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.
no- we probably won't ever agree...
and I am okay with that.. but just stop attacking men for taking a stand for life.....
applaud them for caring enough and taking the risk to take a stand- especially when they know they open themselves up to the kind of attacks you have been putting on them...
they really deserve more respect than that... they are not trying to hurt you...... they realy believe the life of the unborn child is precious... they are not out to see anyone suffer...
okay?
LOL see 414.
Seems to me you're the angry one here. I have nothing but admiration for your decision. But I also have compassion on a rape victim who cannot muster the incredible strength it must take to carry a child for nine months knowing it was not conceived with her consent and always living with the pain and anger of being violated. Yes - I know, you and others here will say, "Well what about compassion for the unborn baby..." Yes, it's a terrible decision to have to make. And we'll never agree. I feel that it is not a decision that should be forced on someone who has already been victimized. And in the end it's for God to judge.
That's m'story and I'm stickin' to it. ; )
I don't know. I do think there are many women who don't think twice. It's just the way it is.
I'd rather discuss abortion, to be honest with you ; )
Certainly that'd slake any thirst.
Their generation sees it for what it is -- the murder of an innocent child. They've grown up with technological advances that have shown us that the baby is not a "blob of tissue," like our generation was told.
All those years of obfuscation by NARAL and NOW ("it's between a woman, her doctor, and her God," "if you're against abortion, don't HAVE one," and my personal favorite "it's MY body, I can do what I want with it.") worked like a charm on the boomers, but our children have seen right through it, thank God!
Could you do me a favor? Could you say, "If your friend chose to KILL THE BABY that would be perfectly fine"? Baby, not fetus. Just like you say "baby" if someone doesn't choose to commit murder, one should say baby when the "choice" is to kill. The word "baby" so easily slipped from your fingers because the child is still living. Don't say abort. Say MURDER. That's what it is.
Forty-eight percent of the women who had miscarriages suffered distress at the ten-day period versus 30 percent of those who aborted. However, the ones who had miscarriages dropped to 23 percent after six months and to 2.6 percent after five years.Of the women who had abortions 26 percent were still suffering grief, guilt, depression, shame and denial at six months. After five years 20 percent were still distressed.
I agree with him on somethings, and disagree with him on others. But I will always voice my disagreement about someone who thinks that killing babies, no matter how they were conceived, is ok.
uhm
no- conception does occur.. the pill just prevents the egg from nesting in the uterus....
you might want to look that up for yourself.. rather than just take my word for it.. but I have researched this quite well....
but Bless you.. I appreciate your candor...
If it is this court's intent to return the abortion issue to the states and erase the mistaken idea that there is a "constitutionally protected" right to abortion, it doesn't matter whether the SD law has exceptions for incest and rape.
If it is this court's intention to preserve Roe v. Wade and continue to say that all abortion is a constitutionally protected act under federal law it also doesn't matter what the specifics of the SD law are.
That's my story too and I'm off to recover from yoga class!
Did you read my post? Any newborn born in America can be adopted so fast, with every prenatal expense taken care of, no questions asked.
see 446
I'm talking about the feelings of the woman, not the 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.