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.
Slavery and segregation used to be legal too, it didn't make it right.
If you know anything about the effects of abortion on women you shsould know it's the ones who aren't talking that you should be concerned about. And no, after twenty years in the business I don't believe you.
I think its a huge political mistake for the republican party to promise pro-life people - that overturning Roe means that abortion will be outlawed in all 50 states, in all cases, even for adult women in the first trimester.
shift the debate to that - and you will lose independent women voters in droves.
if you can bound the argument to restrictions on late term, parental consent, and having it return to the states where voters and their legislatures can decide for themselves - its a net win politically. but a sweeping federal ban, is not.
Interestingly enough, I happend to catch a program on EWTN and the discussion was on the nomination of Alito (this program aired during the same week the Alito hearings occured), and the topic of overturning Roe v. Wade came up, and Raymond Arroyo's guest was asked what would happen if Roe v. Wade were overturned, and he said Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the states should decide, and he further said what you just said. Overturning Roe v. Wade won't slow down the number of abortions, let alone stop them.
If you're going to change subjects, we might as well stop here.
There does not need to be a crime for "justifiable homicide" - for instance, it can be the killing of another in self-defense when danger of death or serious bodily injury exists, even if the other person does not know they are posing said risk - I will grant you such force used must be reasonable and cannot be excessive. If there is some reasonable step short of deadly force, that should always be used first. Let me know if you have any further questions.
How is a woman's life in danger if she has a baby that is the result of rape or incest? How would that be justifiable by your definition?
okay... good night
For your information, slavery and segregation weren't even settled law. Even Eleanor Roosevelt would have agreed with me if she were alive.
well-- if you want to label me angry.. nothing I can do about that.....
you assume I have no compassion for a rape victim?
that is silly and ridiculous... compassion is not enabling.... there is a difference...
it does take strength to carry a child of rape...sometimes we are called to do tough things that we have not signed up for.. this doesn't excuse murder, dear... it just doesn't...
you will live with the pain and anger of being violated weather or not you kill your child.. killing your child will not ease the pain.....
in fact.. there is nothing more healing than seeing the beauty that comes from such pain....
I actually think it is more compassionate to let a woman live with the fact that she DID choose life.... much more compassionate than letting her live with the ugly truth and secret that she chose what seemed like the easy way at the time.... the pain and anger gets misdirected to her innocent child.. as if destroying it is destroying the pain... that, my dear, is a lie no woman should be sold...
As would I, after the rapist's assets had been seized, sold, and the proceeds offered to her as compensation. But if she refused, I would not force her to carry the child against her will.
good night.....
I'm still a Bushbot.
Correst. He is consistent. It's also a ludicrous--and gutless--position, articulated by his father. See tlj18's response above yours for an explanation.
It's the baby's business.
Tell me EXACTLY what the child did wrong to justify KILLING it. Life is not fair, we all have circumstances beyond our control that we have to face. We cannot kill people because of it though.
not for late term, I think that part of it can be legally federalized. a 7 month child in utero, is viable outside the mother, and is therefore a person.
yes, I know this means we make a distinction between an 6 week embryo and a 6 month fetus - but intelligent choices are part of law making.
But, if you insist on going down that path, slavery and segregation were state rights, whether we agreed with it or not. I happen to disagree that slavery and segregation were right.
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.