the other side resists, but at least you FEEL good about how you come across? That's just childish.
What century are we living in?
Cases of mothers dying so babies can survive are so rare they're almost mythical.
Please see my reply on post 51. Thanks.
The moron here is YOU. Your claim of a "Vast majority" is a lie. You are just another Leftist Hysteric who makes up BS and calls it truth. The fact is the Abortion debate is always been close to 50-50. There is NO "vast majority" support for Abortion on Demand as you claim. So since you are lying about this, what else can we assume your are lying about?
Found this over at the National Review blog
"Bill sponsor State Representative Roger Hunt wrote in USA Today:
Because the bill passed by the South Dakota Legislature only criminalizes the intentional taking of human life, conventional emergency contraceptives (for rape or incest) are not prohibited. But once human life can be medically determined, that unborn human life enjoys the same right to due process and equal protection of the law that a born human being does."
That's completely different than cases of rape or incest. If a woman will die the abortion will save a life. Who's life is being saved if the pregnancy is due to rape or incest? No ones.
President Bush is right on the money. As usual.
This is not unusual.
It may not be unusual, but it's logically indefensible. Either you want a ban against killing unborn children - or you don't. The only exception I would make is when the life of the mother is in jeopardy, but as I understand it, that is uncommon these days. Besides, there isn't a moral dilemma there - someone is going to die, kill the baby or else they may both die. Well, maybe there is a philosphical question to be answered, but you understand...
It isn't the babies fault. Why kill it?
Someone might like to adopt a new baby.
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.